Is the report from the Suffolk County Grand Jury regarding CPS NOT ACCURATE, pangborn?????
Dan Sullivan
Report of the Minnesota Attorney general, and that of the San Diego
County grand jury's investogation into CPS practices."
I would suggest pangborn MIGHT want to read the Suffolk Grand Jury
Report "The Conduct and Practices of Child Protective Services and
Related Agencies.
Under the heading "LAW ENFORCEMENT REFERRAL"
If a caller to the SCR alleges criminal conduct committed against a
child by someone who is not a parent, guardian or oher person legally
responsible, the SCR generates a Law Enforcement Referral (LER).
Depending on the jurisdiction of the alleged offense, this LER is
faxed to either One Police Plaza or the New York State Police, who
then forward such reports to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Under the heading "ABUSE CASES"
In Suffolk County, when CPS receives a report from the SCR which is
classified as "abuse," they notify law enforcement authorities. If the
report alleges sexual abuse, CPS notifies the Sex Crimes Unit of the
Suffolk County Police Department and the Family Crime Bureau of the
District Attorney's Office, which is the subdivision of the D. A. 's
Office responsible for child abuse cases. If the report alleges
physical abuse, CPS notifies only the Family Crime Bureau of the
District Attorney's Office.
In Suffolk County, when CPS receives a report from the SCR which is
classified as "maltreatment, " but upon investigation seems more
severe, CPS can "upgrade the classification to an "abuse," thereby
involving law enforcement.
Under the heading "SEX CRIMES UNIT"
Agreement.
In 1984, CPS entered into an agreement with the SEX CRMES UNIT of the
Police DEpartment.
Under the terms of this agreement, issues relating to child safety
were to be handles by CPS and the issues related to an arrest were to
be handled by the Police Department.
Under the heading "DUTIES"
The SEX CRIME UNIT is responsible for investigating all sex crimes
committed against children under eighteen years of age in a family or
custodial setting.
Under the heading "PROCEDURE"
When CPS receives a report from the SCR which alleges sexual abuse, it
is faxed to the Sex Crimes Unit and to the Family Crime Bureau of the
District Attorney's Office.
================
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:01010c97-3d92-47b5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Yesterday ken pangborn wrote "One MIGHT want to read the Investigation
> Report of the Minnesota Attorney general, and that of the San Diego
> County grand jury's investogation into CPS practices."
>
> I would suggest pangborn MIGHT want to read the Suffolk Grand Jury
> Report "The Conduct and Practices of Child Protective Services and
> Related Agencies.
> Under the heading "LAW ENFORCEMENT REFERRAL"
>
> If a caller to the SCR alleges criminal conduct committed against a
> child by someone who is not a parent, guardian or oher person legally
> responsible, the SCR generates a Law Enforcement Referral (LER).
> Depending on the jurisdiction of the alleged offense, this LER is
> faxed to either One Police Plaza or the New York State Police, who
> then forward such reports to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
>
> Under the heading "ABUSE CASES"
>
> In Suffolk County, when CPS receives a report from the SCR which is
> classified as "abuse," they notify law enforcement authorities. If the
> report alleges sexual abuse, CPS notifies the Sex Crimes Unit of the
> Suffolk County Police Department and the Family Crime Bureau of the
> District Attorney's Office, which is the subdivision of the D. A. 's
> Office responsible for child abuse cases. If the report alleges
> physical abuse, CPS notifies only the Family Crime Bureau of the
> District Attorney's Office.
Oh golly SUFFOLK COUNTY eh? They set the tone for NEW YORK CITY do they?
How come no LINK Danny? I guess that you have decided to PLAY IT SAFE after
yesterday's drubbing. HUH?
Dan Sullivan
" krp" <krp2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:DEOdk.22$gH4.14@trnddc05...
It was the Suffolk County DA's office, Sex Crimes Unit and CPS that was
being discussed..
I told you "I live miles and miles away out on Long Island."
In Suffolk County.
> They set the tone for NEW YORK CITY do they?
The premise was the Suffolk County detectives who interviewed my daughter.
The fact that you didn't know what you were talking about comes as no
surprise.
Like that's something new!
> How come no LINK Danny?
You can call the Suffolk County DA's Office and they'll send you a copy.
Or you can look ask them for a link.
I'm getting a bit tired of giving you an education about CPS, etc, etc...
> I guess that you have decided to PLAY IT SAFE after yesterday's drubbing.
> HUH?
I didn't get drubbed yesterday, YOU did, pangborn.
As evidenced by what was posted from the Suffolk County Grand Jury regarding
CPS.
And it comes as no surprise that you won't apologize and admit you were
completely wrong about who is supposed to investigate sex crimes committed
against children.
Greegor
in the hands of CPS caseworkers, so
why do you keep asserting this BS?
It started with CPS and they called
in the Sex Crimes Unit when they
had enough information for a criminal
conviction, right?
You think you got the ONE crazy caseworker, right?
But you've got no proof of any of it, right?
For all intents and purposes your story
could be a complete fiction, right?
WHY is that?
Is it a mere coincidence then that you've been kicked
out of Family Rights groups, and that you have
badmouthed Family Rights groups in general?
What a confluence! What an amazing combination! LOL
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aa6ac5e-12e7-4583...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> Dan, Your VERY OWN case started
> in the hands of CPS caseworkers, so
> why do you keep asserting this BS?
>
> It started with CPS and they called
> in the Sex Crimes Unit when they
> had enough information for a criminal
> conviction, right?
Wrong.
> You think you got the ONE crazy caseworker, right?
Not at all.
> But you've got no proof of any of it, right?
Believe what you want to believe.
> For all intents and purposes your story
> could be a complete fiction, right?
But it's not.
> WHY is that?
Because it happened.
> Is it a mere coincidence then that you've been kicked
> out of Family Rights groups,
FightCPS?
I heard the only remaining moderator told someone to look into filing a
federal kidnapping charge because a Family Court Judge placed their
brother's child in foster care.
Yeah, there's a LOT of good advice being dispensed over there.
> and that you have badmouthed Family Rights groups in general?
Such as?
And what did I say?
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dan, Your VERY OWN case started
>in the hands of CPS caseworkers, so
>why do you keep asserting this BS?
>
>It started with CPS and they called
>in the Sex Crimes Unit when they
>had enough information for a criminal
>conviction, right?
>
When did Dan make such a claim?
>You think you got the ONE crazy caseworker, right?
>
When did Dan make such a claim?
>But you've got no proof of any of it, right?
He may, he may not. He's not made mention either way.
>
>For all intents and purposes your story
>could be a complete fiction, right?
Anything is possible. Heck, your convictions for beating your
wife could be fictional. Your claim that you're name is on Iowa's
Child Abuse Registry could be fictional.
>
>WHY is that?
Because you need to have, at the very least, the intellect of the
average ninth grader to understand.
>
>Is it a mere coincidence then that you've been kicked
>out of Family Rights groups, and that you have
>badmouthed Family Rights groups in general?
Would that be FightCPS? I've read some of the posts there. If
anyone follows the advice given at FightCPS, they deserve everything
that befalls them.
It's like a whole group of GregWhores dispensing what they'd like
to see rather than what really is.
>
>What a confluence! What an amazing combination! LOL
Clearly you don't understand the meaning of confluence. I know
of two definitions. One deals with the meeting of streams/rivers.
this is unlikely to be the definition you're using.
You see your lying about Dan as a meeting of something at one
point? You must, presuming you actually understand the word.
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Greg Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Dan Sullivan
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:urdl749qbqqvfipvk...@4ax.com...
> It's like a whole group of GregWhores dispensing what they'd like
> to see rather than what really is.
grag once posted that there was a "bright side" to a Termination of Parents
Rights hearing.
The parents lost custody to their children... but there was a "bright side"
somewhere.
Probably because a mother and father losing their children made grag happy.
Greegor
G > in the hands of CPS caseworkers, so
G > why do you keep asserting this BS?
G > It started with CPS and they called
G > in the Sex Crimes Unit when they
G > had enough information for a criminal
G > conviction, right?
DS > Wrong.
G > You think you got the ONE crazy caseworker, right?
DS > Not at all.
You sure communicate that. Please explain.
G > But you've got no proof of any of it, right?
DS > Believe what you want to believe.
No problem.
G > For all intents and purposes your story
G > could be a complete fiction, right?
DS > But it's not.
If you were faking it, Oliver, OF COURSE you'd SAY THAT!
G > WHY is that?
DS > Because it happened.
Then why is there no proof?
G > Is it a mere coincidence then that you've been kicked
G > out of Family Rights groups,
DS > FightCPS?
VOCAL
But you didn't answer the question.
Why is it you have no proof and you've
been kicked out of several Family Rights groups?
DS > I heard the only remaining moderator
DS > told someone to look into filing a
DS > federal kidnapping charge because
DS > a Family Court Judge placed their
DS > brother's child in foster care.
You "heard" something?
Was it on a TV show?
DS > Yeah, there's a LOT of good
DS > advice being dispensed over there.
The chafing comments tend to indicate
that indeed you were kicked out.
G > and that you have badmouthed Family Rights groups in general?
DS > Such as?
VOCAL NY
DS > And what did I say?
Doing a Ray Charles impression?
By the way, Dan, Are you IN Suffolk County?
Dan Sullivan
> G > Dan, Your VERY OWN case started
> G > in the hands of CPS caseworkers, so
> G > why do you keep asserting this BS?
> G > It started with CPS and they called
> G > in the Sex Crimes Unit when they
> G > had enough information for a criminal
> G > conviction, right?
>
> DS > Wrong.
>
> G > You think you got the ONE crazy caseworker, right?
>
> DS > Not at all.
>
> You sure communicate that.
How?
> Please explain.
You tell me.
> G > But you've got no proof of any of it, right?
>
> DS > Believe what you want to believe.
>
> No problem.
>
> G > For all intents and purposes your story
> G > could be a complete fiction, right?
>
> DS > But it's not.
>
> If you were faking it, Oliver, OF COURSE you'd SAY THAT!
That was my stage name.
> G > WHY is that?
>
> DS > Because it happened.
>
> Then why is there no proof?
But there is.
> G > Is it a mere coincidence then that you've been kicked
> G > out of Family Rights groups,
>
> DS > FightCPS?
>
> VOCAL
I left.
> But you didn't answer the question.
>
> Why is it you have no proof and you've
> been kicked out of several Family Rights groups?
How many is several?
Name the groups and what I did to be kicked out.
> DS > I heard the only remaining moderator
> DS > told someone to look into filing a
> DS > federal kidnapping charge because
> DS > a Family Court Judge placed their
> DS > brother's child in foster care.
>
> You "heard" something?
> Was it on a TV show?
Actually I read it.
> DS > Yeah, there's a LOT of good
> DS > advice being dispensed over there.
>
> The chafing comments tend to indicate
> that indeed you were kicked out.
Tend to indicate?
Indeed?
(MAJOR eye roll)
> G > and that you have badmouthed Family Rights groups in general?
>
> DS > Such as?
>
> VOCAL NY
What did I say?
> DS > And what did I say?
>
> Doing a Ray Charles impression?
>
> By the way, Dan, Are you IN Suffolk County?
Not at the moment.
Greegor
KW > dispensing what they'd like
KW > to see rather than what really is.
KW > grag once posted that there was
KW > a "bright side" to a Termination
KW > of Parents Rights hearing.
KW > The parents lost custody to their children...
Got proof?
KW > but there was a "bright side" somewhere.
KW > Probably because a mother and father
KW > losing their children made grag happy.
Actually, In a system that prevents parents from
confronting their accusers often enough,
the Termination proceedings allow a big
opportunity to cross examine witnesses.
IF for example, the services offered were
RIGGED, or requests to have services
repaired were ignored, proving those points
in a TPR proceeding would be
of considerable importance.
By the way, Kent and Dan, I get it that you
want to twist my name as a means
of de-humanizing your opponent, or insult,
but has it occurred to you that this
is not a winning tactic?
Do you think somebody looking in here
won't see that as a loser's tactic?
If you dropped into a discussion
somewhere and somebody is twisting
their opponents name around so much,
wouldn't you think it was a really lame crutch
being used by a loser?
Just curious.
You guys can't even call an individual
opponent by their right name!
Does that enhance your credibility?
Next you'll call your opponents childish right?
Greegor
KW > dispensing what they'd like
KW > to see rather than what really is.
DS > grag once posted that there was
DS > a "bright side" to a Termination
DS > of Parents Rights hearing.
DS > The parents lost custody to their children...
Got proof?
DS > but there was a "bright side" somewhere.
DS > Probably because a mother and father
DS > losing their children made grag happy.
Just curious.
Next you'll call your opponents childish, right?
Dan Sullivan
> KW > It's like a whole group of GregWhores
> KW > dispensing what they'd like
> KW > to see rather than what really is.
>
> KW > grag once posted that there was
> KW > a "bright side" to a Termination
> KW > of Parents Rights hearing.
>
> KW > The parents lost custody to their children...
>
> Got proof?
>
> KW > but there was a "bright side" somewhere.
>
> KW > Probably because a mother and father
> KW > losing their children made grag happy.
>
> Actually, In a system that prevents parents from
> confronting their accusers often enough,
> the Termination proceedings allow a big
> opportunity to cross examine witnesses.
Just before the parents never see their children again.
> IF for example, the services offered were
> RIGGED, or requests to have services
> repaired were ignored, proving those points
> in a TPR proceeding would be
> of considerable importance.
So important it would get a big eye roll out of the Judge?
> By the way, Kent and Dan, I get it that you
> want to twist my name as a means
> of de-humanizing your opponent, or insult,
> but has it occurred to you that this
> is not a winning tactic?
I don't consider you human, grag.
So it really doesn't matter.
You were convicted twice and went to jail for abusing your mentally ill
wife... and you claim it was her fault.
And you're listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse Registry and you claim you
had permission from the little girl's mother for all the things you did to
her.
So that's not your fault either.
> Do you think somebody looking in here
> won't see that as a loser's tactic?
If they read what you post they won't consider you a human either.
> If you dropped into a discussion
> somewhere and somebody is twisting
> their opponents name around so much,
> wouldn't you think it was a really lame crutch
> being used by a loser?
>
> Just curious.
But we know you, grag.
> You guys can't even call an individual
> opponent by their right name!
Greegor is better?
> Does that enhance your credibility?
>
> Next you'll call your opponents childish right?
Childish is just your sexual preference, grag.
We all know it!
krp
> Dan, Your VERY OWN case started
> in the hands of CPS caseworkers, so
> why do you keep asserting this BS?
Nope the CPS folks had NOTHING to do with it - it was ONLY the "SEX CRIMES
UNIT" of the DA's office that handled Danny's case. The GREAT puppet bear
caper! I bet they had a squad of 500 working on it. It was a MAJOR CRIME -
dwarfing the FBI's case against John Gotti by at least 2,000%!!!
Don't you know how IMPORTANT Sullivan is? Gotti was small potatoes next to
the BIG DON - Danny Sullivan!! BOSS OF ALL THE BOSSES!
krp
>> G > Is it a mere coincidence then that you've been kicked
>> G > out of Family Rights groups,
>>
>> DS > FightCPS?
>>
>> VOCAL
>
> I left.
KICKED OUT!!!!!
Dan Sullivan
krp
>
...
>>>> G > Is it a mere coincidence then that you've been kicked
>>>> G > out of Family Rights groups,
>>>>
>>>> DS > FightCPS?
>>>>
>>>> VOCAL
>>>
>>> I left.
>>
>> KICKED OUT!!!!!
>
> Wrong.
I see the ALARM KLAXONS went off and I woke you up. SORRY! KICKED OUT!
At least according to VOCAL NY. KICKED Danny. Why? The same abusive and
bullshitting behavior we see here!
They came to the conclusion you were an agent for the other side. JUST LIKE
MOST OF US HERE DANNY BOY!
Kent Wills
As reasonable a guess as any.
"Us Man Whores don't need porno."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson
Message-ID:
<23e9facf-66a4-4c9e...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > It's like a whole group of GregWhores
>KW > dispensing what they'd like
>KW > to see rather than what really is.
>
>KW > grag once posted that there was
>KW > a "bright side" to a Termination
>KW > of Parents Rights hearing.
>
>KW > The parents lost custody to their children...
>
>Got proof?
I didn't write that. Why are you LYING and attributing to me that
which you know I didn't write? And why are you asking me to prove a
statement you know I didn't make?
Do you think anyone will be fooled by this latest lie from you?
>
>KW > but there was a "bright side" somewhere.
>
>KW > Probably because a mother and father
>KW > losing their children made grag happy.
I didn't write that.
What is the root cause of your psychological inability to be
honest about anything at any time?
>
>Actually, In a system that prevents parents from
>confronting their accusers often enough,
>the Termination proceedings allow a big
>opportunity to cross examine witnesses.
>IF for example, the services offered were
>RIGGED, or requests to have services
>repaired were ignored, proving those points
>in a TPR proceeding would be
>of considerable importance.
>
>By the way, Kent and Dan, I get it that you
>want to twist my name as a means
>of de-humanizing your opponent, or insult,
>but has it occurred to you that this
>is not a winning tactic?
You mean we pulled a Gregory Scott Hanson on you?
I'm sure you recall how you used a fake name to refer to me. To
prevent you from being able to lie about it:
If you have an antiquated system that wraps the URL, the following
will take you to the same page:
Note that Kenny-Bob uses the word Kunt for my name. You've never
had a problem with it.
>
>Do you think somebody looking in here
>won't see that as a loser's tactic?
That you see yourself and Pangborn as losers is your issue to
address. And you must see him and yourself as losers, since you are
claiming it for Dan and me.
>
>If you dropped into a discussion
>somewhere and somebody is twisting
>their opponents name around so much,
>wouldn't you think it was a really lame crutch
>being used by a loser?
>
>Just curious.
That you see yourself and Pangborn as losers does me no harm.
I am curious though. How long has your self esteem been so low?
Clearly it's been since at least December 28, 2007 since that's the
first time you used the name Kentislawa Willenski for me.
Have you had this esteem issue since before that date?
>
>You guys can't even call an individual
>opponent by their right name!
Just like you. And Pangborn. Two people YOU see as losers.
For what it's worth, I agree with your view.
>
>Does that enhance your credibility?
How long have you realized you and Pangborn have no credibility?
If, as your question seems to imply, the use of the wrong name equates
to a lack of credibility, you must think you both lack it.
>
>Next you'll call your opponents childish right?
If doing so will help prove you the hypocritical liar you are,
it's quite possible.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Kent Wills
Do you think posting the exact same thing more than once will get
you anything?
I can't speak to Dan's motivation, but I've been using YOUR posting
style. If using a false name to address you makes me a loser, then
you must see yourself as a loser.
--
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll
cripple you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out,
I'll be able to walk,but you will still be a cripple."
--Greg Hanson, in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Actually, In a system that prevents parents from
>> confronting their accusers often enough,
>> the Termination proceedings allow a big
>> opportunity to cross examine witnesses.
>
>Just before the parents never see their children again.
>
>> IF for example, the services offered were
>> RIGGED, or requests to have services
>> repaired were ignored, proving those points
>> in a TPR proceeding would be
>> of considerable importance.
>
>So important it would get a big eye roll out of the Judge?
>
>> By the way, Kent and Dan, I get it that you
>> want to twist my name as a means
>> of de-humanizing your opponent, or insult,
>> but has it occurred to you that this
>> is not a winning tactic?
>
>I don't consider you human, grag.
>
>So it really doesn't matter.
You missed the most important part of Greg's post. He's stating
he sees himself, and Ken Pangborn, as a looser.
There are numerous examples of Greg using variations of people's
names. If you, I, or anyone else doing it means we're losers, then
Greg MUST see himself as one.
He has some serious self esteem issues that need to be addressed.
>
>You were convicted twice and went to jail for abusing your mentally ill
>wife... and you claim it was her fault.
Predators nearly always claim it wasn't their fault. They are
the real victim.
>
>And you're listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse Registry and you claim you
>had permission from the little girl's mother for all the things you did to
>her.
>
>So that's not your fault either.
Nothing is ever Greg's fault.
To be fair, he's just proved he has self esteem issues, and he can
only deal with one mental problem at a time.
>
>> Do you think somebody looking in here
>> won't see that as a loser's tactic?
>
>If they read what you post they won't consider you a human either.
If they read his posts, they'll see Greg thinks of himself as a
loser.
>
>> If you dropped into a discussion
>> somewhere and somebody is twisting
>> their opponents name around so much,
>> wouldn't you think it was a really lame crutch
>> being used by a loser?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
>But we know you, grag.
>
>> You guys can't even call an individual
>> opponent by their right name!
>
>Greegor is better?
Is Kentislawa Willenski?
Greg used that name for me at least 15 times. By his standards,
Greg is a loser.
>
>> Does that enhance your credibility?
>>
>> Next you'll call your opponents childish right?
>
>Childish is just your sexual preference, grag.
>
>We all know it!
>
"Us Man Whores don't need porno."
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
Greg? You gonna address this post, or are you going to run away
and try to pretend I didn't expose you for the lying, hypocritical
coward you are?
Just wondering.
>KW > It's like a whole group of GregWhores
>KW > dispensing what they'd like
>KW > to see rather than what really is.
>
>KW > grag once posted that there was
>KW > a "bright side" to a Termination
>KW > of Parents Rights hearing.
>
>KW > The parents lost custody to their children...
>
>Got proof?
I didn't write that. Why are you LYING and attributing to me that
which you know I didn't write? And why are you asking me to prove a
statement you know I didn't make?
Do you think anyone will be fooled by this latest lie from you?
>
>KW > but there was a "bright side" somewhere.
>
>KW > Probably because a mother and father
>KW > losing their children made grag happy.
I didn't write that.
What is the root cause of your psychological inability to be
honest about anything at any time?
>
>Actually, In a system that prevents parents from
>confronting their accusers often enough,
>the Termination proceedings allow a big
>opportunity to cross examine witnesses.
>IF for example, the services offered were
>RIGGED, or requests to have services
>repaired were ignored, proving those points
>in a TPR proceeding would be
>of considerable importance.
>
>By the way, Kent and Dan, I get it that you
>want to twist my name as a means
>of de-humanizing your opponent, or insult,
>but has it occurred to you that this
>is not a winning tactic?
You mean we pulled a Gregory Scott Hanson on you?
I'm sure you recall how you used a fake name to refer to me. To
prevent you from being able to lie about it:
If you have an antiquated system that wraps the URL, the following
will take you to the same page:
Note that Kenny-Bob uses the word Kunt for my name. You've never
had a problem with it.
>
>Do you think somebody looking in here
>won't see that as a loser's tactic?
That you see yourself and Pangborn as losers is your issue to
address. And you must see him and yourself as losers, since you are
claiming it for Dan and me.
>
>If you dropped into a discussion
>somewhere and somebody is twisting
>their opponents name around so much,
>wouldn't you think it was a really lame crutch
>being used by a loser?
>
>Just curious.
That you see yourself and Pangborn as losers does me no harm.
I am curious though. How long has your self esteem been so low?
Clearly it's been since at least December 28, 2007 since that's the
first time you used the name Kentislawa Willenski for me.
Have you had this esteem issue since before that date?
>
>You guys can't even call an individual
>opponent by their right name!
Just like you. And Pangborn. Two people YOU see as losers.
For what it's worth, I agree with your view.
>
>Does that enhance your credibility?
How long have you realized you and Pangborn have no credibility?
If, as your question seems to imply, the use of the wrong name equates
to a lack of credibility, you must think you both lack it.
>
>Next you'll call your opponents childish right?
If doing so will help prove you the hypocritical liar you are,
Greegor
KW > thing more than once will get you anything?
Exact same thing? Are you sure?
Kent Wills
In MID
f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com you
wrote:
Just curious.
In Message-ID:
<ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, a
completely different post, and the one in which you LIE and claim I
Just curious.
Do you see anything different in either?
Greegor
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
>
> >KW > Do you think posting the exact same
> >KW > thing more than once will get you anything?
>
> >Exact same thing? Are you sure?
>
> In MID
f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890
ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055-b33a-6cc6e8b47
Have you got a LINK to both posts?
Kent Wills
Yes. Not that one is needed. I posted the MIDs for each one. I
imagine they're both available on any server.
Greegor
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890
Message not found.
We're sorry, but we were unable to find the message you were looking
for.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055-b33a-6cc6e8b47
Message not found.
We're sorry, but we were unable to find the message you were looking
for.
But I did find a link for one of the two messages
you referred to.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/8e43815615753d10
Jul 13 2008 10:39 pm
Got a LINK to the message you say is a duplicate, Kent?
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I couldn't get those "MID's" to work, Kent.
>
Had you used the MIDs I posted, they would have. Not
surprisingly, you snipped a portion to ensure you wouldn't have to
admit you posted the same paragraphs twice.
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890
>Message not found.
>We're sorry, but we were unable to find the message you were looking
>for.
Why not use the whole MID? Why, exactly, are you deceptive
offering only a part of the MID?
Here is the full MID.
f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055-b33a-6cc6e8b47
>Message not found.
>We're sorry, but we were unable to find the message you were looking
>for.
Again, you should use the full MID rather than your deceptively
snipped one.
ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Please let the readers know the exact reason for your latest act
of deception.
Did you think you'd get away with it? Are you so stupid (unable
to learn) that you actually thought your snipped MIDs wouldn't be seen
right away?
If so, you were wrong. Still.
>
>But I did find a link for one of the two messages
>you referred to.
So you admit there are two messages. That's a big step for you,
Greg, and I honestly applaud you for it. Keep being honest, and in
time, it will feel as natural as lying does for you now.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/8e43815615753d10
>
>Jul 13 2008 10:39 pm
>
>Got a LINK to the message you say is a duplicate, Kent?
Yes. Clicking on the full MIDs brought up both messages in Agent
and Xnews. Since the full MIDs show you posted the same parts I
quoted, TWICE, you should be able to use them.
Greegor
KW > Had you used the MIDs I posted, they would have. Not
KW > surprisingly, you snipped a portion to ensure you wouldn't have
to
KW > admit you posted the same paragraphs twice.
Now your claim evolved to paragraphs. Why?
Previously you claimed it was a duplicate message.
> >Message not found.
> >We're sorry, but we were unable to find the message you were looking
> >for.
>
> Why not use the whole MID? Why, exactly, are you deceptive
> offering only a part of the MID?
>
> Here is the full MID.
>
> f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
How do I use that to make a link as below?
Is that ... part supposed to be in there?
> >Message not found.
> >We're sorry, but we were unable to find the message you were looking
> >for.
>
> Again, you should use the full MID rather than your deceptively
> snipped one.
>
> ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055-b33a-6cc6e8b47...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Kent, I read this from Google, and part of it was munged with ...
which I suspect negates it's full functionality.
How does this work without any reader and without any name@27g2000hsf
part of an MID?
This link doesn't have an MID from what you say, yet it works!
How is that?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/8e43815615753d10
>
> Please let the readers know the exact reason for your latest act
> of deception.
> Did you think you'd get away with it? Are you so stupid (unable
> to learn) that you actually thought your snipped MIDs wouldn't be seen
> right away?
> If so, you were wrong. Still.
> >But I did find a link for one of the two messages
> >you referred to.
>
> So you admit there are two messages.
Not in Google!
> That's a big step for you,
> Greg, and I honestly applaud you for it. Keep being honest, and in
> time, it will feel as natural as lying does for you now.
Preaching on honesty from a garage burglary felon? LOL
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/8e43815615753d10
> >Jul 13 2008 10:39 pm
>
G > Got a LINK to the message you say is a duplicate, Kent?
KW > Yes. Clicking on the full MIDs brought up both
KW > messages in Agent and Xnews.
Kent, I don't use Agent or Xnews.
I asked you for a LINK. Got one?
I posted a link to the July 13 10:39 pm message.
What's the date and time of the duplicate and do
you have a link for it? It doesn't show up in Google.
KW > Since the full MIDs show you posted the same parts I
KW > quoted, TWICE, you should be able to use them.
Now there's not a duplicate message but
just duplicate PARTS of a message? Strange.
Greg Goss
>> Here is the full MID.
>>
>> f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
>How do I use that to make a link as below?
>Is that ... part supposed to be in there?
>Kent, I don't use Agent or Xnews.
>I asked you for a LINK. Got one?
The message ID in usenet *IS* a link. If you want to, put a news://
in front of it to indicate what application type it is. The "U" in
"URL" is "universal". It isn't just http.
Usenet is intended to be read by a newsreader program. The web was
invented more than a decade later. Google's hack-job mangling of what
they bought from Deja News may be better than nothing, but they've
royally messed up the details.
No, the ... part wasn't supposed to be there. Google thinks that the
message id is an email address and mangles it. Then when you cut and
paste it into the message search, the broken mid is, well, broken.
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
In case Google mangles those again for you, I'll split them at the @.
You'll need to remove those spaces around the @ to get the message ID
back again.
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890c61 @ a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055-b33a-6cc6e8b472df @ 27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>I posted a link to the July 13 10:39 pm message.
>What's the date and time of the duplicate and do
>you have a link for it? It doesn't show up in Google.
>
>KW > Since the full MIDs show you posted the same parts I
>KW > quoted, TWICE, you should be able to use them.
>
>Now there's not a duplicate message but
>just duplicate PARTS of a message? Strange.
The two messages are not quite identical. The initials you use to
indicate who you're quoting change between them. They otherwise look
to be identical.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greegor
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!
newsfeed.freenet.de!bolzen.all.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!
individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.support.child-protective-
services,soc.men,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: Posted exact same thing twice?
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:00:12 -0600
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <6e9j89F...@mid.individual.net>
References: <v6ol74ll3h2k252ig...@4ax.com> <8ce4eab7-
d086-4e57-ac7...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
<dsrn74hi812j28soa...@4ax.com> <d52e8a37-8bc8-41fa-
af4c-608...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
<hh2t749lgpjv8bonf...@4ax.com> <c42d63e6-64d5-44d5-87b2-
ddee54...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
<a8ct74dvpgv1i17kp...@4ax.com>
<5828f23c-0bf6-44b2...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: go...@gossg.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net lkOby6NIClaZft4r/
XDjAwHPwRnTQ3qHOPbK1y0VDV9Xi7dSFu
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jnAJMdVRnvGDhLK3I51OPEVfI2g=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
G > How do I use that to make a link as below?
G > Is that ... part supposed to be in there?
G > Kent, I don't use Agent or Xnews.
G > I asked you for a LINK. Got one?
Goss > The message ID in usenet *IS* a link.
Goss > If you want to, put a news://
Goss > in front of it to indicate what application
Goss > type it is. The "U" in "URL" is
Goss > "universal". It isn't just http.
Goss >
Goss > Usenet is intended to be read by a
Goss > newsreader program. The web was
Goss > invented more than a decade later.
Goss > Google's hack-job mangling of what
Goss > they bought from Deja News may
Goss > be better than nothing, but they've
Goss > royally messed up the details.
Nice editorial comment, but this chafing
does not make an MID into aa web based LINK.
Goss > No, the ... part wasn't supposed to
Goss > be there. Google thinks that the
Goss > message id is an email address
Goss > and mangles it. Then when you
Goss > cut and paste it into the message
Goss > search, the broken mid is, well, broken.
f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055-b33a-6cc6e8b47...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Goss > In case Google mangles those again for you, I'll split them at
the @.
Thanks, Kent!
Or whoever you are.
Goss > You'll need to remove those spaces around
Goss > the @ to get the message ID back again.
f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890c61 @ a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055-b33a-6cc6e8b472df @ 27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
G > I posted a link to the July 13 10:39 pm message.
G > What's the date and time of the duplicate and do
G > you have a link for it? It doesn't show up in Google.
KW > Since the full MIDs show you posted the same parts I
KW > quoted, TWICE, you should be able to use them.
G > Now there's not a duplicate message but
G > just duplicate PARTS of a message? Strange.
Goss > The two messages are not quite identical.
Goss > The initials you use to indicate who you're
Goss > quoting change between them. They
Goss > otherwise look to be identical.
Is that you, Kent?
Kent Wills
In the first post, made at 10:31 PM, Greg dishonestly attributes
to me that which he knew Dan wrote. Greg frequently does this sort of
thing for reasons only he can explain.
In his post of 10:39 PM, he does change it so that the attribution
is correct. Of course, he makes no effort to indicate he was in
error, which he would have done had it been an innocent mistake.
However, the part I was addressing appears after the deceptive
attribution. Greg knows this, of course, since he read my initial
post on the matter. He couldn't have questioned it if he hadn't.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > I couldn't get those "MID's" to work, Kent.
>
>KW > Had you used the MIDs I posted, they would have. Not
>KW > surprisingly, you snipped a portion to ensure you wouldn't have
>to
>KW > admit you posted the same paragraphs twice.
>
>Now your claim evolved to paragraphs. Why?
Liar.
I've always referenced the paragraphs I quoted. Why are you
trying another deceptive innuendo? Has this method ever worked for
you?
>Previously you claimed it was a duplicate message.
>
The paragraphs I quoted where found in both messages. Shall I
quote them again?
From MID
f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
Just curious.
From MID
ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Just curious.
I C&P both from the Google archive.
You maintain they are not the same. You'll need to point out
where any difference can be seen.
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890
>
>> >Message not found.
>> >We're sorry, but we were unable to find the message you were looking
>> >for.
>>
>> Why not use the whole MID? Why, exactly, are you deceptive
>> offering only a part of the MID?
>>
>> Here is the full MID.
>>
>> f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
>How do I use that to make a link as below?
>Is that ... part supposed to be in there?
Not with a real reader and server.
Given the number of free readers and servers available, I can't
understand why anyone would post via Google.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055-b33a-6cc6e8b47
>
>> >Message not found.
>> >We're sorry, but we were unable to find the message you were looking
>> >for.
>>
>> Again, you should use the full MID rather than your deceptively
>> snipped one.
>>
>>
ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>
>Kent, I read this from Google,
That's your problem.
>and part of it was munged with ...
>which I suspect negates it's full functionality.
Odd that the ... and everything after it failed to be included in
your earlier posts. Actually, not so odd, since you are
psychologically unable to be honest about anything at any time. Ever.
Why didn't you click on the ... portion? It takes you to a
screen that allows to you remove the truncated portions. Given how
long you've used Google, I can't accept that you didn't know about
this.
I can't know, of course, but I suspect you did just that, saw
that you posted the same thing twice, and now are desperately looking
for any possible out.
If my guess is correct, you are, once again, failing.
>How does this work without any reader and without any name@27g2000hsf
>part of an MID?
By having Google show it. Even your fourth grade level intellect
should be able to grasp this.
>
>This link doesn't have an MID from what you say, yet it works!
>How is that?
>
It's a direct link, dullard.
How does someone as stone cold stupid as you present yourself to
be survive in the world?
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/8e43815615753d10
>
>>
>> Please let the readers know the exact reason for your latest act
>> of deception.
>> Did you think you'd get away with it? Are you so stupid (unable
>> to learn) that you actually thought your snipped MIDs wouldn't be seen
>> right away?
>> If so, you were wrong. Still.
>
>> >But I did find a link for one of the two messages
>> >you referred to.
>>
>> So you admit there are two messages.
>
>Not in Google!
>
Liar. I just checked. Both posts are there.
>> That's a big step for you,
>> Greg, and I honestly applaud you for it. Keep being honest, and in
>> time, it will feel as natural as lying does for you now.
>
>Preaching on honesty from a garage burglary felon? LOL
I advise you against burglary as a career.
There *may* be some short term gain in it, but if caught, you'll
end up in prison.
Based on what I've seen via my missionary work in prisons, it
doesn't look like a fun place to live. YMMV, of course.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/8e43815615753d10
>
>> >Jul 13 2008 10:39 pm
>>
>G > Got a LINK to the message you say is a duplicate, Kent?
>
>KW > Yes. Clicking on the full MIDs brought up both
>KW > messages in Agent and Xnews.
>
>Kent, I don't use Agent or Xnews.
I expect it works with other news readers as well, though not
using any others, I can't know.
Kenny-Bob stated it doesn't work with OE. It's been so long since
I used it, and it's not available with my current OS, I can't know.
>I asked you for a LINK. Got one?
Yes.
As soon as you either post the link to the picture of David Moore
dressed as a Nazi, or admit you were lying about it the whole time,
I'll post all sorts of links for you.
>I posted a link to the July 13 10:39 pm message.
>What's the date and time of the duplicate and do
>you have a link for it?
How about the full headers as archived on Google?
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <Gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.legal,alt.support.child-protective-services,soc.men,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: Dan Sullivan Declares "The story doesn't change when you
tell the
truth."
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 50
Message-ID:
<ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
References:
<01010c97-3d92-47b5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<DEOdk.22$gH4.14@trnddc05> <4877cba9$0$5011$607e...@cv.net>
<4aa6ac5e-12e7-4583...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
<urdl749qbqqvfipvk...@4ax.com>
<487abea3$0$7333$607e...@cv.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.252.170.128
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1216006312 29178 127.0.0.1 (14 Jul 2008
03:31:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: 27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=209.252.170.128;
posting-account=5SXNEQkAAAC6SFadCHPE9O-jLMHq7h-Y
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win
9x 4.90;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
To prevent you from being able to lie, here's a screen cap of the
headers from Google. Note the MID is the same as one of the ones I've
posted. Further, note the complete lack of "..." to be seen.
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/greg_lie.jpg
>It doesn't show up in Google.
Why do you lie? Seriously. What is the root cause of your deep
rooted psychological need to lie at every opportunity?
>
>KW > Since the full MIDs show you posted the same parts I
>KW > quoted, TWICE, you should be able to use them.
>
>Now there's not a duplicate message but
>just duplicate PARTS of a message? Strange.
Aside from attributing to Dan that which he wrote (you LIED and
claimed I wrote it in your other post), they are 100% identical. The
portions to which I made reference were and are 100% identical in
every detail.
What is strange is that you honestly think your lying will work.
It's never done so in the past, so there's no rational reason for you
to think your lying will work now.
Greg Goss
>Goss > The message ID in usenet *IS* a link.
>Nice editorial comment, but this chafing
>does not make an MID into aa web based LINK.
OK, now you want a web-based link because your usenet reader cannot
handle a usenet link? That's a limitation YOU have chosen. You
didn't say "web-based" before.
>Goss > In case Google mangles those again for you, I'll split them at
>the @.
>
>Thanks, Kent!
>Or whoever you are.
This is usenet. If your messages are intended for one person, then
send 'em by email. If you post them in FIVE newsgroups, expect
passersby to comment, too.
>Goss > The two messages are not quite identical.
>Goss > The initials you use to indicate who you're
>Goss > quoting change between them. They
>Goss > otherwise look to be identical.
>
>Is that you, Kent?
Did it SAY "Kent" up there? If so, then your Google Groups newsreader
is even more broken than I thought.
My name is "Greg". Do you have problems with people with that name?
You have Google Groups in front of you. A few minutes would have
shown you that I've been posting to Usenet with my correct name for
twenty years. I've been posting to Usenet under the name you see here
since before the Web was invented.
Why would you think my name was Kent?
Greegor
KW > (you LIED and claimed I wrote it in your other post),
You mean I LIED in the deleted first version?
You accuse me of telling a LIE (misattribution)
in a message that I deleted and replaced
with a version that had corrected attribution?
Is that what you're saying Kent?
KW > they are 100% identical. The portions
KW > which I made reference were and are
KW > 100% identical in every detail.
So, except for the corrections, the 2nd message
is identical to the incorrect first ""duplicate""
is that what you're saying?
KW > What is strange is that you honestly
KW > think your lying will work. It's never
KW > done so in the past, so there's no
KW > rational reason for you to think
KW > your lying will work now.
So all of this is because I posted two
identical messages, one of which LIED
by misattributing something. The
second one with corrected attributes
didn't give you a clue that maybe the
first message had been canceled and
replaced with the second?
A corrected typo is a LIE? LOL
Kent, You are a genius!
Dragon's Girl
He checked your posting history before he ever even wrote you back.
Trust me on that one.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Aside from attributing to Dan that which he wrote
>KW > (you LIED and claimed I wrote it in your other post),
>
>You mean I LIED in the deleted first version?
What deleted version? Both versions are available.
>You accuse me of telling a LIE (misattribution)
If it were an error, you would have stated such when I sated in
Message-ID: <60ll74ldhn0d58o80...@4ax.com> "I didn't
write that."
Since you've chosen to play games, it's very clear you made the
claim that I wrote what you knew Dan wrote, intentionally.
>in a message that I deleted and replaced
>with a version that had corrected attribution?
Why do you lie about that which you know can be proved?
See MID
<ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
>
>Is that what you're saying Kent?
>
>KW > they are 100% identical. The portions
>KW > which I made reference were and are
>KW > 100% identical in every detail.
>
>So, except for the corrections, the 2nd message
>is identical to the incorrect first ""duplicate""
>is that what you're saying?
As can be seen in Message-ID:
<v6ol74ll3h2k252ig...@4ax.com> I was only referencing
the paragraphs you posted twice. No amount of your deception will
ever alter this.
>
>KW > What is strange is that you honestly
>KW > think your lying will work. It's never
>KW > done so in the past, so there's no
>KW > rational reason for you to think
>KW > your lying will work now.
>
>So all of this is because I posted two
>identical messages, one of which LIED
>by misattributing something.
All of this is because you lack the ability to be honest about
anything at any time. Ever.
>The
>second one with corrected attributes
>didn't give you a clue that maybe the
>first message had been canceled and
>replaced with the second?
The one with your lie hasn't been canceled. It's still on every
server with which I have access and Google.
Here's a C&P from the article you claim you canceled:
KW > It's like a whole group of GregWhores
KW > dispensing what they'd like
KW > to see rather than what really is.
KW > grag once posted that there was
KW > a "bright side" to a Termination
KW > of Parents Rights hearing.
KW > The parents lost custody to their children...
Got proof?
KW > but there was a "bright side" somewhere.
KW > Probably because a mother and father
KW > losing their children made grag happy.
Actually, In a system that prevents parents from
Just curious.
I do expect it to vanish from Google fairly soon. Not to worry.
My proof that you LIED can still be seen within Message-ID:
<60ll74ldhn0d58o80...@4ax.com>
>
>A corrected typo is a LIE? LOL
You didn't correct anything. You lied. Again. You got caught.
Again.
>
>Kent, You are a genius!
I don't see how my having been a member of Mensa factors in.
Please explain.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? You've never actually answered this question.
"Us Man Whores don't need porno."
-- GregWhore Scott Hanson
Message-ID:
<23e9facf-66a4-4c9e...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Kent Wills
Few people use a web based reader.
See someone about your Fregoli delusion. Not everyone on Usenet
is me. Really.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
By that definition, Mr. Probert, I could claim that
you and others are stalking me.
-- Greg Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Kent Wills
>Greegor <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Goss > The message ID in usenet *IS* a link.
>
>>Nice editorial comment, but this chafing
>>does not make an MID into aa web based LINK.
>
>OK, now you want a web-based link because your usenet reader cannot
>handle a usenet link? That's a limitation YOU have chosen. You
>didn't say "web-based" before.
Gregory Scott Hanson can't handle a Usenet reader. There's the
problem.
>
>>Goss > In case Google mangles those again for you, I'll split them at
>>the @.
>>
>>Thanks, Kent!
>>Or whoever you are.
>
>This is usenet. If your messages are intended for one person, then
>send 'em by email. If you post them in FIVE newsgroups, expect
>passersby to comment, too.
Some people really don't grasp that by posting to various groups,
they are inviting those who read the groups to join the conversation.
>
>>Goss > The two messages are not quite identical.
>>Goss > The initials you use to indicate who you're
>>Goss > quoting change between them. They
>>Goss > otherwise look to be identical.
>>
>>Is that you, Kent?
>
>Did it SAY "Kent" up there? If so, then your Google Groups newsreader
>is even more broken than I thought.
Gregory has Fregoli delusion. Everyone is me.
>
>My name is "Greg". Do you have problems with people with that name?
That's his name as well, so this is unlikely.
>You have Google Groups in front of you. A few minutes would have
>shown you that I've been posting to Usenet with my correct name for
>twenty years. I've been posting to Usenet under the name you see here
>since before the Web was invented.
>
>Why would you think my name was Kent?
Sadly, Gregory Scott Hanson is unable to be honest.
Of course he knows you and I aren't the same person, but he had
to present a claim where we are.
"Us Man Whores don't need porno."
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>in a message that I deleted and replaced
>>with a version that had corrected attribution?
>
> Why do you lie about that which you know can be proved?
> See MID
><ebfb2a43-5f4e-4055...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
>
[...]
To make it easy for you to read what you LIE and claim you deleted,
yet is still available, I'll C&P it with full headers from Google.
I copied the post, with headers, from Google at approximately
10:25PM on Thursday, July 17, 2008. This is roughly four hours after
you claim you deleted it in Message-ID:
<920d1259-5df0-4841...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
KW > It's like a whole group of GregWhores
Got proof?
Just curious.
Next you'll call your opponents childish right?
What is the root cause of your inability to be honest about
anything at any time, Greg? Serious question.
Greg Goss
> See someone about your Fregoli delusion. Not everyone on Usenet
>is me. Really.
What is the referent for a "Fregoli" delusion. That name doesn't show
for him, neither is it something I'm familiar with.
Kent Wills
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> See someone about your Fregoli delusion. Not everyone on Usenet
>>is me. Really.
>
>What is the referent for a "Fregoli" delusion. That name doesn't show
>for him, neither is it something I'm familiar with.
Fregoli delusion, also called Fregoli syndrome, is one of the
delusional misidentification syndromes. A person suffering from it
will think everyone, or very nearly everyone, they encounter is
actually the same person.
A fairly good, IMO, article on delusional misidentification
syndrome can be found at
http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/353.asp
You'll note Fregoli is only one of the delusions.
Wiki has an acceptable entry on the disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fregoli_delusion
Since I consistently expose Gregory's lies, and hold him to the
same standards he holds to others, he presents a persona which is
threatened by me. Anyone new who shows where he's in error, as you
did, or lying is me by default. No amount of evidence can alter this
in his mind.
Treating Fregoli is very difficult, since the patient will often
come to see the doctor and staff as all being the same person trying
to trick them.
--
"Exterminieren! Exterminieren! "
-- The Daleks 'Doctor Who: Journey's End'
Greegor
KW > and hold him to the same standards he
KW > holds to others, he presents a persona
KW > which is threatened by me.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > Anyone new who shows where he's in
KW > error, as you did, or lying is me by
KW > default. No amount of evidence can
KW > alter this in his mind.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > Treating Fregoli is very difficult, since
KW > the patient will often come to see
KW > the doctor and staff as all being the
KW > same person trying to trick them.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D.
Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary
contending that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure
from that of the living quarters of the residence. In this appeal, we
must determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing
to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient
evidence to convict Wills of second-degree burglary when he entered an
attached garage of a residence when no persons were present in the
garage, but when persons were present in the living quarters; and (2)
failing to object to a jury instruction based on this same argument.
Because we find there was no legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury instruction, Wills’ trial
counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called the local police to report
that a car alarm sounded in the resident’s neighborhood. The city
dispatched a police officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only to be stopped a couple of
blocks later by a person who informed the officer he had witnessed
someone running from the area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the car alarm, he noticed a person
walking on the sidewalk. The officer asked the person, a minor, if he
had noticed anybody running from the area. The minor answered that he
had not. While the officer and another officer were speaking to the
minor, another resident of the neighborhood arrived in her car and
informed the officers that she had observed two people, one of whom
was heavy set with a blinking light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor’s residence. She observed the heavier-set
individual, later identified as Wills, enter her neighbor’s attached
garage through an unlocked service door. She further observed a
smaller individual standing by a van parked in the neighbor’s
driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave even though they found a
large amount of coins, a flashlight, and an electronic pocket
organizer in his pockets. After releasing the minor, the police
officers drove to the residence where the neighbor observed the two
suspicious people and woke the owner. The owner, his wife, and two
daughters were in the residence sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered change and an electronic pocket
organizer were missing from the vehicles. The owner’s daughter
reported a diamond ring and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted the minor’s parents, who
informed the officers the minor was with Wills. After the officers
questioned the minor again, he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary. Although Wills denied
involvement in the burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the information to include two
additional charges of burglary in the third degree and using a
juvenile to commit an indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills guilty of the crimes of
burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and using
a juvenile to commit an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary claiming ineffective assistance
of counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are derived from the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed.
2d 674, 691-93 (1984). Our review for a claim involving violations of
the Constitution is de novo. State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claims for postconviction relief actions. State v. Carter, 602 N.W.2d
818, 820 (Iowa 1999). However, we will address such claims on direct
appeal when the record is sufficient to permit a ruling. State v.
Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The appellate record in the
present case is sufficient to allow us to address Wills’ ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed
to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Id.
Prejudice results when “there is a reasonable probability that, but
for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.” State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills’ arguments also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for correction of errors at law.
State v. Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the second degree, the State had
to prove Wills perpetrated a burglary “in or upon an occupied
structure in which one or more persons are present . . . .” Iowa Code
§ 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was
insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons present in or upon the occupied
structure. Wills concedes the garage was an occupied structure, but
argues the living quarters and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore, the jury could not have
found there were people present in the attached garage at the time of
the burglary.
The Code defines an “occupied structure” as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances to buildings and structures,
land, water or air vehicle, or similar place adapted for overnight
accommodation of persons, or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity therein, or for the storage or
safekeeping of anything of value. Such a structure is an “occupied
structure” whether or not a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to
argue the garage and the living quarters are separate and independent
occupied structures. In Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors were operated in the same
structure. 590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant committed two
burglaries by entering each business because “[t]he facility’s
construction history and physical make-up demonstrate that the
portions are independent working units which constitute ‘[a]
combination of materials to form a construction for occupancy [or]
use.’” Id. Smothers is not at odds with the present case because the
living quarters and the garage are not separate or independent units
of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage in question was a three-
car attached garage separated from the living quarters by a door. The
same roof covered the garage as the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides. It was structurally no
different from any other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the residence. On the night of
the incident, the door was unlocked. The owner of the residence used
two stalls in the garage to park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As such, the garage and the
living quarters are a single “structure” or “building” functioning as
an integral part of the family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single “occupied structure” under section
702.12. See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 256 (Ct. App.
1995) (holding defendant’s entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage was attached to the house;
therefore, burglary of the garage was burglary of an inhabited
dwelling house); People v. Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding “ordinarily an attached garage is a ‘dwelling’
because it is part of the structure in which the owner or occupant
lives”); State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding
“burglary of the [attached] garage was burglary of the dwelling house
because the garage was a part of the structure used as living
quarters”); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d 760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
(holding “[s]ince the garage in the present case was structurally part
of a building which was used for overnight lodging of various persons,
it must be considered as part of a dwelling”); White v. State, 630 S.W.
2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982) (holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered a habitation within the
purview of the penal code because the garage is a structure
appurtenant to and connected to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.2d
551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993) (holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington’s burglary statute included an attached garage).
Had Wills’ trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the
basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the
time Wills entered the garage there were no persons present in or upon
the occupied structure, it would have been overruled by the court
because the owner and his family were present in the residence at the
time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district court on the same ground;
that the living quarters were a separate and independent occupied
structure from the attached garage. The instruction as given stated:
The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary in the
Second Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August, 2003, the defendant or someone
he aided and abetted broke into or entered the residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied structure as defined in
Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did not have
permission or authority to break into the residence at . . . .
4. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did so with the
specific intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present in or upon the occupied
structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty
of Burglary in the Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree and you will then consider the charge of Attempted
Burglary in the Second Degree explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills’ claim is without merit. As we have discussed, the residence is
the one and only “occupied structure” under the facts of this case.
Had Wills’ trial counsel made this objection to the instruction, it
would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills’ trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting to the instruction because
there was no legal basis for the motion or objection. See State v.
Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district court because Wills’ trial
counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Since I consistently expose Gregory's lies,
>KW > and hold him to the same standards he
>KW > holds to others, he presents a persona
>KW > which is threatened by me.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
Thank you for proving you have Fregoli. It wasn't needed, of
course, given the MASSVE amount of proof you've previously offered,
but it's nice that you're willing to give more.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
Greegor
KW > and hold him to the same standards he
KW > holds to others, he presents a persona
KW > which is threatened by me.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > Thank you for proving you have Fregoli.
How does posting a link to your burglary appeal do that, Kent?
KW > It wasn't needed, of course, given the MASSVE
KW > amount of proof you've previously offered,
KW > but it's nice that you're willing to give more.
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
I am a member of alt.friends.
When I post there am I stalking myself?
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Since I consistently expose Gregory's lies,
>KW > and hold him to the same standards he
>KW > holds to others, he presents a persona
>KW > which is threatened by me.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > Thank you for proving you have Fregoli.
>
>How does posting a link to your burglary appeal do that, Kent?
Since I've never had a conviction for burglary, as I'm certain
your stalking has proved to you, I couldn't have an appeal. We've
covered this before, and you always end up running away when it's
prove you're lying.
Further, you've claimed in the past that I am an actor and ESL
teacher from Webster City named Kent Wills. You've never stated the
probate court information was posted in error, so it's clear it was
intentional. You think I am he. Yet now you claim I am also another
Kent Wills.
When added to your claims that I am Kevin (a poster proved to be
in Tennessee) and Roger (a poster proved to be in Wisconsin) and more
recently Greg Goss (I don't know from where he posts), and it's clear
you have Fregoli. Everyone who proves you wrong is me, in your mind.
>
>KW > It wasn't needed, of course, given the MASSVE
>KW > amount of proof you've previously offered,
>KW > but it's nice that you're willing to give more.
>KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
>KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
>
>I am a member of alt.friends.
No you aren't. Not even Peter will acknowledge you. That should
be a BIG clue.
Maybe you have the delusion that by proving you are a stalker (by
YOUR standards) to the regulars, you have become a regular. You
haven't.
You have failed at this, just as all available evidence shows you
fail at everything. It would be tragic if not for the fact that you
work hard to ensure you will fail at everything you try.
>When I post there am I stalking myself?
You haven't, as far as I know, posted your birthday and state of
residence. You did so with past and current members of alt.friends.
You even went so far as to LIE about what was on the web site.
More recently, you posted information, as pointless as it was and
is, regarding the postings of past and current members of alt.friends.
BTW, did you see how Enzo and I mocked you for it?
Pooooooor Greg. Another failure to add to your ever growing
list.
Now, answer the question. Why are you stalking and harassing
past and current members of alt.friends? Your playing the avoidance
game, while entertaining in the short term, only serves to prove you
the mentally unbalanced person you present yourself to be. Seriously.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Gregory Scott Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Greegor
KW > and hold him to the same standards he
KW > holds to others, he presents a persona
KW > which is threatened by me.
Am I insecure about a GARAGE somewhere being burglarized?
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > Thank you for proving you have Fregoli.
G > How does posting a link to your burglary appeal do that, Kent?
KW > Since I've never had a conviction
KW > for burglary, as I'm certain your
KW > stalking has proved to you, I
KW > couldn't have an appeal. We've
KW > covered this before, and you
KW > always end up running away
KW > when it's prove you're lying.
Got a link to where I ran away?
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > Further, you've claimed in the past
KW > that I am an actor and ESL teacher
KW > from Webster City named Kent Wills.
Got a LINK to where I made that claim?
KW > You've never stated the probate court
KW > information was posted in error, so it's
KW > clear it was intentional. You think I
KW > am he. Yet now you claim I am also
KW > another Kent Wills.
KW > When added to your claims that I am
KW > Kevin (a poster proved to be in
KW > Tennessee) and Roger (a poster
KW > proved to be in Wisconsin) and more
KW > recently Greg Goss (I don't know
KW > from where he posts), and it's clear
KW > you have Fregoli. Everyone who
KW > proves you wrong is me, in your mind.
You sure seem obsessed with this idea!
KW > It wasn't needed, of course, given the MASSVE
KW > amount of proof you've previously offered,
KW > but it's nice that you're willing to give more.
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
G > I am a member of alt.friends.
KW > No you aren't. Not even Peter
KW > will acknowledge you.
So?
KW > That should be a BIG clue.
You're whining.
KW > Maybe you have the delusion
KW > that by proving you are a stalker
KW > (by YOUR standards)
You mean your misrepresentation of my standards?
KW > to the regulars, you have become
KW > a regular. You haven't.
I didn't say I was a regular.
I said I am a member.
KW > You have failed at this, just as
KW > all available evidence shows
KW > you fail at everything.
You're trying to hurt my feelings! LOL
KW > It would be tragic if not for the
KW > fact that you work hard to
KW > ensure you will fail at everything
KW > you try.
G > When I post there am I stalking myself?
KW > You haven't, as far as I know, posted
KW > your birthday and state of residence.
So?
KW > You did so with past and current
KW > members of alt.friends.
Whereas you compiled the list and
put it on a web page on the World Wide Web.
Big deal!
KW > You even went so far as to LIE
KW > about what was on the web site.
KW > More recently, you posted
KW > information, as pointless as it
KW > was and is, regarding the postings
KW > of past and current members
KW > of alt.friends.
Google compiled the posting history.
How does that make me a liar?
KW > BTW, did you see how Enzo and
KW > I mocked you for it?
KW > Pooooooor Greg. Another failure
KW > to add to your ever growing list.
KW > Now, answer the question.
Ya voll herr commandant!
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
KW > Your playing the avoidance game,
Are you trying to BORE me to death? <grin>
KW > while entertaining in the short
KW > term, only serves to prove you
KW > the mentally unbalanced person
KW > you present yourself to be. Seriously.
Whereas your arguments in favor of gasoline in
fire extinguishers are perfectly rational. Right Kent?
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Since I consistently expose Gregory's lies,
>KW > and hold him to the same standards he
>KW > holds to others, he presents a persona
>KW > which is threatened by me.
>
>Am I insecure about a GARAGE somewhere being burglarized?
You would know better than I.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > Thank you for proving you have Fregoli.
>
>G > How does posting a link to your burglary appeal do that, Kent?
>
>KW > Since I've never had a conviction
>KW > for burglary, as I'm certain your
>KW > stalking has proved to you, I
>KW > couldn't have an appeal. We've
>KW > covered this before, and you
>KW > always end up running away
>KW > when it's prove you're lying.
>
>Got a link to where I ran away?
I have links to various thread where you ceased posting once you
could no longer continue your lying.
Actually, you could have continued, but when it was clear the
truth had come out, you made the choice to run away.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > Further, you've claimed in the past
>KW > that I am an actor and ESL teacher
>KW > from Webster City named Kent Wills.
>
>Got a LINK to where I made that claim?
Yes. I've posted it a few times. Every time you've ran away from
the conversation.
>
>KW > You've never stated the probate court
>KW > information was posted in error, so it's
>KW > clear it was intentional. You think I
>KW > am he. Yet now you claim I am also
>KW > another Kent Wills.
>KW > When added to your claims that I am
>KW > Kevin (a poster proved to be in
>KW > Tennessee) and Roger (a poster
>KW > proved to be in Wisconsin) and more
>KW > recently Greg Goss (I don't know
>KW > from where he posts), and it's clear
>KW > you have Fregoli. Everyone who
>KW > proves you wrong is me, in your mind.
>
>You sure seem obsessed with this idea!
The idea of truth and of honesty? I suppose you could argue I'm
obsessed with truth and honesty. I don't think I'm actually obsessed,
but I can see where you would think so, given that you consistently
present that you hate both.
>
>KW > It wasn't needed, of course, given the MASSVE
>KW > amount of proof you've previously offered,
>KW > but it's nice that you're willing to give more.
>KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
>KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
>
>G > I am a member of alt.friends.
>
>KW > No you aren't. Not even Peter
>KW > will acknowledge you.
>
>So?
He acknowledges everyone who stops by. Except you.
It's a sad commentary when not even Peter is willing to
acknowledge your trolling.
>
>KW > That should be a BIG clue.
>
>You're whining.
>
That you see my pointing out how you are not a member of
alt.friends as whining is your issue to address.
>KW > Maybe you have the delusion
>KW > that by proving you are a stalker
>KW > (by YOUR standards)
>
>You mean your misrepresentation of my standards?
100% accurate representation of your standards. You accused
others of stalking you when they did as you are doing.
You either see yourself as a stalker, or you have double
standards.
>
>KW > to the regulars, you have become
>KW > a regular. You haven't.
>
>I didn't say I was a regular.
>I said I am a member.
Ok, you aren't a member.
>
>KW > You have failed at this, just as
>KW > all available evidence shows
>KW > you fail at everything.
>
>You're trying to hurt my feelings! LOL
>
Truth sometimes hurts.
>KW > It would be tragic if not for the
>KW > fact that you work hard to
>KW > ensure you will fail at everything
>KW > you try.
>
>G > When I post there am I stalking myself?
>
>KW > You haven't, as far as I know, posted
>KW > your birthday and state of residence.
>
>So?
>
>KW > You did so with past and current
>KW > members of alt.friends.
>
>Whereas you compiled the list and
>put it on a web page on the World Wide Web.
>Big deal!
You proved that by the very standards you hold, you are a stalker.
>
>KW > You even went so far as to LIE
>KW > about what was on the web site.
I do appreciate that you aren't trying to lie your way out of
this one.
>KW > More recently, you posted
>KW > information, as pointless as it
>KW > was and is, regarding the postings
>KW > of past and current members
>KW > of alt.friends.
>
>Google compiled the posting history.
>How does that make me a liar?
I didn't claim liar, in this instance.
Why, exactly, are you assigning to me a position you know I did
not take?
>
>KW > BTW, did you see how Enzo and
>KW > I mocked you for it?
>KW > Pooooooor Greg. Another failure
>KW > to add to your ever growing list.
>KW > Now, answer the question.
>
>Ya voll herr commandant!
It's sad that you feel that in order to be honest, you must be
forced into it.
>
>KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
>KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
>KW > Your playing the avoidance game,
>
>Are you trying to BORE me to death? <grin>
That honest bores you is your issue to address.
Please answer the question, then explain why you have always
tried to weasel you way out of it by playing your avoidance game.
>
>KW > while entertaining in the short
>KW > term, only serves to prove you
>KW > the mentally unbalanced person
>KW > you present yourself to be. Seriously.
>
>Whereas your arguments in favor of gasoline in
>fire extinguishers are perfectly rational. Right Kent?
Where have I ever made such an argument?
Is there a specific reason you are LYING?
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? You ALWAYS play the avoidance game rather than answer
the question.
Is the truth behind your motivation for stalking too painful?
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Greg Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Greegor
KW > and hold him to the same standards he
KW > holds to others, he presents a persona
KW > which is threatened by me.
G > Am I insecure about a GARAGE somewhere being burglarized?
KW > You would know better than I.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > Thank you for proving you have Fregoli.
G > How does posting a link to your burglary appeal do that, Kent?
KW > Since I've never had a conviction
KW > for burglary, as I'm certain your
KW > stalking has proved to you, I
KW > couldn't have an appeal. We've
KW > covered this before, and you
KW > always end up running away
KW > when it's prove you're lying.
G > Got a link to where I ran away?
KW > I have links to various thread where
KW > you ceased posting once you could
KW > no longer continue your lying.
KW > Actually, you could have continued,
KW > but when it was clear the truth had
KW > come out, you made the choice to run away.
Yet you didn't post any such links.
I post links! Here's one!
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > Further, you've claimed in the past
KW > that I am an actor and ESL teacher
KW > from Webster City named Kent Wills.
G > Got a LINK to where I made that claim?
KW > Yes. I've posted it a few times. Every
KW > time you've ran away from the conversation.
Fairy tales.
KW > You've never stated the probate court
KW > information was posted in error, so it's
KW > clear it was intentional. You think I
KW > am he. Yet now you claim I am also
KW > another Kent Wills.
KW > When added to your claims that I am
KW > Kevin (a poster proved to be in
KW > Tennessee) and Roger (a poster
KW > proved to be in Wisconsin) and more
KW > recently Greg Goss (I don't know
KW > from where he posts), and it's clear
KW > you have Fregoli. Everyone who
KW > proves you wrong is me, in your mind.
G > You sure seem obsessed with this idea!
KW > The idea of truth and of honesty?
Fregoli
KW > I suppose you could argue I'm
KW > obsessed with truth and honesty.
KW > I don't think I'm actually obsessed,
KW > but I can see where you would think
KW > so, given that you consistently
KW > present that you hate both.
KW > It wasn't needed, of course, given the MASSVE
KW > amount of proof you've previously offered,
KW > but it's nice that you're willing to give more.
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
G > I am a member of alt.friends.
KW > No you aren't. Not even Peter
KW > will acknowledge you.
G > So?
KW > He acknowledges everyone who
KW > stops by. Except you. It's a sad
KW > commentary when not even Peter
KW > is willing to acknowledge your trolling.
Projecting and whining.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > That should be a BIG clue.
G > You're whining.
KW > That you see my pointing out how
KW > you are not a member of alt.friends
KW > as whining is your issue to address.
Babbling?
KW > Maybe you have the delusion
KW > that by proving you are a stalker
KW > (by YOUR standards)
G >You mean your misrepresentation of my standards?
KW > 100% accurate representation of your
KW > standards.
You say.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > You accused others of stalking you
KW > when they did as you are doing.
KW > You either see yourself as a stalker,
KW > or you have double standards.
You see no other option, and you being
all-knowing, are the authority? Riight!
You're living in a television fantasy.
KW > to the regulars, you have become
KW > a regular. You haven't.
G > I didn't say I was a regular.
G > I said I am a member.
KW > Ok, you aren't a member.
You exaggerate your own importance.
You are no authority, no arbiter, no representative.
You don't amount to diddly, no matter how much you pretend.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > You have failed at this, just as
KW > all available evidence shows
KW > you fail at everything.
G > You're trying to hurt my feelings! LOL
KW > Truth sometimes hurts.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > It would be tragic if not for the
KW > fact that you work hard to
KW > ensure you will fail at everything
KW > you try.
G > When I post there am I stalking myself?
KW > You haven't, as far as I know, posted
KW > your birthday and state of residence.
G > So?
KW > You did so with past and current
KW > members of alt.friends.
G > Whereas you compiled the list and
G > put it on a web page on the World Wide Web.
G > Big deal!
KW > You proved that by the very
KW > standards you hold, you are a stalker.
Nah, You make claims about what
you misrepresent about my standards.
You snipped an argumentum ad absurdum
from the context and explanation and then
presented the absurdity as my standard
so you could make claims like this.
KW > You even went so far as to LIE
KW > about what was on the web site.
KW > I do appreciate that you aren't
KW > trying to lie your way out of this one.
I'm not excited about your claim that I lied
about your WWW birthday list web site?
http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
KW > More recently, you posted
KW > information, as pointless as it
KW > was and is, regarding the postings
KW > of past and current members
KW > of alt.friends.
G > Google compiled the posting history.
G > How does that make me a liar?
KW > I didn't claim liar, in this instance.
KW > Why, exactly, are you assigning
KW > to me a position you know I did
KW > not take?
KW > BTW, did you see how Enzo and
KW > I mocked you for it?
KW > Pooooooor Greg. Another failure
KW > to add to your ever growing list.
KW > Now, answer the question.
G >Ya voll herr commandant!
KW > It's sad that you feel that in order
KW > to be honest, you must be forced into it.
Megalomania?
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
KW > Your playing the avoidance game,
G > Are you trying to BORE me to death? <grin>
KW > That honest bores you is your issue
KW > to address. Please answer the question,
KW > then explain why you have always
KW > tried to weasel you way out of it by
KW > playing your avoidance game.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
KW > while entertaining in the short
KW > term, only serves to prove you
KW > the mentally unbalanced person
KW > you present yourself to be. Seriously.
G > Whereas your arguments in favor of gasoline in
G > fire extinguishers are perfectly rational. Right Kent?
KW > Where have I ever made such an argument?
KW > Is there a specific reason you are LYING?
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
KW > You ALWAYS play the avoidance game
KW > rather than answer the question.
Isn't this whining again?
KW > Is the truth behind your motivation for stalking too painful?
I find your delusions generally boring.
tjab
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Greegor <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Here is the full MID.
>>>
>>> f7dcbbff-3a7e-4b9e-9793-eaeb35890...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>>
>>How do I use that to make a link as below?
>>Is that ... part supposed to be in there?
>
>>Kent, I don't use Agent or Xnews.
>>I asked you for a LINK. Got one?
>
>The message ID in usenet *IS* a link. If you want to, put a news://
>in front of it to indicate what application type it is. The "U" in
>"URL" is "universal". It isn't just http.
"Uniform." If you're going to be pompous, try to be right.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:58:13 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
><Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>G > I couldn't get those "MID's" to work, Kent.
>>
>>KW > Had you used the MIDs I posted, they would have. Not
>>KW > surprisingly, you snipped a portion to ensure you wouldn't have
>>to
>>KW > admit you posted the same paragraphs twice.
>>
>>Now your claim evolved to paragraphs. Why?
>
> Liar.
> I've always referenced the paragraphs I quoted. Why are you
>trying another deceptive innuendo? Has this method ever worked for
>you?
>
>>Previously you claimed it was a duplicate message.
>
> The paragraphs I quoted where found in both messages.
So what? You don't know the difference between a paragraph and a message?
How do you justify your lie?
[. . .]
Kent Wills
Once you either post a link to the picture of David dressed as a
Nazi, or admit you lied about it's existence, I'll post all sorts of
links for you.
As you know, I require a link to the picture you claim exists.
Your constant avoidance only supports the claim that you've been lying
about it all this time.
>I post links! Here's one!
A link about someone you think is and is not me. Should I be
impressed?
BTW, I don't have any criminal convictions. My most serious
infractions consist of one speeding ticket roughly 20 years ago and a
failure to renew my tags six or seven years ago.
Compared to your criminal and civil violations, I'm an angel.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > Further, you've claimed in the past
>KW > that I am an actor and ESL teacher
>KW > from Webster City named Kent Wills.
>
>G > Got a LINK to where I made that claim?
>
>KW > Yes. I've posted it a few times. Every
>KW > time you've ran away from the conversation.
>
>Fairy tales.
That you see truth as fairy tales is to be expected.
>
>KW > You've never stated the probate court
>KW > information was posted in error, so it's
>KW > clear it was intentional. You think I
>KW > am he. Yet now you claim I am also
>KW > another Kent Wills.
>KW > When added to your claims that I am
>KW > Kevin (a poster proved to be in
>KW > Tennessee) and Roger (a poster
>KW > proved to be in Wisconsin) and more
>KW > recently Greg Goss (I don't know
>KW > from where he posts), and it's clear
>KW > you have Fregoli. Everyone who
>KW > proves you wrong is me, in your mind.
>
>G > You sure seem obsessed with this idea!
>
>KW > The idea of truth and of honesty?
>
>Fregoli
I point out your Fregoli when you display it. If doing so makes
you think I'm obsessed, perhaps you should question why you present it
as often as you do.
If you don't have it, maybe you should explore why you post
evidence that you do.
>
>KW > I suppose you could argue I'm
>KW > obsessed with truth and honesty.
>KW > I don't think I'm actually obsessed,
>KW > but I can see where you would think
>KW > so, given that you consistently
>KW > present that you hate both.
>
>
>KW > It wasn't needed, of course, given the MASSVE
>KW > amount of proof you've previously offered,
>KW > but it's nice that you're willing to give more.
>KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
>KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
>
>G > I am a member of alt.friends.
>
>KW > No you aren't. Not even Peter
>KW > will acknowledge you.
>
>G > So?
>
>KW > He acknowledges everyone who
>KW > stops by. Except you. It's a sad
>KW > commentary when not even Peter
>KW > is willing to acknowledge your trolling.
>
>Projecting and whining.
It's a sad commentary that you see truth and honesty as
projection and whining. It's not surprising, but it is sad none the
less.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > That should be a BIG clue.
>
>G > You're whining.
>
>KW > That you see my pointing out how
>KW > you are not a member of alt.friends
>KW > as whining is your issue to address.
>
>Babbling?
Use whatever terminology your mind requires to rationalize your
inability to be honest. Doing so does me no harm.
In fact, it helps me establish you can't be honest. When someone
is having problems with CPS, and you give your poor advice, they will,
I hope, check you out and see that you are unable to be honest and
disregard everything you suggest.
>
>KW > Maybe you have the delusion
>KW > that by proving you are a stalker
>KW > (by YOUR standards)
>
>G >You mean your misrepresentation of my standards?
>
>KW > 100% accurate representation of your
>KW > standards.
>
>You say.
I frequently say that which is true.
The very definition you used to accuse others of stalking you is
the one I'm using against you.
If you don't like your standards being held to you, perhaps you
should reconsider using them against others.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > You accused others of stalking you
>KW > when they did as you are doing.
>KW > You either see yourself as a stalker,
>KW > or you have double standards.
>
>You see no other option, and you being
>all-knowing, are the authority? Riight!
What other option is there?
You posted the definition then claimed Mr. Probert, et al., was
stalking you by that very definition.
By the very definition you use, you are a stalker.
>
>You're living in a television fantasy.
How long have you viewed honesty as fantasy, TV or otherwise?
>
>KW > to the regulars, you have become
>KW > a regular. You haven't.
>
>G > I didn't say I was a regular.
>G > I said I am a member.
>
>KW > Ok, you aren't a member.
>
>You exaggerate your own importance.
>You are no authority, no arbiter, no representative.
Have you noticed what others have written while mocking you?
You are a joke. No one writes to you. A few do write mocking
you.
Barry, the "king" of the group (we appointed him group leader) has
written that you are not a member. And yes, he can determine who is
and who is not a member. We've granted him such authority. Deal with
it.
>You don't amount to diddly, no matter how much you pretend.
If so, why when I left ax-cps did you need to follow me to other
groups? What compelled you to stalk and harass past and current
members of a group that had nothing to do with our discussions?
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > You have failed at this, just as
>KW > all available evidence shows
>KW > you fail at everything.
>
>G > You're trying to hurt my feelings! LOL
>
>KW > Truth sometimes hurts.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > It would be tragic if not for the
>KW > fact that you work hard to
>KW > ensure you will fail at everything
>KW > you try.
>
>G > When I post there am I stalking myself?
>
>KW > You haven't, as far as I know, posted
>KW > your birthday and state of residence.
>
>G > So?
>
>KW > You did so with past and current
>KW > members of alt.friends.
>
>G > Whereas you compiled the list and
>G > put it on a web page on the World Wide Web.
>G > Big deal!
>
>KW > You proved that by the very
>KW > standards you hold, you are a stalker.
>
>Nah, You make claims about what
>you misrepresent about my standards.
You posted the definition, then used it to accuse others of
stalking you.
No amount of your lying will ever alter this simple truth.
Really.
>
>You snipped an argumentum ad absurdum
>from the context and explanation and then
>presented the absurdity as my standard
>so you could make claims like this.
I include the MID so that anyone with an interest may check the
context.
Care to try a different lie? So far your lies are failing, but
it's possible you stumble upon one that will work.
>
>KW > You even went so far as to LIE
>KW > about what was on the web site.
>
>KW > I do appreciate that you aren't
>KW > trying to lie your way out of this one.
>
>I'm not excited about your claim that I lied
>about your WWW birthday list web site?
It's the truth. You're posting that which you KNOW is a lie.
Care to explain why you're doing this?
>
>http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>
>alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
>
Again, you post that which you KNOW isn't true.
Why? Be specific.
>KW > More recently, you posted
>KW > information, as pointless as it
>KW > was and is, regarding the postings
>KW > of past and current members
>KW > of alt.friends.
>
>G > Google compiled the posting history.
>G > How does that make me a liar?
>
>KW > I didn't claim liar, in this instance.
>KW > Why, exactly, are you assigning
>KW > to me a position you know I did
>KW > not take?
>
>KW > BTW, did you see how Enzo and
>KW > I mocked you for it?
>KW > Pooooooor Greg. Another failure
>KW > to add to your ever growing list.
>KW > Now, answer the question.
>
>G >Ya voll herr commandant!
>
>KW > It's sad that you feel that in order
>KW > to be honest, you must be forced into it.
>
>Megalomania?
I've not seen anything from you to indicate actual megalomania.
Since you've shown you consider yourself a loser (if my use of a
different name to refer to you means I'm a loser, your having done the
same means you see yourself as a loser), it's very unlikely you have
it.
Again, I'm holding you to the standards you use.
>
>KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
>KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
>KW > Your playing the avoidance game,
>
>G > Are you trying to BORE me to death? <grin>
>
>KW > That honest bores you is your issue
>KW > to address. Please answer the question,
>KW > then explain why you have always
>KW > tried to weasel you way out of it by
>KW > playing your avoidance game.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>KW > while entertaining in the short
>KW > term, only serves to prove you
>KW > the mentally unbalanced person
>KW > you present yourself to be. Seriously.
>
>G > Whereas your arguments in favor of gasoline in
>G > fire extinguishers are perfectly rational. Right Kent?
>
>KW > Where have I ever made such an argument?
>KW > Is there a specific reason you are LYING?
>
>KW > Why are you stalking and harassing
>KW > past and current members of alt.friends?
>KW > You ALWAYS play the avoidance game
>KW > rather than answer the question.
>
>Isn't this whining again?
That you see honesty as whining is your issue to address with the
aide of a professional mental health care worker.
>
>KW > Is the truth behind your motivation for stalking too painful?
>
>I find your delusions generally boring.
It's a question about your motivation. Is an honest answer too
painful for you?
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
Greg Goss
Greegor
KW > it's very clear you made the claim that
KW > I wrote what you knew Dan wrote, intentionally.
Could you please diagram that sentence?
KW > I don't see how my having been a
KW > member of Mensa factors in. Please explain.
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
Kent Wills
I didn't claim he posted the same message.
Is there a specific reason you are lying and claiming I made such
a claim?
--
"Exterminieren! Exterminieren! "
-- The Daleks 'Doctor Who: Journey's End'
>[. . .]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kent Wills
That's the term now. At one time, it was Universal. Then it was
both. NOW it's Uniform.
--
"What's Bad Wolf?"
"The end of the Universe."
-- Doctor Who 'Left Turn'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Since you've chosen to play games,
>KW > it's very clear you made the claim that
>KW > I wrote what you knew Dan wrote, intentionally.
>
>Could you please diagram that sentence?
Yes.
Is there a specific reason that you're trying, and failing, to
distract form the fact that you LIED and claimed I wrote what you knew
Dan wrote, and posted the same thing twice?
>
>KW > I don't see how my having been a
>KW > member of Mensa factors in. Please explain.
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
A link to a page about someone you don't think is me makes no
sense to me.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Gregory Scott Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Dan Sullivan
> KW > Since you've chosen to play games,
> KW > it's very clear you made the claim that
> KW > I wrote what you knew Dan wrote, intentionally.
>
> Could you please diagram that sentence?
Why?
You're not bright enough to understand a sentence with an adverb in
it, grag?
Delete the adverb and see if you can.
Dan Sullivan
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
>
> >KW > Since you've chosen to play games,
> >KW > it's very clear you made the claim that
> >KW > I wrote what you knew Dan wrote, intentionally.
>
> >Could you please diagram that sentence?
>
> Yes.
> Is there a specific reason that you're trying, and failing, to
> distract form the fact that you LIED and claimed I wrote what you knew
> Dan wrote, and posted the same thing twice?
grag's trolling for a discussion.
no one talks to him where he lives so...
Deadrat
912f-bc4...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
Try a fixed pitch font and a long line length.
\to play | games
you | (ha)ve chosen| ---------|------
----|--------------|-----------|---
|
|Since
|
it| i(s) | \ clear
--|----------\----------------------
| \ |
\very | (that)
\ |
Dan | wrote | what
| you | made | claim
--------------------
-------|------|-----------------
|
| \ \ | you
| knew | |
\ \the |that
----|------|-----
\ | |
|
\intentionally | |
\ | I | wrote | |
-------|-------
|-----
|
Greg Goss
>KW > Aside from attributing to Dan that which he wrote
>KW > (you LIED and claimed I wrote it in your other post),
>
>You mean I LIED in the deleted first version?
>You accuse me of telling a LIE (misattribution)
>in a message that I deleted and replaced
>with a version that had corrected attribution?
Most usenet servers don't accept deletions. It is too easy for people
to forge deletions of messages that offend them, so the servers
stopped accepting any deletions. This is the source of the confusion.
You thought you deleted the wrong one, but most of us still see it.
Greegor
KW > (you LIED and claimed I wrote it in your other post),
G > You mean I LIED in the deleted first version?
G > You accuse me of telling a LIE (misattribution)
G > in a message that I deleted and replaced
G > with a version that had corrected attribution?
Goss > Most usenet servers don't accept deletions.
Goss > It is too easy for people to forge deletions
Goss > of messages that offend them, so the
Goss > servers stopped accepting any deletions.
Yes, I know about the "rogue cancel" problems.
They've been discussed in the ascps newsgroup
before.
Goss > This is the source of the confusion.
Not really.
Kent Wills claimed the two posts were "identical".
I challenged Kent on that point.
Then you (Goss) appeared, on cue, perfectly timed.
What an amazing coincidence!
Greg Goss
Except that I specifically pointed out that the two posts were NOT
identical. Coincidence?
Greegor
KW > (you LIED and claimed I wrote it in your other post),
G > You mean I LIED in the deleted first version?
G > You accuse me of telling a LIE (misattribution)
G > in a message that I deleted and replaced
G > with a version that had corrected attribution?
Goss > Most usenet servers don't accept deletions.
Goss > It is too easy for people to forge deletions
Goss > of messages that offend them, so the
Goss > servers stopped accepting any deletions.
G > Yes, I know about the "rogue cancel" problems.
G > They've been discussed in the ascps newsgroup
G > before.
Goss > This is the source of the confusion.
G > Not really.
G > Kent Wills claimed the two posts were "identical".
G >
G > I challenged Kent on that point.
G > Then you (Goss) appeared, on cue, perfectly timed.
G > What an amazing coincidence!
Goss > Except that I specifically pointed
Goss > out that the two posts were NOT
Goss > identical. Coincidence?
Which saved Kent the trouble of acknowledging that.
Dragon's Girl
Heaven forbid that when LK make a statement in regard to many people
reading here, just not posting, that it actually turn out to be true!
Greegor
Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen (Witchwirsen,Dragonsgirl) wrote
BW > Heaven forbid that when LK make a statement
BW > in regard to many people reading here, just not
BW > posting, that it actually turn out to be true!
Thanks for reminding me!
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
WIGGINS, Justice.
II. Scope of Review.
III. Analysis.
Id. § 702.12.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. Disposition.
AFFIRMED.
http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame
( Start a case search here. )
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/SelectFrame
( Trial Court - Case Search )
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
( Wills (Tab key) Kent (Tab key) Bradley (Search) )
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 STAN201670 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS, KENT
BRADLEY 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 STAN210929 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS, KENT
BRADLEY 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT WILLS WILLS, KENT
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT WILLS WILLS, KENT
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRESIDENT/RICHARD BURGESS VS KENT
WILLS WILLS, KENT DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRESIDENT/RICHARD BURGESS VS KENT
WILLS WILLS, KENT DEFENDANT
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
Kent Wills
Not surprisingly, the post Greg LIED and claimed to have deleted
is still available on Google. Since Greg uses Google, probably
exclusively, he must know how to delete posts from the service. This
is how I can state without fear of rational denial, that the post is
still there.
But don't take my word for it, check for yourself:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/c53bc588c9ad0b42
--
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll
cripple you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out,
I'll be able to walk,but you will still be a cripple."
--Greg Hanson, in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Aside from attributing to Dan that which he wrote
>KW > (you LIED and claimed I wrote it in your other post),
>
>G > You mean I LIED in the deleted first version?
>G > You accuse me of telling a LIE (misattribution)
>G > in a message that I deleted and replaced
>G > with a version that had corrected attribution?
>
>Goss > Most usenet servers don't accept deletions.
>Goss > It is too easy for people to forge deletions
>Goss > of messages that offend them, so the
>Goss > servers stopped accepting any deletions.
>
>Yes, I know about the "rogue cancel" problems.
>They've been discussed in the ascps newsgroup
>before.
>
>Goss > This is the source of the confusion.
>
>Not really.
>Kent Wills claimed the two posts were "identical".
I keep telling you, if you're going to lie, make certain the lie
can't be proved. See Message-ID:
<v6ol74ll3h2k252ig...@4ax.com> in which I write, " Do
you think posting the exact same thing more than once will get
you anything?"
This was in regards to the part I quoted, as you know, but are
psychologically UNABLE to admit, since doing so would mean being
honest. Honesty is something you can't handle.
>
>I challenged Kent on that point.
And I proved you the liar you are. Just as I've done with this
post.
>Then you (Goss) appeared, on cue, perfectly timed.
When you post to various groups, you invited everyone reading
those groups to participate in the discussion. If you don't like it,
don't post to Usenet.
Even someone with your limited intellectual abilities should be
able to grasp this.
>What an amazing coincidence!
I don't see how someone replying to you is a coincidence.
I'm sure you've already checked Greg Goss' posting history. If,
as you have tried to imply, he is me, then you have a real problem
with another of your lies.
You've taken the position that I was incarcerated for a good part
of 2004. However, Mr. Gross doesn't have much a of lack of posts for
the year.
If he is me, then I couldn't have been incarcerate. If he is not
me, then you'll need to explain why you've been lying via innuendo in
your accusation that he is me.
Either way you've screwed yourself. Again.
It's like you WANT to have your lies exposed. Do you actually
sit and think it out? Do you see how easy exposing your lies will be,
then decide, "Yes, Kent (or whomever) will expose this lie in short
order, so I will post it!"?
Serious question.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? You've never answered this question. You've opted to
either play the avoidance game, or outright lie.
Kent Wills
I didn't claim they were. That's one of the MANY well known and
documented lies of Gregory Scott Hanson.
I quoted a specific part of the posts and asked, "Do you think
posting the exact same thing more than once will get you anything?"
Please see Message-ID: <v6ol74ll3h2k252ig...@4ax.com>
Sadly, Greg is unable to be honest. Seriously. His mind is so
messed up from whatever (I suspect a checkered pharmaceutical past,
but have no way to confirm or deny my suspicion), that honesty is not
an option for him.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Greg Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Kent Wills
I didn't claim both were identical.
Is there a specific reason you're LYING and claiming via your
trademark deceptive innuendo, that I did?
The parts I quoted were identical. 100% identical.
Oh, your post where you LIED and claimed I wrote that which you
knew I did not is still on Google.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
Kent Wills
I don't see what LK's posts have to do with Greg's lying about
what I asked. Have I missed something specific? I have been out of
town for a week :)
BTW, the card should arrive soon.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > Which saved Kent the trouble of acknowledging that.
>
>Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen (Witchwirsen,Dragonsgirl) wrote
>BW > Heaven forbid that when LK make a statement
>BW > in regard to many people reading here, just not
>BW > posting, that it actually turn out to be true!
>
>Thanks for reminding me!
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
Proof that Greg, by the very definition he's posted to accuse
others of stalking him, is stalking me removed.
You have a problem, Greg. You've presented the position that Greg
Goss is me. He's been posting since June of 2002. Maybe earlier, but
the profile for the address he currently uses begins in June of 2002.
If, as you have deceptively implied, he and I are the same person,
then you'll need to explain how I was posting while I was supposedly
incarcerated.
Either explain it, or admit that you've lied again.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
Why are you posting that which you KNOW is a lie? Specifically:
>http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>
>alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Greg Goss
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:27:40 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>Greegor <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snipped by GJG}
> Not surprisingly, the post Greg LIED and claimed to have deleted
>is still available on Google. Since Greg uses Google, probably
>exclusively, he must know how to delete posts from the service. This
>is how I can state without fear of rational denial, that the post is
>still there.
When replying to a thread where Greg is arguing with Greeg, I would
appreciate a bit more clarity when discussing who is "lying".
> But don't take my word for it, check for yourself:
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/c53bc588c9ad0b42
--
Dan Sullivan
> Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:27:40 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>
> [snipped by GJG}
>
> > Not surprisingly, the post Greg LIED and claimed to have deleted
> >is still available on Google. Since Greg uses Google, probably
> >exclusively, he must know how to delete posts from the service. This
> >is how I can state without fear of rational denial, that the post is
> >still there.
>
> When replying to a thread where Greg is arguing with Greeg, I would
> appreciate a bit more clarity when discussing who is "lying".
greg hanson is always the liar..
Greg Goss
> You have a problem, Greg. You've presented the position that Greg
>Goss is me. He's been posting since June of 2002. Maybe earlier, but
>the profile for the address he currently uses begins in June of 2002.
Hmmm. I think of the domain name as a Christmas present to myself in
whichever year. Surely I started using it long before June.
Prior to this address, I used go...@mindlink.com, which, oddly enough,
is not a "Mindlink" address. That address is still live.
Prior to that, I used my Mindlink account, which (as one account)
might have been presented as greg...@mindlink.net,
greg...@mindlink.bc.ca, a...@mindlink.net, or a...@mindlink.bc.ca.
Dogbreath.com also resolved to the same machines, but I never used
that. Earlier still, but still at Mindlink, I was
uunet!rsoft!mindlink!a80 in 86 to 89 or so.
I've long since forgotten my Compuserve (1984-1985) numeric address or
my various fidonet addresses.
Kent Wills
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:27:40 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Greegor <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[snipped by GJG}
>
>> Not surprisingly, the post Greg LIED and claimed to have deleted
>>is still available on Google. Since Greg uses Google, probably
>>exclusively, he must know how to delete posts from the service. This
>>is how I can state without fear of rational denial, that the post is
>>still there.
>
>When replying to a thread where Greg is arguing with Greeg, I would
>appreciate a bit more clarity when discussing who is "lying".
It was and is Gregory Scott Hanson. Since you didn't claim to have
deleted any post, I would hope those reading would understand I don't
mean you.
If there is any question, the Greg to which I was referring is
Gregory Scott Hanson.
>
>> But don't take my word for it, check for yourself:
>>
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/c53bc588c9ad0b42
--
Kent Wills
It doesn't really matter. The current address shows you've
posted since 2002. At least one post each month since then. I didn't
do a detailed inspection of your posting history, since it wasn't
needed.