Kimberly K Barnard (Kali) (262) 595-2669 Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
Orville Wright
(262) 595-2669
Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
Kali
sini...@liripipe.com said:
: 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" <Orv...@deafemail.net>
: licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
:
: >Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet):
: What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali,
: you nadless asswipe?
Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
me by posting my office address to Usenet.
Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
information about both Cranston and Young to network services
and the police, and there will be an investigation.
: Widdershins
:
: If ignorance is bliss, Guth must be orgasmic.
Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
Card XII
"Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
news:ev0e0e$nn$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Keep up the good fight, Kali.
As usual, people recognize the work of nonads and lose even more respect for
them.
If I were one of the harassers, I would worry. They have crossed a couple
of legal lines.
card xii
marcia
> In <3vc71353cojg7l0ua7tnggkqgpvkneq...@4ax.com>, Widdershins
> sinis...@liripipe.com said:
> : 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" <Orvi...@deafemail.net>
> : licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
> :
> : >Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
> : >(262) 595-2669
> : >Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
> :
> : What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali,
> : you nadless asswipe?
>
> Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
> me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>
> Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
> the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
> when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
> well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
>
> The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
> of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
> concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
> reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
> morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
> information about both Cranston and Young to network services
> and the police, and there will be an investigation.
>
> : Widdershins
> :
> : If ignorance is bliss, Guth must be orgasmic.
>
> Kali
And don't forget Brad, who recently resurrected himself on usenet and
has a history of going rl on people (my money's on Cranston, tho).
This is despicable behavior.
Fortunately, you've worked at the college long enough your colleagues
know you would never harass them. Hang in.
marcia
Rhonda Lea Kirk
news:1175705223.5...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
Got any evidence for that libel?
Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come out of
this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the email.
> This is despicable behavior.
Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as it
gets.
> Fortunately, you've worked at the college long enough your colleagues
> know you would never harass them. Hang in.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
If you ever need some proof that time can heal your wounds,
just step inside my heart and walk around these rooms;
where the shadows used to be.... Mary Chapin Carpenter
Daedalus
>In <3vc71353cojg7l0ua...@4ax.com>, Widdershins
>sini...@liripipe.com said:
>: 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" <Orv...@deafemail.net>
>: licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>:
>: >Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
>: >(262) 595-2669
>: >Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
>:
>: What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali,
>: you nadless asswipe?
>
>Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
>me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>
>Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
>the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
>when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
>well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
>
>The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
>of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
>concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
>reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
>morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
>information about both Cranston and Young to network services
>and the police, and there will be an investigation.
>
My money's on Bowtie. Whoever it is, I hope we get to award with a
very entertaining Bobo very soon. They deserve a good RL ass kicking.
You did the right thing, Kali.
Jade
Daedalus
Expressing her opinion is not libel. I did the same thing.
>
>Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come out of
>this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the email.
>
I agree with you.
>> This is despicable behavior.
>
>Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as it
>gets.
>
If I read Kali's email right, one or several of her colleagues first
contacted the police. We have no idea what was in those emails. It
could have been death threats. It was something upsetting enough that
deleting and ignoring them did not seem wise to the people that
received them.
Kali, possibly knowing something about the incident, was obliged to
provide the info she knew to authorities. I believe strongly in civic
duties, anyway.
By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
Jade
ThePsyko
and heard Daedalus cry out in
news:v4n71317fan6rqoac...@4ax.com...
seems like typical kooky stalker behavior...
stalker sends threats to victim outside of usenet
victim contacts authorities
stalker complains victim crossed the line by going RL
--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7
Pissing off the planet, one person at a time.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
news:v4n71317fan6rqoac...@4ax.com
As do I. And I will supply any and all information in my possession that
might assist in clearing Mike's name.
> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
>
> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
Daedalus
<rhon...@gmail.com> wrote:
And you should, if you feel strongly about it. I don't think the
police will have a difficult time figuring out he didn't do it. This
is classic Bowtie behavior.
>
>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
>> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
>> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
>>
>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>
>Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
I don't know. Kali doesn't know Mike that well. He's been posting RL
info about her just because she called him a dogfucker, but moreso to
get back at other people, which is irrational on a Steve Chaney level.
His outing posts look pretty much the same as Bowtie's. We know Bowtie
harasses people in RL all the time. I'm not sure I wouldn't have drawn
the same conclusion about Mike if I were in her position.
This whole thing has escalated to ridiculous proportions. This is
exactly why "No RL" is a hallowed usenet mantra that has been
understood by everyone but the k00ks for ages. When you fuck around in
RL, you could get fucked in RL. Somebody is about to learn that lesson
and deserves to.
Jade
Linda
> "marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
Ahem!
Kimberly K Barnard is a mythomaniac.
Why believe anything a mythomaniac like Kimberly K Barnard "says"?.
It's highly likely the emails and investigation are a figment of
Kimberly K Barnard's imagination.
The SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring can instigate the mass hysteria
necessary to escalate the crimes being committed against Cranston
and Young and Brad and all the many other people whom the AUK/SPP
Criminal Stalking Ring will publicly accuse of authoring/sending the
alleged emails by merely publishing an articles wherein Kimberly K
Barnard *says* .. "Someone forged my name and harassed several of my
colleagues at the University this morning.
Even if the alleged emails do exist, their most likely author is
either Kimberly K Barnard or one of the other members of the SPP/AUK
Criminal Stalking Ring.
Kimberly K Barnard and the rest of the SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring
are all VENGE stalkers.
The overwhelming majority of VENGE stalkers FABRICATE evidence to
manufacture the perception that the Stalkers are the victims, and the
victims are the stalkers.
Therefore, IF the alleged emails exist---Kimberly K Barnard or one of
the other members of the SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring is/are the
most likely author of the emails.
Barnard and her confederates motive for going so far as to fabricate
evidence against their prey----is to escalate the pressure against
their prey so the prey isn't only the victim of all the crimes the SPP/
AUK Criminal Stalkers are committing against them---but, also the
target of a bogus police investigation.
Furthermore, the SPP Criminal stalkers fabrication of evidence of
harassing emails can be used to recruit LEA to get LEA to l turn over
personally identifying info about their prey to the SPP/AUK Crimianl
stalkers....which the SPP and AUK Criminal Stalkers can plaster all
over the WWW.
If Cranston is an attorney---Cranston might wish to consider filing a
restraining order enjoining Kimberly K Barnard and the other members
the SPP/AUK Stalking Ring (Vince Lamb, Sean Monahan, Leola Stilmack,
Judith Fitzgerald, Jamie Eckles, Carl Osterwald, Albert C. Young,
Sharon Burton, Anthony Jenkins, Steve Whitacre, Daniel L Rogers,
John/Jane Doe 1-100 etc.) from posting any accusations about Cranston
owing to the fact that Kimberly K Barnard is a member of the SPP/AUK
Criminal Stalking Ring and their publishing accusations against people
place the lives of the people they post accusations about in
UNESTIMABLE DANGER.
As a matter of fact, every past and present target of the SPP
Criminal Stalking Ring ought to consider getting a restraining order
enjoining Kimberly K Barnard, R. Vince Lamb, Sean Monaghan, Jamie
Eckles, Albert C. Young, Carl R. Osterwald, Steve Whitacer, Sharon
Burton, Judith Fitzgerald, Daniel L. Rogers, Leola Stilmack, and
John and Jane Does 1-100 from publishing ANY accusations about them
having authored the emails---because of Barnard history of getting
lots of milage out of alleged emails---by publicly accusing one person
after another after another after another of authoring sending the
emails---placing the lives of a dozen people in unestimable danger.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
[snip]
How the fuck did this crap get cross-posted to sci.electronics.design?
Knock it off!
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Daedalus
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 10:01 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
ROTFLMAOPIMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure they're glad to have you on the team, Linda.
As soon as a law is passed allowing restraining orders against people
talking about other people, I'm sure he'll get right on it.
Jade
Daedalus
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On 4 Apr 2007 11:50:19 -0700, "Linda" <Indomi...@netzero.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>How the fuck did this crap get cross-posted to sci.electronics.design?
>
>Knock it off!
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Don't worry. I'll take care of this for you. Sorry about the
intrusion.
Jade
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Please look at the post outing Snarky's "address" and tell me if you
think that's Bowtie's work too.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/3a949e77d819a20c?dmode=source
I guess my question is, can Steve forge the IP in a post made through
google? If not, someone with a Shaw account is also involved in the
current outing flurry.
I guess the question is, who has an account with Shaw
>>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
>>> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
>>> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
>>>
>>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>>
>> Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
>
> I don't know. Kali doesn't know Mike that well. He's been posting RL
> info about her just because she called him a dogfucker, but moreso to
> get back at other people, which is irrational on a Steve Chaney level.
> His outing posts look pretty much the same as Bowtie's. We know Bowtie
> harasses people in RL all the time. I'm not sure I wouldn't have drawn
> the same conclusion about Mike if I were in her position.
I am not going to argue this with you, because there's no telling what
conclusions people will draw about any set of facts. On the other hand,
not all facts are known to everyone involved.
> This whole thing has escalated to ridiculous proportions. This is
> exactly why "No RL" is a hallowed usenet mantra that has been
> understood by everyone but the k00ks for ages.
Unfortunately, there are kookologists who use kook tactics but call them
something else. Mike knows I don't approve of the real-lifing overall,
but it would put me in one hell of a contradictory position to say he's
wrong to do it, but it's okay for them.
As it is, I can only look at it as Mike have leveled the playing field
each time the ante got upped--which, from a chronological perspective,
is a precise statement of events.
> When you fuck around in
> RL, you could get fucked in RL. Somebody is about to learn that lesson
> and deserves to.
I totally agree.
Aratzio
proposed:
>On 4 Apr 2007 11:50:19 -0700, "Linda" <Indomi...@netzero.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>How the fuck did this crap get cross-posted to sci.electronics.design?
With a cross post?
>
>Knock it off!
>
Knock what off?
For the record, Linda is a bit on the kooky side of things. Well,
okay, she is a raging paranoid nut flap. She belongs to the gang in
SPP. But if you would like I am sure they could share Goofy,
Two-Shitz, Jesness and a few other balls of raging usenet lunacy with
you also.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Aratzio - Usenet ruiner #2
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
You are such a caring person.
The Secretary of HomIntern
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:11:24 -0400, Daedalus <ja...@netk0o0oks.org>
> transparently proposed:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:57:01 -0700, Jim Thompson
>> <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Apr 2007 11:50:19 -0700, "Linda" <Indomi...@netzero.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> How the fuck did this crap get cross-posted to sci.electronics.design?
>>>
>>> Knock it off!
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>> Don't worry. I'll take care of this for you. Sorry about the
>> intrusion.
>>
>> Jade
>
> You are such a caring person.
>
Linda
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2007 11:50:19 -0700, "Linda" <Indomitab...@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> How the fuck did this crap get cross-posted to sci.electronics.design?
It's not crap.
Two plus years ago, Kimberly K Barnard placed the lives of me and
mine in unestimable danger, when, out of the clear blue, Kimberly K
Barnard stalked me into my home ng and posted posts *saying* her
university advisor received emails about her usenet activites, and,
falsely accusing me (who had never even had an exchange with Barnard)
of being responsible for authoring/sending them.
The crimes committed against me and mine following Kimberly K
Barnard's leveling false accusations against me were crimes
necessitating the removal of my child(ren) from their school to
preclude my child(ren) from being kidnapped, sexually assaulted, set
on fire, killed etc by any of the convicted child molesters,
convicted arsonists, 2 time killers, who participate in the criminal
vigilante stalking organized by the AUK/SPP Criminal Stalking Ring.
Once Kimberly K Barnard had successfully destroyed the lives of my
child(ren)---Kimberly K Barnard ceased accusing me, and began placing
the lives of one person after another in unestimable danger by falsely
accusing them of having authored/sent the ALLLEGED email to her
university advisor.
Now that Kimberly K Barnard is once again "saying" someone sent
emails to her university colleagues---accompanied by public
accusations against specified person(s) ...every dang person whom
Barnard hates needs to haul ass to a court of law and obtain a
restraining order enjoining Kimberly K Barnard, R. Vince Lamb, Sean
Monaghan, Albert C. Young, Carl R. Osterwald, Jamie Eckles, Steve
Whitacre, Leola Stilmack, Judith Fitzgerald, Peter J. Ross,
Daniel L Rogers, from publicly accusing them of authoring/sending the
alleged emails-----since the lives of both the accused and their loved
ones are place in unestimable danger whenever any of the members of
the SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring publicly accuse people of stuff
that may or may not have happened.
(Hate ng snipped, SED re-inserted).
ThePsyko
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If it were only that easy, I would have had one taken out against you
long ago.. but thanks for the idea..
Daedalus
wrote:
Oh stop your whining.
>Now that Kimberly K Barnard is once again "saying" someone sent
>emails to her university colleagues---accompanied by public
>accusations against specified person(s) ...every dang person whom
>Barnard hates needs to haul ass to a court of law and obtain a
>restraining order enjoining Kimberly K Barnard, R. Vince Lamb, Sean
>Monaghan, Albert C. Young, Carl R. Osterwald, Jamie Eckles, Steve
>Whitacre, Leola Stilmack, Judith Fitzgerald, Peter J. Ross,
>Daniel L Rogers, from publicly accusing them of authoring/sending the
>alleged emails-----since the lives of both the accused and their loved
>ones are place in unestimable danger whenever any of the members of
>the SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring publicly accuse people of stuff
>that may or may not have happened.
>
>(Hate ng snipped, SED re-inserted).
Linda, Jim was very clear that he wasn't interested in hearing it. By
our own insane definition, you are stalking and committing crimes
against him if you continue to address him. Leave Jim and his group
alone.
BTW - How do I get on your net.kook haet lits?
Jade
Honorable Professeur Von TwoSteps OA
Message-ID : <a2v713hij0q6co4vt...@4ax.com>
> I am sure they could share Goofy, Two-Shitz, Jesness and ... SNIP
Stop name dropping you *stoopid* rude slut
--
Honorable Professeur Von TwoSteps OA
*I* care
ThePsyko
4ax.com...
You have to be cool like me... don't actually do anything other than post
to SPP and call Linda a kook..
That's all I did and now she includes me in all her haet lits's...
It's the most I've ever accomplished without actually doing anything!
Honorable Professeur Von TwoSteps OA
Message-ID : <78181354qfd1k12tg...@4ax.com>
>BTW - How do I get on your net.kook haet lits?
>
>Jade
'caus you are a nasty bitch and deserve to be in it
Kali
rhon...@gmail.com said:
: "marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
That's not libel, Ms. Legal Eagle.
: Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come out of
: this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the email.
If he didn't have anything to do with it, then he has nothing to
worry about, eh?
: > This is despicable behavior.
:
: Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as it
: gets.
Nothing malicious about it in the least; it was my duty. If I
didn't include all obvious possibilities that I was aware of, I
could be suspected of maliciously pointing the finger at only
one person. Your hateful attempts to paint your projections
about my motives into the factual scenario won't work.
Of course nothing you say should be taken seriously. You've
obviously got a screw loose. You've been defending Cranston's
kooky stalking behavior of me and have quite obviously have been
outing confidential information I've shared with you in email to
Cranston - so stop projecting your maliciousness onto me. No
intelligent person will give any credence to your victim-blaming
and spiteful gossip.
: > Fortunately, you've worked at the college long enough your colleagues
: > know you would never harass them. Hang in.
Thanks, Marcia. They have been very supportive.
TheBookman
And information that might incriminate him?
>
>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
>> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
>> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
>>
>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>
> Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
I disagree. Kali was correct to provide information relevant to the
investigation, and source posts including her RL info (which might be
involved in the harassment at her workplace) might well be relevant. If
she has information which might tend to exonerate your buddy, then she
should include that, too.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
"Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler."
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.
WWFSMD?
Art Deco
>Kimberly Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of
>Psychology, wrote:
>>Widdershins said:
>>: 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" <Orv...@deafemail.net>
>>: licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>
>>: >Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
>>: >(262) 595-2669
>>: >Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
>
>>: What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali,
>>: you nadless asswipe?
>
>>Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
>>me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>
>Speak to your own motives and emotional states, and stop imagining
<looks at From: header>
<notches new UV point>
[whineage flushed]
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
Rhonda Lea Kirk
news:p7ptc6obw8dk.15d0nm9zwem8x$.d...@40tude.net
All the information I have. If they want, they can just review my hard
drive.
There isn't anything in my possession that will incriminate him.
He didn't do it.
If he had done it, and I knew about it, I wouldn't be sitting on my
hands, Bookman.
I lost my job, got blackballed and ended up unemployed for three years
because I turned in an employer--a lawyer--for unethical acts (in his
case, it was stealing). I liked the guy, and it was a good job.
But liking someone and self-interest have never been enough for me to do
what I believe to be the wrong thing.
>>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
>>> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
>>> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
>>>
>>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>>
>> Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
>
> I disagree. Kali was correct to provide information relevant to the
> investigation, and source posts including her RL info (which might be
> involved in the harassment at her workplace) might well be relevant.
> If she has information which might tend to exonerate your buddy, then
> she should include that, too.
Then she shouldn't have limited herself to Bowtie and Mike, should she?
Rhonda Lea Kirk
news:ev1445$ruf$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
What do you call it?
>> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
>> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
>> email.
>
> If he didn't have anything to do with it, then he has nothing to
> worry about, eh?
>
>>> This is despicable behavior.
>>
>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
>> it gets.
>
> Nothing malicious about it in the least; it was my duty.
I don't think including Mike was your duty, but you do. We disagree.
See below.
> If I
> didn't include all obvious possibilities that I was aware of, I
> could be suspected of maliciously pointing the finger at only
> one person.
There are a host of people who have posted your information or who have
it in for you. You narrowed it down to two.
> Your hateful attempts to paint your projections
> about my motives into the factual scenario won't work.
Well, we'll see what happens when the cops finish their investigation.
It's usually better not to talk about an ongoing investigation, though.
Did you let the police know you were going to announce it here?
> Of course nothing you say should be taken seriously. You've
> obviously got a screw loose.
I think that may have been true a few months ago. I wasn't in very good
shape given the unrelenting stress I was under.
But even though I still have a real mess to deal with in the aftermath,
my stress level is no longer over the top.
Is that a formal diagnosis, btw? Just curious.
> You've been defending Cranston's
> kooky stalking behavior of me
No more than I defended your calling him a dogfucker, i.e., not at all.
I know you don't see your culpability in this; that's been quite clear
from the start.
> and have quite obviously have been
> outing confidential information I've shared with you in email to
> Cranston
Now you've just outed yourself--kinda, I guess--although anyone would
have a hard time figuring out what you're referring to. As do I, and I
have the emails.
Or maybe you want to be really specific and explain to me and everyone
else what it is you think I've told him.
> - so stop projecting your maliciousness onto me. No
> intelligent person will give any credence to your victim-blaming
> and spiteful gossip.
More assertions without a shred of proof to back them up.
<snip>
marcia
It's not libel unless I make a formal accusation, a statement of fact.
I expressed an opinion (based on recent observed behavior), which is
protected speech.
Kali
rhon...@gmail.com said:
: "Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
An opinion; a guess; speculation.
: >> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
: >> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
: >> email.
: >
: > If he didn't have anything to do with it, then he has nothing to
: > worry about, eh?
Eh?
: >>> This is despicable behavior.
: >>
: >> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
: >> it gets.
: >
: > Nothing malicious about it in the least; it was my duty.
:
: I don't think including Mike was your duty, but you do. We disagree.
And you are the self-proclaimed arbitur of all things moral on
Usenet, but I just see you wanting to defend a stalker.
: See below.
:
: > If I
: > didn't include all obvious possibilities that I was aware of, I
: > could be suspected of maliciously pointing the finger at only
: > one person.
:
: There are a host of people who have posted your information or who have
: it in for you. You narrowed it down to two.
Are you privy to the contents of my report?
: > Your hateful attempts to paint your projections
: > about my motives into the factual scenario won't work.
:
: Well, we'll see what happens when the cops finish their investigation.
:
: It's usually better not to talk about an ongoing investigation,
Well if that's the case, then STFU, Rhonda.
: though.
: Did you let the police know you were going to announce it here?
:
: > Of course nothing you say should be taken seriously. You've
: > obviously got a screw loose.
:
: I think that may have been true a few months ago. I wasn't in very good
: shape given the unrelenting stress I was under.
You aren't the only person in the world dealing with stress, you
self-centered, moralistic whiner.
: But even though I still have a real mess to deal with in the aftermath,
: my stress level is no longer over the top.
:
: Is that a formal diagnosis, btw? Just curious.
Diagnosis of what?
: > You've been defending Cranston's
: > kooky stalking behavior of me
:
: No more than I defended your calling him a dogfucker, i.e., not at all.
: I know you don't see your culpability in this; that's been quite clear
: from the start.
I've been clear about it; your biased read of my view is another
matter.
: > and have quite obviously have been
: > outing confidential information I've shared with you in email to
: > Cranston
:
: Now you've just outed yourself--kinda, I guess--although anyone would
: have a hard time figuring out what you're referring to. As do I, and I
: have the emails.
You have dishonored yourself.
: Or maybe you want to be really specific and explain to me and everyone
: else what it is you think I've told him.
What for?
: > - so stop projecting your maliciousness onto me. No
: > intelligent person will give any credence to your victim-blaming
: > and spiteful gossip.
:
: More assertions without a shred of proof to back them up.
Oh there's plenty of back-up. You just provided it above.
Kali
rhon...@gmail.com said:
: "TheBookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
There is nothing in your possession that will exonerate him,
either. Duh, Rhonda?
: He didn't do it.
:
: If he had done it, and I knew about it, I wouldn't be sitting on my
: hands, Bookman.
:
: I lost my job, got blackballed and ended up unemployed for three years
: because I turned in an employer--a lawyer--for unethical acts (in his
: case, it was stealing). I liked the guy, and it was a good job.
Who cares about your long, sordid history of victimization? How
is it relevant here and now? Actually this second question is
probably a key one for you to ask yourself.
: But liking someone and self-interest have never been enough for me to do
: what I believe to be the wrong thing.
Your posts suggest otherwise. Do you still insist you are not
defending Cranston?
: >>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
: >>> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
: >>> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
: >>>
: >>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
: >>
: >> Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
: >
: > I disagree. Kali was correct to provide information relevant to the
: > investigation, and source posts including her RL info (which might be
: > involved in the harassment at her workplace) might well be relevant.
: > If she has information which might tend to exonerate your buddy, then
: > she should include that, too.
:
: Then she shouldn't have limited herself to Bowtie and Mike, should she?
There are two main things here that you don't know for a fact:
Whether Mike did it
What the contents of my report were.
So stop pontificating, ffs.
Demon Lord of Confusion
issue further by squeaking:
> On 4 Apr 2007 11:50:19 -0700, "Linda" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> How the fuck did this crap get cross-posted to sci.electronics.design?
Ask BowTie.
> Knock it off!
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Request DENIED.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069; Usenet Ruiner #5
The God of Odd Statements, the Ugliest Pigfucker In The Universe
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.
Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #16
Remove all the confusion and k00ks from my posting addy to send me your
sekrit messages.
Official Chung Demon
VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, March 2007
Message-ID: <Xns9905E2BDB827w...@204.153.245.131>
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/
AUK FAQ: http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html
WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, February 2007
Message-ID: <Xns98EE28E1C58ABw...@204.153.245.131>
"You are the GOD-DAMNED, IGNORANT LIAR here.
Now, that is not me taking the Lord's name in vain."
-- John Wentzky: Living proof of the Death of Irony, in Message-ID:
<jljOe.5348$ZD4.3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
I mourned:
> The Mop Jockey did most oddly state:
>> DUDE, YOU WIN TEH INTERNETS!!!
>>
>> the oversized check is in the mail.
>
> Alas, all I get for my trouble is a Monkey that's trained to hurl shit
> under several of my nyms.
"DevMcKinHole, you also get the pleasure of sucking off my doggy and
cleaning out his butthole with your tongue." -- He's not so much a
*Porch*Monkey as a _Fire_Monkey, as in one who's on fire due to his
own tendency to mess with lighter fluid while standing beside a hot
stove. Message-ID: <77Uxh.1996$384.1135@trnddc05>
Said I:
> You, Monkey-man, are quite possibly the only usenetter in existence
> who does not and cannot own Hatter.
"[...] What's the matter fagboi, am I beating your as$ so badly that
you're no seeking an alliance with the diaperboi?...YOu really don't
know how dumb you are, do ya?" -- I guess I don't, Monkey.
Message-ID: <gHVIh.1760$Bi2.1639@trnddc01>
"Ok, but I am not stalking Teh Mop Jockey, I seem to be building a
relationship with him. Remember, I am a Christian so the secular rules
do not apply to me. I strive to be amoral, which I think applies to this
situation. Keep this in mind, please. Since I am currently mentally ill
and since I can not nominate, that is what I am doing at this time." --
Olympiada: Teh amoral "Christian", in Message-ID:
<45e625dd$0$16280$8826...@free.teranews.com>
"You're like some kind of rabid attack-gerbil." -- Lionel Lauer to Joxer
in MID: <oorbs2pt3dc6b8t4a...@4ax.com>
"I say you are out of your fucking mind." -- Ying Guo, posting as
"SameAsB4" <exeb...@yanospamhoo.com>, tells PorchMonkey4Life, posting
as the same nick but a slightly different morph, the score, in MID:
<ka4lo.3...@news.alt.net>
"in the holy spirit i know you would satisfy every single person in a
room if you were the only person present." -- ~tanya, to Crazy Andy II,
in MID: <1167007805.9...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
If you never read anything else in any of my sigs, read this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
http://borealin.livejournal.com/15104.html
Or watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs
Then, if you manage to read/watch all that, try this:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
And Molly Ivins had a few choice words to say about it, weeks before:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092906B.shtml
Here's Chris Floyd: Fatal Vision: The Deeper Evil Behind the Detainee
Bill: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100206A.shtml
"Q: What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A: George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War." -- Anon.
Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart,
and the Order of the Holey Sockpuppet winner <wfh...@hotmail.com> on
outing personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so fucking scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.
"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pigfucker in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.
"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: <1156587081....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
"I am the only one who has outer filthed Ward" -- James C. "Crackhead"
Cracked voluntarily self-immolates, in MID:
1159678991.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
"When I told Abbie Hoffman that he was the first one who made me laugh
since Lenny Bruce died, Hoffman said, "Really? He was my god." The
combination of satirical irreverence and sense of justice that Bruce and
Hoffman shared was the real spirit behind the Yippies--a term I coined
to describe a phenomenon that already existed: an organic coalition of
stoned hippies and political activists who engaged in such actions as
throwing money on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, then
explaining to reporters the meaning of that symbolism. Folksinger Phil
Ochs summed it up: "A demonstration should turn you on, not turn you
off." So when journalists link the Yippies with misleading bedfellows,
at best it's careless shorthand; at worst it's deliberate demonization.
Osama bin Laden wanted an aircraft to crash into the Pentagon. Abbie
Hoffman merely wanted to levitate it." -- Paul Krassner,
http://tinyurl.com/ehu3v
To Whom It May Concern: Michael J. Cranston attorney kook is a dogfucker
John Fereira
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
> In <3vc71353cojg7l0ua...@4ax.com>, Widdershins
> sini...@liripipe.com said:
>: 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" <Orv...@deafemail.net>
>: licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>:
>: >Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
>: >(262) 595-2669
>: >Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
>:
>: What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali, you nadless
>: asswipe?
>
> Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
> me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>
> Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
> the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
> when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
> well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
FWIW, I've witness Cranston's usenet activities for 10 years and no matter
what you may think of him, that just doesn't sound like his style. Sending
harassing mail, forged in your name, but made to look like it was being
forged by miguel *does* seem like something someone else here would do.
> The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
> of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
> concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
> reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
> morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
> information about both Cranston and Young to network services
> and the police, and there will be an investigation.
So what you're saying is that an appropriate response to someone posting
words about you on the internet is to take it to real life by filing a
police report and specifically accusing someone that *may* have nothing to
do with this mornings incident? Why is justifiable when you take it to real
life but results in kook award nominations when someone who busts the chops
of kookologists does it?
ThePsyko
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:51:08 -0500, Kali <ka...@powder.keg> wrote:
>
>>In <3vc71353cojg7l0ua...@4ax.com>, Widdershins
>>sini...@liripipe.com said:
>>: 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" <Orv...@deafemail.net>
>>: licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>>:
>>: >Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
>>: >(262) 595-2669
>>: >Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
>>:
>>: What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali,
>>: you nadless asswipe?
>>
>>Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
>>me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>>
>>Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
>>the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
>>when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
>>well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
>>
>>The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
>>of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
>>concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
>>reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
>>morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
>>information about both Cranston and Young to network services
>>and the police, and there will be an investigation.
>>
>
> My money's on Bowtie. Whoever it is, I hope we get to award with a
> very entertaining Bobo very soon. They deserve a good RL ass kicking.
>
> You did the right thing, Kali.
>
> Jade
>
>
>
It does sound like a Bowtie job, IMO. I'm actually surprised he hasn't
stooped to this before (or maybe he has) - he certainly seems unhinged
enough to do it....
Kali
Fereira ja...@cornell.edu said:
: Kali <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in news:ev0e0e$nn$1
: @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
:
: > In <3vc71353cojg7l0ua...@4ax.com>, Widdershins
: > sini...@liripipe.com said:
: >: 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" <Orv...@deafemail.net>
: >: licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
: >:
: >: >Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
: >: >(262) 595-2669
: >: >Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
: >:
: >: What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali, you nadless
: >: asswipe?
: >
: > Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
: > me by posting my office address to Usenet.
: >
: > Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
: > the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
: > when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
: > well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
:
: FWIW, I've witness Cranston's usenet activities for 10 years and no matter
: what you may think of him, that just doesn't sound like his style. Sending
: harassing mail, forged in your name, but made to look like it was being
: forged by miguel *does* seem like something someone else here would do.
I would have no idea.
: > The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
: > of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
: > concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
: > reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
: > morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
: > information about both Cranston and Young to network services
: > and the police, and there will be an investigation.
:
: So what you're saying is that an appropriate response to someone posting
: words about you on the internet is to take it to real life by filing a
: police report and specifically accusing someone that *may* have nothing to
: do with this mornings incident? Why is justifiable when you take it to real
: life but results in kook award nominations when someone who busts the chops
: of kookologists does it?
You're a real clueless piece of work.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
"In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a
false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm
the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or
nation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
Also:
http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html
>>>> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
>>>> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
>>>> email.
>>>
>>> If he didn't have anything to do with it, then he has nothing to
>>> worry about, eh?
>
> Eh?
No one likes to be falsely accused.
He didn't email you, and he got an email of his own.
Should he have called the cops on Snarky?
>>>>> This is despicable behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
>>>> it gets.
>>>
>>> Nothing malicious about it in the least; it was my duty.
>>
>> I don't think including Mike was your duty, but you do. We disagree.
>
> And you are the self-proclaimed arbitur of all things moral on
> Usenet, but I just see you wanting to defend a stalker.
I have my opinion. You have yours. I could say the same thing about you
that you wrote about me above.
We'd still disagree.
I think Mike was stalked and hounded. We disagree about that too.
>> See below.
>>
>>> If I
>>> didn't include all obvious possibilities that I was aware of, I
>>> could be suspected of maliciously pointing the finger at only
>>> one person.
>>
>> There are a host of people who have posted your information or who
>> have it in for you. You narrowed it down to two.
>
> Are you privy to the contents of my report?
"I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
information about both Cranston and Young to network services
and the police, and there will be an investigation."
That's a select quote, not the entirety of what you wrote.
>>> Your hateful attempts to paint your projections
>>> about my motives into the factual scenario won't work.
>>
>> Well, we'll see what happens when the cops finish their
>> investigation.
>>
>> It's usually better not to talk about an ongoing investigation,
>
> Well if that's the case, then STFU, Rhonda.
If it were an investigation precipitated by me, I would.
>> though.
>> Did you let the police know you were going to announce it here?
>>
>>> Of course nothing you say should be taken seriously. You've
>>> obviously got a screw loose.
>>
>> I think that may have been true a few months ago. I wasn't in very
>> good shape given the unrelenting stress I was under.
>
> You aren't the only person in the world dealing with stress, you
> self-centered, moralistic whiner.
I know I'm not, but nonetheless, the point is that if you'd said that a
few months ago--that I have a screw loose--it might've been true. Now
it's not true.
>> But even though I still have a real mess to deal with in the
>> aftermath, my stress level is no longer over the top.
>>
>> Is that a formal diagnosis, btw? Just curious.
>
> Diagnosis of what?
Of having a screw loose.
>>> You've been defending Cranston's
>>> kooky stalking behavior of me
>>
>> No more than I defended your calling him a dogfucker, i.e., not at
>> all. I know you don't see your culpability in this; that's been
>> quite clear from the start.
>
> I've been clear about it; your biased read of my view is another
> matter.
Okay.
>>> and have quite obviously have been
>>> outing confidential information I've shared with you in email to
>>> Cranston
>>
>> Now you've just outed yourself--kinda, I guess--although anyone would
>> have a hard time figuring out what you're referring to. As do I, and
>> I have the emails.
>
> You have dishonored yourself.
I may have to keep a list of everything I'm alleged to have done just so
I don't forget what a bad person I am.
>> Or maybe you want to be really specific and explain to me and
>> everyone else what it is you think I've told him.
>
> What for?
You brought it up.
>>> - so stop projecting your maliciousness onto me. No
>>> intelligent person will give any credence to your victim-blaming
>>> and spiteful gossip.
>>
>> More assertions without a shred of proof to back them up.
>
> Oh there's plenty of back-up. You just provided it above.
I haven't said anything in this post that I haven't said all along.
ThePsyko
news:ev1890$5s6$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Perhaps he missed the part about "someone forged my name and harassed
several of my colleagues..."? Even though he replied to it of course?
I have a hard time seeing how anybody could consider that "words about
you on the internet"?
--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7
**Pissing off the planet, one person at a time**
ThePsyko
> On 4 Apr 2007 11:50:19 -0700, "Linda" <Indomi...@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 4, 10:01 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "marcia" <desi...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1175705223.5...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Apr 4, 10:51 am, Kali <k...@powder.keg> wrote:
>>> >> In <3vc71353cojg7l0ua7tnggkqgpvkneq...@4ax.com>, Widdershins
>>> >> sinis...@liripipe.com said:
>>> >>> 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright"
>>> >>> <Orvi...@deafemail.net>
>>> >>> licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
>>> >>>> (262) 595-2669
>>> >>>> Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
>>>
>>> >>> What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali,
>>> >>> you nadless asswipe?
>>>
>>> >> Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
>>> >> me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>>>
>>> >> Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
>>> >> the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
>>> >> when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
>>> >> well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
>>>
>>> >> The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
>>> >> of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
>>> >> concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
>>> >> reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
>>> >> morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
>>> >> information about both Cranston and Young to network services
>>> >> and the police, and there will be an investigation.
>>>
>>> >>> Widdershins
>>>
>>> >>> If ignorance is bliss, Guth must be orgasmic.
>>>
>>> >> Kali
>>>
>>> > And don't forget Brad, who recently resurrected himself on usenet
>>> > and has a history of going rl on people (my money's on Cranston,
>>> > tho).
>>>
>>> Got any evidence for that libel?
>>>
>>> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
>>> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
>>> email.
>>>
>>> > This is despicable behavior.
>>>
>>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
>>> it gets.
>>>
>>
>>Ahem!
>>
>>Kimberly K Barnard is a mythomaniac.
>>
>>Why believe anything a mythomaniac like Kimberly K Barnard "says"?.
>>
>>It's highly likely the emails and investigation are a figment of
>>Kimberly K Barnard's imagination.
>>
>>The SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring can instigate the mass hysteria
>>necessary to escalate the crimes being committed against Cranston
>>and Young and Brad and all the many other people whom the AUK/SPP
>>Criminal Stalking Ring will publicly accuse of authoring/sending the
>>alleged emails by merely publishing an articles wherein Kimberly K
>>Barnard *says* .. "Someone forged my name and harassed several of my
>>colleagues at the University this morning.
>>
>>Even if the alleged emails do exist, their most likely author is
>>either Kimberly K Barnard or one of the other members of the SPP/AUK
>>Criminal Stalking Ring.
>>
>>Kimberly K Barnard and the rest of the SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring
>>are all VENGE stalkers.
>>
>>The overwhelming majority of VENGE stalkers FABRICATE evidence to
>>manufacture the perception that the Stalkers are the victims, and the
>>victims are the stalkers.
>>
>>Therefore, IF the alleged emails exist---Kimberly K Barnard or one of
>>the other members of the SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring is/are the
>>most likely author of the emails.
>>
>>Barnard and her confederates motive for going so far as to fabricate
>>evidence against their prey----is to escalate the pressure against
>>their prey so the prey isn't only the victim of all the crimes the
>>SPP/ AUK Criminal Stalkers are committing against them---but, also
>>the target of a bogus police investigation.
>>
>>Furthermore, the SPP Criminal stalkers fabrication of evidence of
>>harassing emails can be used to recruit LEA to get LEA to l turn over
>>personally identifying info about their prey to the SPP/AUK Crimianl
>>stalkers....which the SPP and AUK Criminal Stalkers can plaster all
>>over the WWW.
>>
>>If Cranston is an attorney---Cranston might wish to consider filing a
>>restraining order enjoining Kimberly K Barnard and the other members
>>the SPP/AUK Stalking Ring (Vince Lamb, Sean Monahan, Leola Stilmack,
>>Judith Fitzgerald, Jamie Eckles, Carl Osterwald, Albert C. Young,
>>Sharon Burton, Anthony Jenkins, Steve Whitacre, Daniel L Rogers,
>>John/Jane Doe 1-100 etc.) from posting any accusations about Cranston
>>owing to the fact that Kimberly K Barnard is a member of the SPP/AUK
>>Criminal Stalking Ring and their publishing accusations against people
>>place the lives of the people they post accusations about in
>>UNESTIMABLE DANGER.
>>
>>As a matter of fact, every past and present target of the SPP
>>Criminal Stalking Ring ought to consider getting a restraining order
>>enjoining Kimberly K Barnard, R. Vince Lamb, Sean Monaghan, Jamie
>>Eckles, Albert C. Young, Carl R. Osterwald, Steve Whitacer, Sharon
>>Burton, Judith Fitzgerald, Daniel L. Rogers, Leola Stilmack, and
>>John and Jane Does 1-100 from publishing ANY accusations about them
>>having authored the emails---because of Barnard history of getting
>>lots of milage out of alleged emails---by publicly accusing one person
>>after another after another after another of authoring sending the
>>emails---placing the lives of a dozen people in unestimable danger.
>
>
> ROTFLMAOPIMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I'm sure they're glad to have you on the team, Linda.
>
> As soon as a law is passed allowing restraining orders against people
> talking about other people, I'm sure he'll get right on it.
>
> Jade
>
>
I don't even know who this Cranston person is.. why does kooky linda
think I would be spreading rumors about him?
oh.. wait.. just re-read some of her posts... that explains it all
lol@!!!
marcia
Well, it fails the "expressly stated or implied to be factual" test,
doesn't it? My specific words were, ..."my money's on Cranston." That
would never stand up as libel or defamation in a court of law, no
matter how much you may wish it would.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
That wasn't Bookman's question.
What's your point?
>> He didn't do it.
>>
>> If he had done it, and I knew about it, I wouldn't be sitting on my
>> hands, Bookman.
>>
>> I lost my job, got blackballed and ended up unemployed for three
>> years because I turned in an employer--a lawyer--for unethical acts
>> (in his case, it was stealing). I liked the guy, and it was a good
>> job.
>
> Who cares about your long, sordid history of victimization? How
> is it relevant here and now? Actually this second question is
> probably a key one for you to ask yourself.
Bookman asked me a question. I'll answer it my own way, but that's for
the analysis.
>> But liking someone and self-interest have never been enough for me
>> to do what I believe to be the wrong thing.
>
> Your posts suggest otherwise. Do you still insist you are not
> defending Cranston?
Kali, if you can prove, without contorting yourself into a pretzel, that
I'm defending Cranston, do so.
>>>>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved
>>>>> Kali with the police, not the other way around. They would be
>>>>> speaking to her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and
>>>>> Bowtie or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>>>>
>>>> Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Kali was correct to provide information relevant to the
>>> investigation, and source posts including her RL info (which might
>>> be involved in the harassment at her workplace) might well be
>>> relevant. If she has information which might tend to exonerate your
>>> buddy, then she should include that, too.
>>
>> Then she shouldn't have limited herself to Bowtie and Mike, should
>> she?
>
> There are two main things here that you don't know for a fact:
> Whether Mike did it
> What the contents of my report were.
I know what you posted. I take you at your word.
And I know Mike didn't do it.
> So stop pontificating, ffs.
I love loaded language. More please.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
I don't wish it would, and I didn't say it would stand up in a court of
law.
It's not actionable for more than one reason. What most people don't
understand is how ineffective defamation law is. But that doesn't mean
that such statements are okay.
Just FYI, don't put more on Cranston than you can afford to lose.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
news:Xns99089DE53E...@nntp.petitmorte.net
See: news:Xns9908BC2FE667...@66.250.146.128
Kali
thep...@itookmyprozac.com said:
: On 04 Apr 2007 I stormed the castle called sci.psychology.psychotherapy
This guy has reading comprehension problems - I've encountered
it before with him.
: I have a hard time seeing how anybody could consider that "words about
: you on the internet"?
There are a lot of stupid, thoughtless people on Usenet.
Cranston thinks he's got leverage over my reputation by posting
my RL information, but he's mistaken. It is, and always has
been, a safety issue for me. Even after I pointed that out to
him, he continued to do it. Today he escalated it. He doesn't
understand the close relationship I have with the chair; my
mentor, colleague, and friend, who is well aware of Usenet and
what goes on here, and who is the one who initially feared for
my safety and others involved, and reported the emails to
authorities. Now he has tried to intimidate me by suggesting
that if the chair discovers I've flamed ppl on Usenet, my job is
in jeapordy. He is sadly mistaken, but this speaks to his narrow
mindedness. Indeed; Cranston has made it very clear on several
different occasions that his primary motive for posting my RL
info is to cause damage to my career and reputation. Now he
can't understand how a post by him, including my RL information,
made on the same morning that the email forgeries occured, is
not evidence of threatening behavior that should be considered
in an investigation. He's not a very bright attorney, if he
really is one.
ThePsyko
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Perhaps I need more coffee, but I'm not seeing the connection between the
RL harassing of collegues and "words on the internet".. to me, once the
RL harassment has begun it's no longer "words on the internet" and the
target has every right to let their collegues know who or what they
suspect is behind the harassment. Oftentimes, that will necessitate the
filing of a police report, if for no other reason than to protect that
victim should this come back on them later.
Kali
rhon...@gmail.com said:
: "Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
That you do not know for a fact what he did or didn't do.
Get it now?
: >> He didn't do it.
: >>
: >> If he had done it, and I knew about it, I wouldn't be sitting on my
: >> hands, Bookman.
: >>
: >> I lost my job, got blackballed and ended up unemployed for three
: >> years because I turned in an employer--a lawyer--for unethical acts
: >> (in his case, it was stealing). I liked the guy, and it was a good
: >> job.
: >
: > Who cares about your long, sordid history of victimization? How
: > is it relevant here and now? Actually this second question is
: > probably a key one for you to ask yourself.
:
: Bookman asked me a question. I'll answer it my own way, but that's for
: the analysis.
Ah, well I know *I'm* tired of your irrelevant anecdotes, but
carry on.
: >> But liking someone and self-interest have never been enough for me
: >> to do what I believe to be the wrong thing.
: >
: > Your posts suggest otherwise. Do you still insist you are not
: > defending Cranston?
:
: Kali, if you can prove, without contorting yourself into a pretzel, that
: I'm defending Cranston, do so.
LOL. Unbelieveable.
: >>>>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved
: >>>>> Kali with the police, not the other way around. They would be
: >>>>> speaking to her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and
: >>>>> Bowtie or not.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
: >>>>
: >>>> Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
: >>>
: >>> I disagree. Kali was correct to provide information relevant to the
: >>> investigation, and source posts including her RL info (which might
: >>> be involved in the harassment at her workplace) might well be
: >>> relevant. If she has information which might tend to exonerate your
: >>> buddy, then she should include that, too.
: >>
: >> Then she shouldn't have limited herself to Bowtie and Mike, should
: >> she?
: >
: > There are two main things here that you don't know for a fact:
: > Whether Mike did it
: > What the contents of my report were.
:
: I know what you posted. I take you at your word.
No, you have a habit of twisting my words to suit yourself.
: And I know Mike didn't do it.
You feel certain that Mike didn't do it. I'm more agnostic about
it.
: > So stop pontificating, ffs.
:
: I love loaded language. More please.
Don't go loading more of your bizarre interpretations into my
posts, Rhonda. There's nothing here to read between the lines,
your habit of doing so notwithstanding.
Dr. Wee Hung Lo
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ev0lpu$kns$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
of
: this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the email.
:
You could only know that if you were with him the last 72hrs, every
minute of the day or....you did it yourself.
: > This is despicable behavior.
:
: Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as it
: gets.
:
Not very bright are you. :(
Had you read the post mixed in with a little reading comprehension you
would have noted that others called and reported well before Kali awoke.
:
: --
: Rhonda Lea Kirk
Rhonda Lea Kirk
No.
Bookman asked me if I would provide "information that might incriminate
him." I replied, "All the information I have."
Nothing in that had anything to do with whatever point you seem to want
to make.
>>>> He didn't do it.
>>>>
>>>> If he had done it, and I knew about it, I wouldn't be sitting on my
>>>> hands, Bookman.
>>>>
>>>> I lost my job, got blackballed and ended up unemployed for three
>>>> years because I turned in an employer--a lawyer--for unethical acts
>>>> (in his case, it was stealing). I liked the guy, and it was a good
>>>> job.
>>>
>>> Who cares about your long, sordid history of victimization? How
>>> is it relevant here and now? Actually this second question is
>>> probably a key one for you to ask yourself.
>>
>> Bookman asked me a question. I'll answer it my own way, but that's
>> for the analysis.
>
> Ah, well I know *I'm* tired of your irrelevant anecdotes, but
> carry on.
Thanks. But you don't have to read them if you don't want to. I won't
mind.
But I see I made a mistake. The sentence should've read: "Bookman asked
me a question. I'll answer it my own way, but *thanks* for the
analysis."
I need to start proofreading a little better.
>>>> But liking someone and self-interest have never been enough for me
>>>> to do what I believe to be the wrong thing.
>>>
>>> Your posts suggest otherwise. Do you still insist you are not
>>> defending Cranston?
>>
>> Kali, if you can prove, without contorting yourself into a pretzel,
>> that I'm defending Cranston, do so.
>
> LOL. Unbelieveable.
Well, at least you're laughing.
>>>>>>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved
>>>>>>> Kali with the police, not the other way around. They would be
>>>>>>> speaking to her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and
>>>>>>> Bowtie or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. Kali was correct to provide information relevant to
>>>>> the investigation, and source posts including her RL info (which
>>>>> might be involved in the harassment at her workplace) might well
>>>>> be relevant. If she has information which might tend to exonerate
>>>>> your buddy, then she should include that, too.
>>>>
>>>> Then she shouldn't have limited herself to Bowtie and Mike, should
>>>> she?
>>>
>>> There are two main things here that you don't know for a fact:
>>> Whether Mike did it
>>> What the contents of my report were.
>>
>> I know what you posted. I take you at your word.
>
> No, you have a habit of twisting my words to suit yourself.
Ah.
>> And I know Mike didn't do it.
>
> You feel certain that Mike didn't do it. I'm more agnostic about
> it.
That's fine.
>>> So stop pontificating, ffs.
>>
>> I love loaded language. More please.
>
> Don't go loading more of your bizarre interpretations into my
> posts, Rhonda. There's nothing here to read between the lines,
> your habit of doing so notwithstanding.
Did I say anything about reading between the lines?
Rhonda Lea Kirk
news:46142...@x-privat.org
Well, my personal life is none of your business, but he still didn't do
it.
And if she thinks it was me, then she'd best add me into the report.
>>> This is despicable behavior.
>>
>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
>> it gets.
>>
>
> Not very bright are you. :(
This has been a banner day. My mental stability, my ethics and my
intelligence all down the toilet. In less than a couple of hours, no
less.
Good thing this is only usenet, or I might be devastated.
> Had you read the post mixed in with a little reading comprehension you
> would have noted that others called and reported well before Kali
> awoke.
They weren't the ones who named Steve and Mike as the likely culprits.
Kali
rhon...@gmail.com said:
: "Dr. Wee Hung Lo" <dr....@hocho.org> wrote in message
: news:46142...@x-privat.org
: > "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:ev0lpu$kns$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
[...]
: >> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
: >> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
: >> email.
: >>
: >
: > You could only know that if you were with him the last 72hrs, every
: > minute of the day or....you did it yourself.
:
: Well, my personal life is none of your business, but he still didn't do
: it.
What an ironic statement this really is - and a dandy sidestep.
You have consistently made many sordid details of your personal
life available to everyone on Usenet, whether it had anything to
do with the discussion or not.
: And if she thinks it was me, then she'd best add me into the report.
:
: >>> This is despicable behavior.
: >>
: >> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
: >> it gets.
: >>
: >
: > Not very bright are you. :(
:
: This has been a banner day. My mental stability, my ethics and my
: intelligence all down the toilet. In less than a couple of hours, no
: less.
This certainly is true. But to be fair, you've been working on
it for weeks, now, pretzel woman.
: Good thing this is only usenet, or I might be devastated.
:
: > Had you read the post mixed in with a little reading comprehension you
: > would have noted that others called and reported well before Kali
: > awoke.
:
: They weren't the ones who named Steve and Mike as the likely culprits.
Kali
Kali
: news:ev1acc$d2s$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
[...]
: > No, you have a habit of twisting my words to suit yourself.
:
: Ah.
:
: >> And I know Mike didn't do it.
: >
: > You feel certain that Mike didn't do it. I'm more agnostic about
: > it.
:
: That's fine.
:
: >>> So stop pontificating, ffs.
: >>
: >> I love loaded language. More please.
: >
: > Don't go loading more of your bizarre interpretations into my
: > posts, Rhonda. There's nothing here to read between the lines,
: > your habit of doing so notwithstanding.
:
: Did I say anything about reading between the lines?
It was the bit about "loaded language" in the absence of.
Kadaitcha Man
Thou musty carrion. Thou objectionable so dissolute a crew. Ye grumbled:
It doesn't even get that far. Opinion is not required to be founded on any
knowledge of any kind, let alone a fact.
> My specific words were, ..."my money's on Cranston." That
> would never stand up as libel or defamation in a court of law, no
> matter how much you may wish it would.
Watch out for a huge dodge coming your way. That's dodge as in weasel, not
dodge as in truck.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Vescere puter subgalia meis.
"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1...@registered.motzarella.org
Kadaitcha Man
Thou demonic crafty devil. Thou rude boy. Thou wild heart. Ye spurted:
No, you don't; not at all. It's a link with no commentary as to why it might
be relevant; and it happens all the time, persistently and habitually so.
Just pretend to read it then make up some bullshit about what you want it to
mean.
> but I'm not seeing the connection
You're not supposed to see any connection at all. You're supposed to
completely misinterpret it so you can get beaten up for failing to interpret
it in the way the poster wants you to interpret it.
> between
> the RL harassing of collegues and "words on the internet".. to me,
> once the RL harassment has begun it's no longer "words on the
> internet" and the target has every right to let their collegues know
> who or what they suspect is behind the harassment. Oftentimes, that
> will necessitate the filing of a police report, if for no other
> reason than to protect that victim should this come back on them
> later.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In <ev1b8p$h0k$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
> rhon...@gmail.com said:
>> "Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
>> news:ev1acc$d2s$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>> In <ev199g$brh$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
>>> rhon...@gmail.com said:
>
> [...]
>
>>> No, you have a habit of twisting my words to suit yourself.
>>
>> Ah.
>>
>>>> And I know Mike didn't do it.
>>>
>>> You feel certain that Mike didn't do it. I'm more agnostic about
>>> it.
>>
>> That's fine.
>>
>>>>> So stop pontificating, ffs.
>>>>
>>>> I love loaded language. More please.
>>>
>>> Don't go loading more of your bizarre interpretations into my
>>> posts, Rhonda. There's nothing here to read between the lines,
>>> your habit of doing so notwithstanding.
>>
>> Did I say anything about reading between the lines?
>
> It was the bit about "loaded language" in the absence of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In <ev1bme$i34$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
> rhon...@gmail.com said:
>> "Dr. Wee Hung Lo" <dr....@hocho.org> wrote in message
>> news:46142...@x-privat.org
>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ev0lpu$kns$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
>>>> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
>>>> email.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You could only know that if you were with him the last 72hrs, every
>>> minute of the day or....you did it yourself.
>>
>> Well, my personal life is none of your business, but he still didn't
>> do it.
>
> What an ironic statement this really is - and a dandy sidestep.
> You have consistently made many sordid details of your personal
> life available to everyone on Usenet, whether it had anything to
> do with the discussion or not.
You're just pulling out all the stops, aren't you.
Carry on, then.
>> And if she thinks it was me, then she'd best add me into the report.
>>
>>>>> This is despicable behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
>>>> it gets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not very bright are you. :(
>>
>> This has been a banner day. My mental stability, my ethics and my
>> intelligence all down the toilet. In less than a couple of hours, no
>> less.
>
> This certainly is true. But to be fair, you've been working on
> it for weeks, now, pretzel woman.
Ah. Now it all makes sense.
>> Good thing this is only usenet, or I might be devastated.
>>
>>> Had you read the post mixed in with a little reading comprehension
>>> you would have noted that others called and reported well before
>>> Kali awoke.
>>
>> They weren't the ones who named Steve and Mike as the likely
>> culprits.
>
> Kali
--
Kali
: news:ev1cdr$d2s$5...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
: > In <ev1b8p$h0k$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
: > rhon...@gmail.com said:
: >> "Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
: >> news:ev1acc$d2s$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
: >>> In <ev199g$brh$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
: >>> rhon...@gmail.com said:
: >
: > [...]
: >
: >>> No, you have a habit of twisting my words to suit yourself.
: >>
: >> Ah.
: >>
: >>>> And I know Mike didn't do it.
: >>>
: >>> You feel certain that Mike didn't do it. I'm more agnostic about
: >>> it.
: >>
: >> That's fine.
: >>
: >>>>> So stop pontificating, ffs.
: >>>>
: >>>> I love loaded language. More please.
: >>>
: >>> Don't go loading more of your bizarre interpretations into my
: >>> posts, Rhonda. There's nothing here to read between the lines,
: >>> your habit of doing so notwithstanding.
: >>
: >> Did I say anything about reading between the lines?
: >
: > It was the bit about "loaded language" in the absence of.
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pontification
see 1. To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.
Wake up to yourself.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
You need to work on that non-judgmental thing.
(But I wasn't just talking about "pontification.")
Rhonda Lea Kirk
It was in a different thread, and I didn't know if you had seen it. I
thought it was more complete than what he wrote in this thread.
Nonetheless, you're free to discuss it with him or not, as you choose.
Kadaitcha Man
meat flapper. Thou blasted, distempered notable strumpet. Ye spurted:
> Indeed; Cranston has made it very clear on several
> different occasions that his primary motive for posting my RL
> info is to cause damage to my career and reputation.
*ding*
"I'm not attempting to cause harm for harm's sake alone."
news:sq281392s524kv1ff...@4ax.com
One can not reasonably expect a gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer who
allegedly has a way with words to have injudiciously made the implication
that he is attempting to cause harm for harm's sake, just that it is not his
only objective.
I am therefore left to conclude that crasston is either a genuine nutjob or
crasston is not the gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer who allegedly has a
way with words that his fan club of one thinks he is.
My bet is on both being true.
John Fields
<rhon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
>news:ev1cas$d2s$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>> In <ev1bme$i34$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
>> rhon...@gmail.com said:
>>> "Dr. Wee Hung Lo" <dr....@hocho.org> wrote in message
>>> news:46142...@x-privat.org
>>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ev0lpu$kns$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
>>>>> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
>>>>> email.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You could only know that if you were with him the last 72hrs, every
>>>> minute of the day or....you did it yourself.
>>>
>>> Well, my personal life is none of your business, but he still didn't
>>> do it.
>>
>> What an ironic statement this really is - and a dandy sidestep.
>> You have consistently made many sordid details of your personal
>> life available to everyone on Usenet, whether it had anything to
>> do with the discussion or not.
>
>You're just pulling out all the stops, aren't you.
>
>Carry on, then.
---
Carrion, then, perhaps?
--
JF
Kali
: news:ev1dva$d2s$6...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
Would you like for me to make a few suggestions about things I
think you should work on? Why, or why not?
: (But I wasn't just talking about "pontification.")
Alamande left.
Wilbur Wright
> Now you've justoutedyourself--kinda, I guess--although anyone would
> have a hard time figuring out what you're referring to.
*oh* *my* it's tr00 what we just read in RAMD?
Stinku-Bruce shoves his boymeat down the Kali-Hag's throat, twat,
pisshole, and anus?
they be fuckin?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This shit is fucken rich.
:)))x
Kadaitcha Man
hair than wit. Thou dung ball. Thou filthy traitor. Ye clanged:
Let's be honest here, Kali, you, and you alone, are responsible for the
unconscious acts of others in propelling their contrivances to impart
"strong emotional overtones or connotations [and] which evoke strongly
positive (or negative) reactions far beyond the specific meaning of the word
which is listed in the dictionary."
There might be a doctrate in the idea if it can somehow be made remotely
plausible.
Kali
rhon...@gmail.com said:
: "Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
: news:ev1cas$d2s$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
: > In <ev1bme$i34$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
: > rhon...@gmail.com said:
: >> "Dr. Wee Hung Lo" <dr....@hocho.org> wrote in message
: >> news:46142...@x-privat.org
: >>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >>> news:ev0lpu$kns$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
: >
: > [...]
: >
: >>>> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
: >>>> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
: >>>> email.
: >>>>
: >>>
: >>> You could only know that if you were with him the last 72hrs, every
: >>> minute of the day or....you did it yourself.
: >>
: >> Well, my personal life is none of your business, but he still didn't
: >> do it.
: >
: > What an ironic statement this really is - and a dandy sidestep.
: > You have consistently made many sordid details of your personal
: > life available to everyone on Usenet, whether it had anything to
: > do with the discussion or not.
:
: You're just pulling out all the stops, aren't you.
Oh, there were several weeks where I alternatively read and
ignored your pontifications and adjudications, depending on the
severity of the headache they created for me on any given day. I
was secretly hoping you'd come to your senses. I'm an eternal
optimist.
: Carry on, then.
Why, are you having fun?
: >> And if she thinks it was me, then she'd best add me into the report.
: >>
: >>>>> This is despicable behavior.
: >>>>
: >>>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
: >>>> it gets.
: >>>>
: >>>
: >>> Not very bright are you. :(
: >>
: >> This has been a banner day. My mental stability, my ethics and my
: >> intelligence all down the toilet. In less than a couple of hours, no
: >> less.
: >
: > This certainly is true. But to be fair, you've been working on
: > it for weeks, now, pretzel woman.
:
: Ah. Now it all makes sense.
I somehow doubt it.
: >> Good thing this is only usenet, or I might be devastated.
: >>
: >>> Had you read the post mixed in with a little reading comprehension
: >>> you would have noted that others called and reported well before
: >>> Kali awoke.
: >>
: >> They weren't the ones who named Steve and Mike as the likely
: >> culprits.
: >
: > Kali
:
Kali
nntp...@gmail.com said:
: Kali <ka...@powder.keg> Thou hilding fellow. Thou viperous traitor. Thou
: meat flapper. Thou blasted, distempered notable strumpet. Ye spurted:
:
:
: > Indeed; Cranston has made it very clear on several
: > different occasions that his primary motive for posting my RL
: > info is to cause damage to my career and reputation.
:
: *ding*
:
: "I'm not attempting to cause harm for harm's sake alone."
:
: news:sq281392s524kv1ff...@4ax.com
:
: One can not reasonably expect a gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer who
: allegedly has a way with words to have injudiciously made the implication
: that he is attempting to cause harm for harm's sake, just that it is not his
: only objective.
Well, now, he wasn't lying, come on. His other purpose is to
exact retribution against people by victimizing me. It's all
very logical (and equivocal).
: I am therefore left to conclude that crasston is either a genuine nutjob or
: crasston is not the gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer who allegedly has a
: way with words that his fan club of one thinks he is.
:
: My bet is on both being true.
Wouldn't surprise me.
Kali
nntp...@gmail.com said:
: Kali <ka...@powder.keg> Thou tinder-box. There's many a man hath more
Wow, I did all that? I'm truly humbled.
: There might be a doctrate in the idea if it can somehow be made remotely
: plausible.
The dissertation would be a real bitch.
John Fields
>Would you like for me to make a few suggestions about things I
>think you should work on? Why, or why not?
---
Wow, a real cunt?
I'll take you on.
Whatcha got, pussy?
--
JF
Dr. Wee Hung Lo
: "Dr. Wee Hung Lo" <dr....@hocho.org> wrote in message
Then you should have referenced that sidetrack as being your focal point
rather than assume someone always knows what is going on inside that
head of yours.
Kali
jfi...@austininstruments.com said:
You're a real man's man, and you seem lonely.
[soc.fr00ts added]
You're welcome.
Kadaitcha Man
hulk. Thou depraved carrion death. Thou freakish malmsy-nose knave. Ye
delivered:
TROL!!L!!
>> There might be a doctrate in the idea if it can somehow be made
>> remotely plausible.
>
> The dissertation would be a real bitch.
Not necessarily. Take any complex paper on Dark Energy or Dark Matter and
replace the astrophysics terms with psychology terms. Job done.
> Kali
Art Deco
>In <ngh8139qmo5guo79f...@4ax.com>, John Fields
>jfi...@austininstruments.com said:
>: On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:18:48 -0500, Kali <ka...@powder.keg> wrote:
>:
>:
>: >Would you like for me to make a few suggestions about things I
>: >think you should work on? Why, or why not?
>:
>: ---
>: Wow, a real cunt?
>:
>: I'll take you on.
>:
>: Whatcha got, pussy?
>
>You're a real man's man, and you seem lonely.
>
>[soc.fr00ts added]
>
>You're welcome.
What a work of art.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
Kadaitcha Man
infections that the sun sucks up from bogs, fens, flats, on Prospero
fall, and make him by inch meal a disease. Thou cap-and-knee slave. Thou
filthy officer. Ye published:
> In <qu495.l...@news.alt.net>, Kadaitcha Man
> nntp...@gmail.com said:
>> Kali <ka...@powder.keg> Thou hilding fellow. Thou viperous traitor.
>> Thou meat flapper. Thou blasted, distempered notable strumpet. Ye
>> spurted:
>>
>>
>>> Indeed; Cranston has made it very clear on several
>>> different occasions that his primary motive for posting my RL
>>> info is to cause damage to my career and reputation.
>>
>> *ding*
>>
>> "I'm not attempting to cause harm for harm's sake alone."
>>
>> news:sq281392s524kv1ff...@4ax.com
>>
>> One can not reasonably expect a gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer
>> who allegedly has a way with words to have injudiciously made the
>> implication that he is attempting to cause harm for harm's sake,
>> just that it is not his only objective.
>
> Well, now, he wasn't lying, come on. His other purpose is to
> exact retribution against people by victimizing me. It's all
> very logical (and equivocal).
Yes, I recall he at least tacitly indicated that. I use the word tacitly
only because I can't be arsed to go google-scouring. No doubt someone will
come along shortly and post an irrelevant link with no supporting
commentary.
>> I am therefore left to conclude that crasston is either a genuine
>> nutjob or crasston is not the gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer who
>> allegedly has a way with words that his fan club of one thinks he is.
>>
>> My bet is on both being true.
>
> Wouldn't surprise me.
I was deathly serious when I told him that "one does not reasonably expect a
fine, upstanding, ethically honest, and morally principled gentleman to
react to the ravings of lunatics by raving back at the raving lunatics like
a raving lunatic."
Of course, I could always make believe that he's just trying to "level the
playing field" but I'm not in the market for buying my own bullshit this
week, let alone anyone else's.
John Fields
>In <ngh8139qmo5guo79f...@4ax.com>, John Fields
>jfi...@austininstruments.com said:
>: On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:18:48 -0500, Kali <ka...@powder.keg> wrote:
>:
>:
>: >Would you like for me to make a few suggestions about things I
>: >think you should work on? Why, or why not?
>:
>: ---
>: Wow, a real cunt?
>:
>: I'll take you on.
>:
>: Whatcha got, pussy?
>
>You're a real man's man, and you seem lonely.
---
Neither, actually.
I just thought, from the little I've read of you, that you might
like to participate in a discussion where you wouldn't always insist
on being on top.
I guess I was wrong...
---
>[soc.fr00ts added]
---
???
---
>You're welcome.
---
Thank you.
--
JF
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Well, you told me to wake up to myself. That implies I have things to
work on, right?
>> (But I wasn't just talking about "pontification.")
>
> Alamande left.
I don't square dance. Sorry.
Nonetheless, there's a lot of loaded language besides "pontification."
Rhonda Lea Kirk
There are two concurrent threads, only one of which is being posted into
your group. I wasn't paying attention to which was which, but obviously,
you didn't get that message. Either that, or you didn't read that
message. I don't know which, and I'm not going to check.
Nonetheless, it was in Kali's post, not in my head.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
news:8dk813hd00hn04dee...@4ax.com
Almost all of his fiction was sociological. I sometimes wonder what
would happen to him if he posted here.
Kadaitcha Man
patchery. Thou self-centred fellow. Thou infectious strangely-visited
person. Ye spilled the beans:
> You might also want to carefully reflect on whether anybody (some law
> abiding citizen who would turn over email to police officers on
> request, and would not require a subpoena), might have evidence that
> would be interpreted to indicate that you have malice toward me and
> motive to name me to investigators as a result of that malice.
>
> This was not a bright move on your part, Dr. Barnard.
No doubt you wrote that whilst being totally oblivious to the very same "law
abiding citizen" holding the ever so sharp and finely burnished blade of a
two-edged sword high above your scrawny neck, crasston.
Tut! Tut! Tut!
You are a foolish man, crasston. A very foolish man.
Lady Veteran
<blots...@sciencefrontiers.com> wrote:
>
>"Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
>news:ev0e0e$nn$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> In <3vc71353cojg7l0ua...@4ax.com>, Widdershins
>> sini...@liripipe.com said:
>> : 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" <Orv...@deafemail.net>
>> : licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>> :
>> : >Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
>> : >(262) 595-2669
>> : >Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
>> :
>> : What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali,
>> : you nadless asswipe?
>>
>> Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
>> me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>>
>> Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
>> the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
>> when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
>> well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
>>
>> The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
>> of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
>> concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
>> reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
>> morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
>> information about both Cranston and Young to network services
>> and the police, and there will be an investigation.
>>
>> : Widdershins
>> :
>> : If ignorance is bliss, Guth must be orgasmic.
>>
>> Kali
>
>Keep up the good fight, Kali.
>
>As usual, people recognize the work of nonads and lose even more respect for
>them.
>
>If I were one of the harassers, I would worry. They have crossed a couple
>of legal lines.
>
>card xii
>
You call them nonads and I call then idiots. There is not a lot of
difference. They like to hide and poke sticks at people that either
will not or cannot fight back. Want to see brainstems in actions? Go
to soc.support.fat-acceptance.
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."
---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
Lady Veteran
Oh boy oh boy Cranston is going to be made ACCOUNTABLE for his
enabling behavior. That really makes me smile :-)
Use your law degree for toilet paper mikey. That is all it is good
for...
Lady Veteran
wrote:
>On 04 Apr 2007 I stormed the castle called sci.psychology.psychotherapy
>and heard Daedalus cry out in
>news:v4n71317fan6rqoac...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:01:51 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>> <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"marcia" <des...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1175705223.5...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
>>>> On Apr 4, 10:51 am, Kali <k...@powder.keg> wrote:
>>>>> In <3vc71353cojg7l0ua7tnggkqgpvkneq...@4ax.com>, Widdershins
>>>>> sinis...@liripipe.com said:
>>>>>> 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright"
>>>>>> <Orvi...@deafemail.net>
>>>>>> licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kimberly K. Barnard (known as "Kali" on Usenet)
>>>>>>> (262) 595-2669
>>>>>>> Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali,
>>>>>> you nadless asswipe?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
>>>>> me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
>>>>> the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but
>>>>> when I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as
>>>>> well, and would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
>>>>>
>>>>> The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
>>>>> of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
>>>>> concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
>>>>> reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
>>>>> morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
>>>>> information about both Cranston and Young to network services
>>>>> and the police, and there will be an investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Widdershins
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If ignorance is bliss, Guth must be orgasmic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kali
>>>>
>>>> And don't forget Brad, who recently resurrected himself on usenet
>>>> and has a history of going rl on people (my money's on Cranston,
>>>> tho).
>>>
>>>Got any evidence for that libel?
>>
>> Expressing her opinion is not libel. I did the same thing.
>>
>>>
>>>Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come out
>>>of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the email.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you.
>>
>>>> This is despicable behavior.
>>>
>>>Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as it
>>>gets.
>>>
>>
>> If I read Kali's email right, one or several of her colleagues first
>> contacted the police. We have no idea what was in those emails. It
>> could have been death threats. It was something upsetting enough that
>> deleting and ignoring them did not seem wise to the people that
>> received them.
>>
>> Kali, possibly knowing something about the incident, was obliged to
>> provide the info she knew to authorities. I believe strongly in civic
>> duties, anyway.
>>
>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
>> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
>> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
>>
>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>>
>> Jade
>>
>
>seems like typical kooky stalker behavior...
>
>stalker sends threats to victim outside of usenet
>victim contacts authorities
>stalker complains victim crossed the line by going RL
That is EXACTLY what happens. Right Jimmie Duttonfuck?
Lady Veteran
<Pe...@perv.com> wrote:
>Daedalus wrote:
>>"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
>>>"Daedalus" wrote
>>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
>>>>> "marcia" wrote
>
>>>>>> And don't forget Brad, who recently resurrected himself on usenet
>>>>>> and has a history of going rl on people (my money's on Cranston,
>>>>>> tho).
>
>>>>> Got any evidence for that libel?
>
>>>> Expressing her opinion is not libel. I did the same thing.
>
>That's true.
>
>>>>> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
>>>>> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
>>>>> email.
>
>>>> I agree with you.
>
>So do I.
>
>>>>>> This is despicable behavior.
>
>>>>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
>>>>> it gets.
>
>>>> If I read Kali's email right, one or several of her colleagues first
>>>> contacted the police. We have no idea what was in those emails. It
>>>> could have been death threats. It was something upsetting enough that
>>>> deleting and ignoring them did not seem wise to the people that
>>>> received them.
>
>>>> Kali, possibly knowing something about the incident, was obliged to
>>>> provide the info she knew to authorities. I believe strongly in civic
>>>> duties, anyway.
>
>>>As do I. And I will supply any and all information in my possession that
>>>might assist in clearing Mike's name.
>
>>And you should, if you feel strongly about it. I don't think the
>>police will have a difficult time figuring out he didn't do it. This
>>is classic Bowtie behavior.
>
>>>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
>>>> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
>>>> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
>
>>>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>
>>>Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
>
>>I don't know. Kali doesn't know Mike that well. He's been posting RL
>>info about her just because she called him a dogfucker, but moreso to
>>get back at other people, which is irrational on a Steve Chaney level.
>
>Control your hyperbole. It's not irrational. Even if it were, it's not
>irrational on a Chaney level. Chaney level is going after 16 year old
>daughters of his usenet enemies.
>
>Kimberly Barnard didn't merely call me a dogfucker. She endorsed and
>participated in what she herself acknowledged was an effort to cause
>real life consequences on me merely because I broiled her in a usenet
>flamewar. My actions are a response to their google stacking and
>other real-life jobbing. They're the ones who decided to go real life
>first. And you know that.
>
>>His outing posts look pretty much the same as Bowtie's. We know Bowtie
>>harasses people in RL all the time. I'm not sure I wouldn't have drawn
>>the same conclusion about Mike if I were in her position.
>
>You don't give yourself enough credit for intelligence.
>
>>This whole thing has escalated to ridiculous proportions. This is
>>exactly why "No RL" is a hallowed usenet mantra that has been
>>understood by everyone but the k00ks for ages.
>
>While I disagree with you philosophically on this point in certain
>limited circumstances with respect to people like Chaney who deserve
>to have their asses beat, our positions are not too far removed from
>one another. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have the integrity to
>acknowledge that it was your fellow kookologistkooks who violated this
>"hallowed usenet mantra" first with respect to me.
>
>And as I said before, they hold the keys to the kingdom.
>
>miguel
Oh shut the fuck up cranston. You are the biggest pocket of pus I
know. You are an enabler and a sleazy shit. You give shysters a bad
name.
Had to morph to get out of everybody's kill file? It figures.
K. A. Cannon
wrote:
<snip>
>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as it
>> gets.
>>
>
>Ahem!
>
>Kimberly K Barnard is a mythomaniac.
WTF???
Do you hand roll your tampons out of aluminum foil?
<SNIP K00K SCREED>
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)
http://www.insurgent.org/index-chock1.html
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
Dr. Wee Hung Lo
"Linda" <Indomi...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1175716321.7...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: On Apr 4, 11:57 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
: Web-Site.com> wrote:
: > On 4 Apr 2007 11:50:19 -0700, "Linda" <Indomitab...@netzero.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: > [snip]
: >
: > How the fuck did this crap get cross-posted to
sci.electronics.design?
:
: It's not crap.
:
True, it is a personal delusion of linda's, who says she never reads the
posts of any that she listed herein. She has scatter brained delusions
however as she has accused others of the exact same thing she is
accusing Kimberly here.
: Two plus years ago, Kimberly K Barnard placed the lives of me and
: mine in unestimable danger, when, out of the clear blue, Kimberly K
: Barnard stalked me into my home ng and posted posts *saying* her
: university advisor received emails about her usenet activites, and,
: falsely accusing me (who had never even had an exchange with Barnard)
: of being responsible for authoring/sending them.
:
: The crimes committed against me and mine following Kimberly K
: Barnard's leveling false accusations against me were crimes
: necessitating the removal of my child(ren) from their school to
: preclude my child(ren) from being kidnapped, sexually assaulted, set
: on fire, killed etc by any of the convicted child molesters,
: convicted arsonists, 2 time killers, who participate in the criminal
: vigilante stalking organized by the AUK/SPP Criminal Stalking Ring.
:
: Once Kimberly K Barnard had successfully destroyed the lives of my
: child(ren)---Kimberly K Barnard ceased accusing me, and began placing
: the lives of one person after another in unestimable danger by falsely
: accusing them of having authored/sent the ALLLEGED email to her
: university advisor.
:
: Now that Kimberly K Barnard is once again "saying" someone sent
: emails to her university colleagues---accompanied by public
: accusations against specified person(s) ...every dang person whom
: Barnard hates needs to haul ass to a court of law and obtain a
: restraining order enjoining Kimberly K Barnard, R. Vince Lamb, Sean
: Monaghan, Albert C. Young, Carl R. Osterwald, Jamie Eckles, Steve
: Whitacre, Leola Stilmack, Judith Fitzgerald, Peter J. Ross,
: Daniel L Rogers, from publicly accusing them of authoring/sending the
: alleged emails-----since the lives of both the accused and their loved
: ones are place in unestimable danger whenever any of the members of
: the SPP/AUK Criminal Stalking Ring publicly accuse people of stuff
: that may or may not have happened.
:
: (Hate ng snipped, SED re-inserted).
:
linda has only one child, one who thankfully sees through her BS and
laughs at her wild stories.
Seems linda forgot to also have enjoined in the lawsuit, the FBI, CIA,
The Illuminati, Scientologists, Koochers Kooks (A group she named for
her strawman) The APA and several other professional groups. The only
reason she does not hold the Mafia accountable is that she knows she
would be room temperature ATM had they been involved.
The Secretary of HomIntern
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:18:48 -0500, Kali wrote:
>
>>Would you like for me to make a few suggestions about things I think you
>>should work on? Why, or why not?
>
> ---
> Wow, a real cunt?
>
> I'll take you on.
>
> Whatcha got, pussy?
Awww, wook who's come to pway with AUK! Haven't had your arse kicked
enough yet?
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
COOSN-029-06-71069; Usenet Ruiner #5; Official Chung Demon
Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Top Asshole #3; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #16
Rotate email munge 13 times to get real addy
VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, March 2007
Message-ID: <Xns9905E2BDB827w...@204.153.245.131>
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/
WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, February 2007
Message-ID: <Xns98EE28E1C58ABw...@204.153.245.131>
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky, in Message-ID:
<Ie2Qe.8199$wb5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
http://www.lowgenius.net/kookway.htm
TEH WAY OF THE K00K
Never learn from your mistakes.
Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right.
Always pick on those smarter and tougher than you.
Always believe that only you know the TRVTH.
Never allow logic or reason get in the way of a good k00k.
When being overwhelmed by logic and reason: k00ksuit!
If you are going to be wrong, do it at the top of your lungs.
When caught in a lie: LIE!
When in doubt: Order the Crab Won Ton
Plagiarism is your friend. Use it.
Whenever contradicted; morph, start calling people names, and make false
accusations. Include the children of your target in your allegations,
even if they don't have any.
(06-Jun-05) When nobody else will listen, post to your own fan group.
(06-Jun-05) Obviously, since you have your own fan group, this must mean
that you have fans. Post prolifically to your fan group - you wouldn't
want to disappoint them!
(10-May-2005)Everyone reads usenet. Approval here means approval
everywhere.
Post numerous blank posts, or posts containing only a message id.
Post numerous copy&paste web articles from crackerpot websites.
Never forget to call kookologists "k00ks."
If there are several, call them "sockpuppets" too
When all else fails, accuse various and sundry kookologists of e-mailing
viruses to you. This is a sure-fire method of garnering sympathy and
ensuring that the General Public will always see things your way. An
especially effective sub-strategy here is to accuse them of infecting
you with the 'Sasser' worm via e-mail.
Quote notorious scientists or writers - it makes it look as if they
approve the drivel you are writing!
(9-Jul-05) Anytime your computer is infected with a virus, bogged down
by spyware, attacked over your internet connection, or otherwise suffers
from preventable problems, government agencies are responsible and are
trying to silence you and are monitoring your computer files.
Ignore all traffic signs and feel free to trespass, you don't have to
obey any rules.
Scare your enemies with lawsuits, police escorts and whines.
Always back up your empty (albeit noisy) threats with phony LARTs, false
police reports, and harassing letters to the FBI and other gubbermint
agencies.
Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat yourself, the more
likely others will believe you!
If you can't find anyone as crazy as yourself to support you in the
flamewars you start with the normal population, create sock puppets and
use anonymous remailers that shamelessly hang on every word you write.
(17-Mar-05) When dealing with law enforcement, remember that it is they
who have the problem, not you. Be sure to inform them of this at every
available opportunity, as they will surely appreciate your constructive
criticism. Be sure to make them aware that YOU KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! ("The
cops like that, when people know their rights. That way they don't have
to read them to you on the way to the station." - George Carlin)
The more your fake personalities adulate you, the more respect you'll
get!
When confronted with a reality that you don't like: Announce loudly
that you are departing, never to return as long as there's an Internet.
Come back in three or four days and claim you were drunk, hacked,
abducted by alience, or forged. Alternately you can just not even
mention your prior departure, and if anyone asks you about it, either
ignore them or respond with something along the lines of "YOUR NOT THE
BOSS OF ME! *PLONK*!" People really know you mean business then.
Always remain clueproof.
(20-Mar-05) Anyone who does not believe that you are the reincarnation
of [$DEITY_OR_PROPHET] is obviously an infidel lacking in faith whose
soul in in peril of everlasting damnation.
When responding to one line challenges, post paragraphs of rants and
screed in response.
Incoherency is not a roadblock to poasting.
Neither is illiteracy.
Delusions poasted often enough become fact.
Claim you will destroy <insert newsfroup> for attacking you.
When spnaked, send cmsg for Fanboi newsfroup(s).
Find your Lame, Use your Lame, Be your Lame!
Post Edit when the TRVTH hurts.
Always sneck the offending newsfroups.
Always poast pictures of yourself so you can be admired in all your k00ky
glory.
Always accuse others of the very acts you are guilty of.
Post lots of boasts about your high IQ and incredible talents.
(20-Mar-05) If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Anybody who fails to understand this is engaged in a deliberate campaign
of misinformation and character assassination.
Always <plonk> somebody just before replying the plonkee!
The k00k considers itself the most intelligent person in any
conversation, possibly on the planet. Other people are benighted and
ignorant, and have been waiting their whole lives for the k00k to rescue
them from intellectual darkness.
Write a self-published book and claim it a success. Bonus points for
comparing it to "Mein Kampf" and/or the Bible.
Declare yourself equal to a deity of your choice.
Claim that you've come from other planets.
Claim thousands of past lives.
Frothing complaints carry far more weight when you send them from
"legal@" some domain.
Nothing strikes terror into the hearts of your detractors more than
telling them that you're archiving their messages for possible use in
the future.
Never forget that everyone else posting to Usenet is a paid
disinformation agent looking to discredit you.
Usenet is governed by US law. If a poster in Romania killfiles you, he's
obviously violating your 1st Amendment rights and can be sued.
Every news admin in the world hangs out in NANAU, and they're just dying
to nuke the account of that meanyhead who just called you "fucknozzle".
Drop 'em a line - that's what they're there for, after all.
AUK will be closed down. Just you wait and see.
They've nuked hundreds of accounts in the name of free speech and
*yours* will be next.
The k00k will, without any trace of irony, lie, manipulate, impersonate,
censor, and declare themselves powerful in ways ranging from the ability
to have an account shut down to being God Herself, in order to convince
people that they are not liars, manipulators, censors, or insane.
Abuse women while telling how many hundreds you've loved. Nevermind that
you're one ugly motherfucker and that there were 30,000 femininas that
thought you were a scumbag with bad teeth.
Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not
require proof.
Do not neglect to poast your responses to forums that the originator
doesn't read. This will make the people in that forum very impressed
with how you tear him to shreds without him being able to respond. They
like it even better if you are off-topic for that forum.
Keep in mind that lack of evidence supporting your konspiracy theory
actually _is_ evidence, of how effective the konspiracy is in hiding.
(06-Oct-05) When spanked, always retreat to the safety of the Ad
Hominem.
(04-Aug-2005) When spanked mercilessly for days on end, proving with
each poast just what an illiterate and ignorant fool you are, ALWAYS
claim ownership of [person(s),froup(s)]. This works on so many levels.
It inspires dread in your opponents that they will no longer be able to
poast in their home froup and that they will eventually have to pay
rent, to name just two.
Any problems with your poasts are the fault of the konspirators, who are
trying to stop you from preventing the extinction of humanity.
Konspiracies that are able to subvert whole governments are always unable
to silence konspiracy ko0ks.
The entire United States government is willing to spend millions of
dollars for the sole purpose of harassing you.
Hollywood is making movies based on your personal life.
Do not consult psychiatrists or other mental health professionals. They
are part of the konspiracy, and will sedate you and lock you away and
keep you drugged if you tell them the truth.
Numerology and Astrology are respectable sciences and are useful for
proving your case.
Everyone is Tim Hill, or David Green, or...
There is a fine line between trolling and kookery. Find that line and
cross it repeatedly. When you are killfiled and/or LARTed for net.abuse
as a result, claim victory. If you lose multiple accounts, this merely
proves that you are indeed a world-class troll, with a black-belt in
manipulation.
If you respond to every post someone else makes, they're obsessed. If
they respond to less than 1% of your posts, they're even more obsessed.
Publishing people's real names, addresses, and phone numbers when
there's no other way for you to come out of a flamewar with any dignity
is cool, and proves that you are a master of secret internet information
stores, and absolutely not to be fucked with.
Everyone is out to get you. You can put a stop to this by telling
everyone that they're out to get you at every available opportunity.
You are the only sane one.
Those that give you a hard time about morally bankrupt things you
yourself admit to are just persecutioners of the new inquisition.
Yelling in all caps and cursing at your detractors is debate. Your
detractors laughing at you with sarcastic remarks is obvious anger and
jealousy.
If doing something results in the loss of your account, legal hassles,
or blunt trauma injury, do it again. It always works better the second
time.
Asterisks, lots and lots of Asterisks.
Poking holes in kookscreed is stalking, and is a felony.
K00ks LOVE to "connect the dots". They are, of course, dots that only
the k00k can see.
"They laughed at Einstein, too!"
...with thanks to Aratzio, Dr. Flonkenstein, Dan Baldwin, Cujo, CJ
Osterwald, Jade, Bookman, and John Henry, of AUK. Meow. Original thread
at http://tinyurl.com/3fsho - some posts may not appear due to
x-no-archive headers. The spelling mistakes are intentional, dolt.
The Secretary of HomIntern
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:49:02 -0500, John Fields k'lamed:
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:18:48 -0500, Kali wrote:
>>
>>> Would you like for me to make a few suggestions about things I think you
>>> should work on? Why, or why not?
>> ---
>> Wow, a real cunt?
>>
>> I'll take you on.
>>
>> Whatcha got, pussy?
>
> Awww, wook who's come to pway with AUK! Haven't had your arse kicked
> enough yet?
>
Fields is playing field hockey with ya.
The Secretary of HomIntern
> Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:31:51 GMT, Aratzio licked the point of a #2 Yellow
> Pencil, and wrote:
>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:11:24 -0400, Daedalus transparently proposed:
>>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:57:01 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>On 4 Apr 2007 11:50:19 -0700, "Linda" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>How the fuck did this crap get cross-posted to sci.electronics.design?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't worry. I'll take care of this for you. Sorry about the intrusion.
>>
>>You are such a caring person.
>
> This is all fun and games until somebody gets killed. Yesterday, in our
> town a woman was killed in her work place by a stalker. He pumped five
> shots into her, and saved the sixth for himself.
>
> She had filed a no contact order. A lot of fucking good it did. Whoever
> posted Kali's RL has not only put her inhjoepardy, he/she has endangered
> an entire community. Whoever is responsible should roast in Hell.
BowTie and Cranston are the best bets.
The Secretary of HomIntern
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> "Kali" wrote
>> > Rhonda Lea Kirk said:
>> >> "marcia" wrote
>> >>> On Apr 4, 10:51 am, Kali wrote:
>> >>>> Widdershins said:
>> >>>>> 4 Apr 2007 01:42:39 -0700, "Orville Wright" licked the point of
>> >>>>> a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>> >>>>>> Pyschology Instructor at Univesity of Winconsin at Parkside
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What had you hoped to accomplsih by going RL on Kali, you nadless
>> >>>>> asswipe?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Both Steve Young and Michael Cranston enjoy trying to intimidate
>> >>>> me by posting my office address to Usenet.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Someone forged my name and harassed several of my colleagues at
>> >>>> the University this morning. It looks like a Bowtie job, but when
>> >>>> I saw Cranston's post this morning, I suspected him, as well, and
>> >>>> would be remiss to not tell investigators about him.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The State of Wisconsin has very strict policies about harassment
>> >>>> of its employees, forgery, and abuse of its network, and all
>> >>>> concerned been very supportive of me today. The incident was
>> >>>> reported to network people and police before I even woke up this
>> >>>> morning. I have just sent the intimidating posts and full RL
>> >>>> information about both Cranston and Young to network services and
>> >>>> the police, and there will be an investigation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Widdershins
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If ignorance is bliss, Guth must be orgasmic.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Kali
>> >>>
>> >>> and has a history of going rl on people (my money's on Cranston,
>> >>> tho).
>> >>
>> >> Got any evidence for that libel?
>> >
>>
>> What do you call it?
>
> It's not libel unless I make a formal accusation, a statement of fact. I
> expressed an opinion (based on recent observed behavior), which is
> protected speech.
Furthermore, you said it about Brad, not Dogfucker -- all you said about
the Chuck Norris of attorneys was that your money was on him.
The Secretary of HomIntern
> On Apr 4, 9:31 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
>
>> Now you've justoutedyourself--kinda, I guess--although anyone would have
>> a hard time figuring out what you're referring to.
>
> *oh* *my* it's tr00 what we just read in RAMD? Stinku-Bruce shoves his
> boymeat down the Kali-Hag's throat, twat, pisshole, and anus?
> they be fuckin?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> This shit is fucken rich.
>
> :)))x
Yeah. They are having sex, BowTie. Was there a point in your foam, or
are you just raving? It's not unusual for people to meet and get
together through the auspices of usenet, though I can understand your
astonishment. It's not like you ever have sex with anyone who doesn't
get paid. Now, fuck off, BowTie.
The Secretary of HomIntern
> Kali <ka...@powder.keg> Thou hilding fellow. Thou viperous traitor. Thou
> meat flapper. Thou blasted, distempered notable strumpet. Ye spurted:
>
>> Indeed; Cranston has made it very clear on several different occasions
>> that his primary motive for posting my RL info is to cause damage to my
>> career and reputation.
>
> *ding*
>
> "I'm not attempting to cause harm for harm's sake alone."
>
> news:sq281392s524kv1ff...@4ax.com
>
> One can not reasonably expect a gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer who
> allegedly has a way with words to have injudiciously made the implication
> that he is attempting to cause harm for harm's sake, just that it is not
> his only objective.
>
> or crasston is not the gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer who allegedly
> has a way with words that his fan club of one thinks he is.
>
> My bet is on both being true.
But he's the Chuck Norris of attorneys! He can make us(tinu) all go away
with only a writ. Didn't you know?
Kadaitcha Man
Thou jade. Thou carry-tale. Thou legless, waxy-eared barnacle. Ye
moralised:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 05:54:33 +0545, Kadaitcha Man k'lamed:
>> Kali <ka...@powder.keg> Thou hilding fellow. Thou viperous traitor.
>> Thou meat flapper. Thou blasted, distempered notable strumpet. Ye
>> spurted:
>>
>>> Indeed; Cranston has made it very clear on several different
>>> occasions that his primary motive for posting my RL info is to
>>> cause damage to my career and reputation.
>>
>> *ding*
>>
>> "I'm not attempting to cause harm for harm's sake alone."
>>
>> news:sq281392s524kv1ff...@4ax.com
>>
>> One can not reasonably expect a gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer
>> who allegedly has a way with words to have injudiciously made the
>> implication that he is attempting to cause harm for harm's sake,
>> just that it is not his only objective.
>>
>> I am therefore left to conclude that crasston is either a genuine
>> nutjob or crasston is not the gilt-edged, highly-educated lawyer who
>> allegedly has a way with words that his fan club of one thinks he is.
>>
>> My bet is on both being true.
>
> But he's the Chuck Norris of attorneys! He can make us(tinu) all go
> away with only a writ. Didn't you know?
Not only did I not know, I didn't give a fuck, and I still don't. How's that
for attitude?