Re: LIVE My Controversial WCW W2's
OverLord Hatred
~I??????~ <sck...@lycos.com> wrote:
> For a limited time, via web cam
>
> http://apwwsincubus.ww.com/
Well that settles that!
OverLord Hatred
~I??????~ <sck...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 17:30:33 GMT, in rec.sport.pro-wrestling OverLord
> Hatred <rspw_hat...@spammelateryahoo.com> threatened to touch my
> Peppie unless I responded to this post:
> Some where, a fat man's dancing. Seriously, I felt my house shake!
No--I was walking across my room :(
the Bede
news:rspw_hatemachine-2D...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Allan J. Benson
> For a limited time,
How convenient.
> via web cam
Somehow I knew you wouldn't take John Henry up on his
offer to be an impartial judge or post it for us all
to see. Come on, be a man.
--
*******************************************************
"Opinions are like assholes, everbody's got one."
- Clint Eastwood
Krusty
> ~Iñ©üßü§~, you know who I am. But you don't...know why...I'm here.> Well, it's fuzzy and the EID is unreadable, but it certainly isn't a
crayon
> drawing, and it doesn't look like a cheap attempt at fake.
>
> Short of holding the thing in my hand (or having a high-quality scan,
> understanding that you have no scanner), I see no way that any better
> evidence could be provided. The employer information, such as it is, is
> correct. The form looks as legit as it possibly could, given the poor
> quality of the image.
>
> I cannot objectively conclude that this is a fake. That said, the
> possibility exists that it *could* be a very bad image of a very good
fake,
> in which case there would be no way for me or anyone else to tell...and
> frankly, if you're willing to go through that much effort to bullshit
RSPW,
> I figure you deserve credit anyway.
>
> I would say I'm about 70% confident that this is a legit W2 in your name
> from WCW, with the caveat that I could not possibly be MORE than 70%
> certain of the authenticity of *any* image of this low quality.
>
> Point to you.
Good job Inc.
I'll go on record as saying that I'm pretty convinced you're the real deal
as well.
I'm glad you did that.
Krusty
> ~Iñ©üßü§~ (sck...@lycos.com) writes:
> > For a limited time,
>
> How convenient.
>
> > via web cam
>
> Somehow I knew you wouldn't take John Henry up on his
> offer to be an impartial judge or post it for us all
> to see. Come on, be a man.
I think he did. I mean, I think he posted it for John and John looked it
over and agreed. I agreed as well, because it appears to be a very legit W2.
No faking, no effort to conceal anything...all in all it pretty much shut
the fuck up anyone who was doubting him, and in a prety resounding manner.
Allan J. Benson
> ~Iñ©üßü§~, you know who I am. But you don't...know why...I'm here.
>
>> For a limited time, via web cam
>>
>> http://apwwsincubus.ww.com/
>
> Well, it's fuzzy and the EID is unreadable, but it certainly isn't a crayon
> drawing, and it doesn't look like a cheap attempt at fake.
>
> Short of holding the thing in my hand (or having a high-quality scan,
> understanding that you have no scanner), I see no way that any better
> evidence could be provided. The employer information, such as it is, is
> correct. The form looks as legit as it possibly could, given the poor
> quality of the image.
Looks like I spoke too soon, but I still find this web
cam solution rather than a clear scan awfully convenient,
considering how easy it is to get something scanned these
days.
However, since John seems to lean towards Incubus being
legit, I'll concede.
Although, whether it's good enough for everybody remains
to be seen.
Krusty
> to be seen.
lmao...
Bill Crawford
news:J%XFc.124301$tH1.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com:
Dittoheading...that damn sure looks like a suitably aged W2 form to
me. So what can Inc argue about now?
- bill (and so the great question is answered...)
Rockboy
> Looks like I spoke too soon, but I still find this web
> cam solution rather than a clear scan awfully convenient,
> considering how easy it is to get something scanned these
> days.
Dude, are you willing to clearly scan your T4s and make them available
on the internet? I wouldn't. Even if you fuzz out most of the data,
you're giving someone a very nice template to start with.
--
Rockboy
One day you'll wake up and they'll be
Advertising on police cars
Allan J. Benson
> Allan J. Benson wrote:
>
>> Looks like I spoke too soon, but I still find this web
>> cam solution rather than a clear scan awfully convenient,
>> considering how easy it is to get something scanned these
>> days.
>
> Dude, are you willing to clearly scan your T4s and make them available
> on the internet? I wouldn't. Even if you fuzz out most of the data,
> you're giving someone a very nice template to start with.
I wouldn't either, but I never made vague claims to
working for WCW and expected to be taken at face
value. I'll say that Incubus has some guts though.
Given that he met the criteria John Henry and myself
set and the number and of people who saw his proof
and say there's a good chance it's legit, I'll say
he's proven himself enough for me.
Allan J. Benson
Yeah, okay, I'm eating some crow here.
The Keeper
"Chad Bryant" <use...@nospam.chadbryant.net> wrote in message
> The fact that he can only wave it around on a crude webcam and not submit
> it for an actual analysis speaks volumes.
I usually just lurk here but I thought I would respond to this.
First off, I don't much like Chad but as a veteran, I give him respect for
joining the military in these times. That shows me something.... and I
agree with many of his political views.
Unfortunately Chad, you handling of this doesn't show me much. I saw the
web cast of the form and it looked legit to me... and from the others
replying, it appears that the concensus is that it is most likely legit.
Others have sucked it up and said they accept it and let the matter end. It
is too bad that you let your anger or dislike for someone over-ride you
ability to make a rational decision.
You are going to find that you will make a lot of mistakes in your life and
the best way to deal with them is to acknowledge them, make amends and move
on. In the grand scheme of things, this is not a big mistake and it is not
worth continuing a pointless argument.
Someone posted: "It's not conclusive enough for a court of law, but it's
good enough for
me to consider this a closed case." Very nice and my compliments to
whomever wrote it.
Suck it up, do the right thing and put this behind you. Inc was a stand-up
guy on this... now it is your turn.
The Keeper
Nemesis
Benson) with the help of a thousand monkeys banging on keyboards, was
finally able to type out the following:
>"Krusty" (are-es-pee-do...@yahoo.com) writes:
>> "Allan J. Benson" <cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
>>> ~Iñ©üßü§~ (sck...@lycos.com) writes:
>>> > For a limited time,
>>>
>>> How convenient.
>>>
>>> > via web cam
>>>
>>> Somehow I knew you wouldn't take John Henry up on his
>>> offer to be an impartial judge or post it for us all
>>> to see. Come on, be a man.
>>
>> I think he did. I mean, I think he posted it for John and John looked it
>> over and agreed. I agreed as well, because it appears to be a very legit W2.
>> No faking, no effort to conceal anything...all in all it pretty much shut
>> the fuck up anyone who was doubting him, and in a prety resounding manner.
>
>Yeah, okay, I'm eating some crow here.
I don't think you were the person that they were talking about.
--
Nemesis
ICQ #4610826
Allan J. Benson
Well, it's harder to convince some people than others.
Heelgod
>
> Good job Inc.
>
> I'll go on record as saying that I'm pretty convinced you're the real deal
> as well.
>
> I'm glad you did that.
I stopped caring long ago. Not enough to refrain from posting this, but
enough to demonstrate a general indifference.
-Heelgod