Now why would Sara ...
Dr. Ewan Jackson
Line Times?
You tell 'em Sara.
EJ
Confederate
news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
Well, last night in #revisionism, we had on some psycho who insisted that
everyone was scared of the Princess of Hatred. Are you scared of S*r* also?
I didn't think so.
Sara
Ohh, now you have a problem with people who ... *gasp* ... write letters
to newspapers?!?
Sara
--
"Americans have different ways of saying things. They say "elevator",
we say "lift" ... they say "President", we say "stupid psychopathic git."
Alexai Sayle.
Confederate
news:catamont-D64337...@news.concentric.net...
> In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>
> > ... be writing letters to the editior of the Main
> > Line Times?
> >
> > You tell 'em Sara.
> >
> > EJ
>
> Ohh, now you have a problem with people who ... *gasp* ... write letters
> to newspapers?!?
Did he say that? More mental decay from Princess Hate.
GassenBurnham
>From: KCOM KC...@Lickme.com
>Date: 3/7/02 1:47 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <dfec8u8jp5eqp8f6b...@4ax.com>
>
>On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:11:36 GMT, "Confederate"
><confede...@rednecks.com> wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
>>> Line Times?
>>>
>>> You tell 'em Sara.
>>>
>>> EJ
>>
>>everyone was scared of the Princess of Hatred. Are you scared of S*r* also?
>>
>>I didn't think so.
>>
>
>of me also Ellis.
>--
>Steve
>
Shit yes!
Herpes scares the hell out of me!
"If I am killing a rat with a stick and have him in a corner, I am not
indignant if he tries to bite me and squeals and gibbers with rage. My job is
to attend to my footwork and to keep on hitting him where it will do the most
good" A. S. Lees
Confederate
news:20020306205921...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Now why would Sara ...
> >From: KCOM KC...@Lickme.com
> >Date: 3/7/02 1:47 AM E. Australia Standard Time
> >Message-id: <dfec8u8jp5eqp8f6b...@4ax.com>
> >
> >On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:11:36 GMT, "Confederate"
> ><confede...@rednecks.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >>news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
> >>> ... be writing letters to the editior of the Main
> >>> Line Times?
> >>>
> >>> You tell 'em Sara.
> >>>
> >>> EJ
> >>
> >>Well, last night in #revisionism, we had on some psycho who insisted
that
> >>everyone was scared of the Princess of Hatred. Are you scared of S*r*
also?
> >>
> >>I didn't think so.
> >>
> >
> >Well both of you should be. And it would be smart of you to be afraid
> >of me also Ellis.
> >--
> >Steve
> >
>
> Shit yes!
> Herpes scares the hell out of me!
He was referring that he is AIDS positive from his sodomizing. Probably
going to bite somebody!!
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>
> > ... be writing letters to the editior of the Main
> > Line Times?
> >
> > You tell 'em Sara.
> >
> > EJ
>
> Ohh, now you have a problem with people who ... *gasp* ... write letters
> to newspapers?!?
>
> Sara
You wrote a letter to New Line Times as part of your
harassment campaign against Daylin Leach.
Do I have your permission to post a transcription of the letter?
EJ
Sara
> Sara <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:<catamont-D64337...@news.concentric.net>...
> > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
> >
> > > ... be writing letters to the editior of the Main
> > > Line Times?
> > >
> > > You tell 'em Sara.
> > >
> > > EJ
> >
> > Ohh, now you have a problem with people who ... *gasp* ... write
> > letters
> > to newspapers?!?
> >
> > Sara
>
> You wrote a letter to New Line Times as part of your
> harassment campaign against Daylin Leach.
That's a lie. I wrote a letter stating THE FACTS of my exchanges, both
verbal and via e-mail, to Daylin Leach. Are you implying that there is
something wrong in stating facts in order to enlighten potential voters?
> Do I have your permission to post a transcription of the letter?
>
>
> EJ
I'll save you the trouble:
It is with great concern that I read of Daylin Leach's announcement of
his intention to run for State Representative.
I am a 45-year old mother of two children who has been involved for many
years in the fight against Holocaust Denial and anti-Semitism. My work
in this area has made me the target of a number of neo-Nazis and
anti-Semites, especially on the Internet. After a colleague of mine from
your area suffered intense harassment and filed suit against a virulent
racist from Texas, I was asked to submit an affidavit documenting the
threats and harassment made against me.
This anti-Semitic racist was represented by Daylin Leach. His client had
threatened to "skin me alive and make a holster" for his gun. This
racist and his friends had harassed me for more than 2 years, They
threatened my family. They forged e-mail in my name. They forged a death
threat to the President in my name. They encouraged other racists living
in my area to harass me and my family. And once this racist knew I was
planning to testify against him, the harassment escalated.
At this point, I contacted Mr. Leach to ask that his client leave me
alone. Mr. Leach laughed at my situation. He told me it was all a "big
joke." I informed him that being investigated by the Secret Service for
threatening the President was not a joke. I told him that my children
living in fear was not a joke. I told him that the publishing on the
Internet of my neighbors' addresses with encouragement to harass me
through them was not a joke. Mr. Leach then called me a "crackpot."
I live in Denver, Colorado, where disc jockey Alan Berg was murdered by
racists, where an Ethiopian man was murdered at a bus stop by racists.
Almost daily, my address and phone number were being plastered over the
Internet, distributed to racists and skinheads. And yet Daylin Leach,
who wishes to represent the ___ district, thought it was all a big joke.
I would strongly advise anyone interested in this election to look
carefully at the record. Is a person who defends hate speech the right
person to represent your district? Is a person who values the rights of
a racist to threaten innocent children over the rights of those children
the right person to represent your district? Is a person who laughs at
the fears of a victim of harassment, who calls the victim names, and who
considers anti-Semitism a "big joke" the right person to represent your
district?
My affidavit is available online at nizkor.org. I encourage voters to
read it before making their election choice.
Confederate
Sara seems to think that certain people don't have the right to legal
representation while continuing to exploit her children for political gain.
I assume Sara saying "they" she meant Daylin Leach did all those things
also. That is how anyone who didn't know what was going on would interpet
it.
So Tavish threatened to "skin me alive and make a holster", but now is good
friends with Tavish.
No wonder she has earned the name of Psycho Sara.
"Sara" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-F05F99...@news.concentric.net...
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> Sara seems to think that certain people don't have the right to legal
> representation while continuing to exploit her children for political gain.
Patshit seems to think it can post blatant lies and not get called on them. Sara
made no such statement.
> I assume Sara saying "they" she meant Daylin Leach did all those things
> also. That is how anyone who didn't know what was going on would interpet
> it.
Nope. That's how imbeciles named Pat Blakely would interpret it. Normal humans
of normal intelligence would note that the antecedent of "they" is "This racist
and his friends".
JGB
====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeffrey...@yahoo.com
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/7/02 1:58 PM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <catamont-F05F99...@news.concentric.net>
>This anti-Semitic racist was represented by Daylin Leach. His client had
>threatened to "skin me alive and make a holster" for his gun.
He either packs a 155 or he's gonna make holsters for the entire Marine Corps!
Patrick Keenan
"Confederate" <confede...@rednecks.com> wrote in message
news:JSBh8.30128$3O2.11...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> "Sara" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:catamont-F05F99...@news.concentric.net
>
> Sara seems to think that certain people don't have the right to legal
> representation while continuing to exploit her children for political
gain.
How do you get that? Oh, right. You're hallucinating. Whose right to
legal represenation?
> I assume Sara saying "they" she meant Daylin Leach did all those things
> also. That is how anyone who didn't know what was going on would interpet
> it.
No, you assume incorrectly. Anyone who knew anything would not interpret
the attorney of record as being included in the complaint. He's there to
represent those complained about to the best of his ability. This is his
duty under the law, and is to be respected.
However, one would not expect him to behave as he allegedly did and expect
to never hear of it again, if he was thinking of running for public office!
If his comments we
>
> So Tavish threatened to "skin me alive and make a holster", but now is
good
> friends with Tavish.
That's a rather extravagant exaggeration...
Orac
> Sara <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:<catamont-D64337...@news.concentric.net>...
> > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
> >
> > > ... be writing letters to the editior of the Main
> > > Line Times?
> > >
> > > You tell 'em Sara.
> > >
> > > EJ
> >
> > Ohh, now you have a problem with people who ... *gasp* ... write letters
> > to newspapers?!?
> >
> > Sara
>
> You wrote a letter to New Line Times as part of your
> harassment campaign against Daylin Leach.
> Do I have your permission to post a transcription of the letter?
So what if she wrote a letter to the editor?
Somehow, if she wrote a letter to the editor in order for it to be seen
by a lot of people, I doubt she'd care if you reposted it. Just be sure
not to violate the paper's copyright...
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>
> > Sara <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:<catamont-D64337...@news.concentric.net>...
> > > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
> > >
> > > > ... be writing letters to the editior of the Main
> > > > Line Times?
> > > >
> > > > You tell 'em Sara.
> > > >
> > > > EJ
> > >
> > > Ohh, now you have a problem with people who ... *gasp* ... write letters
> > > to newspapers?!?
> > >
> > > Sara
> >
> > You wrote a letter to New Line Times as part of your
> > harassment campaign against Daylin Leach.
> > Do I have your permission to post a transcription of the letter?
>
> So what if she wrote a letter to the editor?
>
> Somehow, if she wrote a letter to the editor in order for it to be seen
> by a lot of people, I doubt she'd care if you reposted it. Just be sure
> not to violate the paper's copyright...
Dave, is it normal behaviour for a resident of Denver to
send letters to every single newspaper in Philadelphia?
As usual PsychoSara is playing the same harassment games
that she complains about.
EJ
Patrick Keenan
"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
Assuming that is a valid claim, in the context of an election campaign, yes,
it could easily be normal behaviour. One would write to all the newspapers
in the jurisdiction in question.
> As usual PsychoSara is playing the same harassment games
> that she complains about.
You seem to have some problems with the exercise of basic democratic rights.
Didn't you pretend to be a Communist a while ago?
-pk
>
> EJ
Hilary Ostrov
<rAYh8.217$GJ3....@sapphire.mtt.net>, "Patrick Keenan"
<pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
>> Orac <Or...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<Orac-A16217.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
>> > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>> >
>> > > Sara <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:<catamont-D64337...@news.concentric.net>...
>> > > > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
>> > > > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > ... be writing letters to the editior of the Main
>> > > > > Line Times?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You tell 'em Sara.
>> > > > Ohh, now you have a problem with people who ... *gasp* ... write
>> > > > letters to newspapers?!?
Sara! How *dare* you exercise your right to write!
[...]
>> Dave, is it normal behaviour for a resident of Denver to
>> send letters to every single newspaper in Philadelphia?
>
>Assuming that is a valid claim, in the context of an election campaign, yes,
>it could easily be normal behaviour. One would write to all the newspapers
>in the jurisdiction in question.
Not to mention that one can also assume that all newspapers in the
jurisdiction in question have the option of not publishing those
letters to the editor that they deem to be unworthy of appearing in
print. Or is that only in Canada, eh?
>> As usual PsychoSara
Oh, how *very* touching: a.r.'s favourite <troll as chameleon>
chooses to apply the same baseless smearing label as other worthless,
bandwidth-wasting twits.
>> is playing the same harassment games
>> that she complains about.
>
>You seem to have some problems with the exercise of basic democratic rights.
Indeed. And these may be the least of Ewan/Celine/Jerome's problems.
>Didn't you pretend to be a Communist a while ago?
<cue music>
Oh-oh-oh yes, he's the great pretender,
Pretending that he's not alone ... ;>)
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Pat
news:rAYh8.217$GJ3....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> Assuming that is a valid claim, in the context of an election campaign,
yes,
> it could easily be normal behaviour. One would write to all the
newspapers
> in the jurisdiction in question.
Well what valid claim is that? She did it to cause harm to Daylin Leach,
something she failed at doing. Her intentions were pure evil and done out of
hatred for Leach and Bradbury.
>
> > As usual PsychoSara is playing the same harassment games
> > that she complains about.
>
> You seem to have some problems with the exercise of basic democratic
rights.
> Didn't you pretend to be a Communist a while ago?
Sara goes psycho when free speech is used against her. Like our 1st
admendment right to tell her neighbors about her and Cougar's public sexual
sadism postings, postings that little children can read.
You don't have a problem with that do you? It's our democratic right.
GassenBurnham
>Pretending that he's not alone ... ;>)
>
>hro
As opposed to your poor, long suffering, husband, who is praying for the day
when he is!
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/8/02 5:23 PM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <fGZh8.10732$y65.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
There orta be a law..... that 'my master holds the rope just so' shit, is more
sickening than anthrax!
Patrick Keenan
"GassenBurnham" <gassen...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >Subject: Re: Now why would Sara ...
> >From: "Pat" notdo...@netscape.net
> >Date: 3/8/02 5:23 PM E. Australia Standard Time
> >Message-id: <fGZh8.10732$y65.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
> >
> >"Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:rAYh8.217$GJ3....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> >
> >> Assuming that is a valid claim, in the context of an election campaign,
> >yes,
> >> it could easily be normal behaviour. One would write to all the
> >newspapers
> >> in the jurisdiction in question.
> >
> >Well what valid claim is that? She did it to cause harm to Daylin Leach,
> >something she failed at doing. Her intentions were pure evil and done out
of
> >hatred for Leach and Bradbury.
> >
Sorry, news server problems.
The claim referred to was writing to 'all the newspapers in Philadelphia',
if I recall what seems to have been cut out.
How do you know what her intentions were? Are you psychic?
It's her right to hold a candidate for public office up to scrutiny. Why
do you think elections are held, if not to find the most suitable candidate
for the position?
Didn't the Americans have this little revolution to ensure that they could
do that...? Or would you rather the Queen gave you your lawyers and
judges?
Candidates for public office must expect to have their suitability
scritinized. While there is no defect in providing the best defence to a
client, showing support for harrasment does show a defect that must be
examined.
> >>
> >> > As usual PsychoSara is playing the same harassment games
> >> > that she complains about.
> >>
> >> You seem to have some problems with the exercise of basic democratic
> >rights.
> >> Didn't you pretend to be a Communist a while ago?
> >
> >Sara goes psycho when free speech is used against her. Like our 1st
> >admendment right to tell her neighbors about her and Cougar's public
sexual
> >sadism postings, postings that little children can read.
Yes, you certainly made sure that 'little children' could read them, didnt'
you? I don't think your concern is genuine.
It appears to me that your goal is to harm her and her children, and you're
hiding behind 'first amendment rights claims' and an anonymous account to do
so.
If you were actually using the first amendment, you'd have signed your name.
The context is entirely different. Sara was not campaiging for public
office, Leach was, and you claim to have sent these materials to private
individuals, not newspapers. That's private smear, not public discussion.
Finally, she signed her name. Did you? Or did you send them
'anonymously'?
> >
> >You don't have a problem with that do you? It's our democratic right.
You seem to have a problem with using your own name to make your claims,
don't you? Just want to strike out, and hide.
The point of your democratic right is to allow you to stand up on your hind
feet and say what you need to. If you did this anonymously, you weren't
exercising a democratic right.
She signed her name. Did you?
You lack the backbone that the Knolls have.
-pk
Pat
>
> "GassenBurnham" <gassen...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20020308054246...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Now why would Sara ...
> > >From: "Pat" notdo...@netscape.net
> > >Date: 3/8/02 5:23 PM E. Australia Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <fGZh8.10732$y65.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
> > >
> > >"Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:rAYh8.217$GJ3....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> > >
> > >> Assuming that is a valid claim, in the context of an election
campaign,
> > >yes,
> > >> it could easily be normal behaviour. One would write to all the
> > >newspapers
> > >> in the jurisdiction in question.
> > >
> > >Well what valid claim is that? She did it to cause harm to Daylin
Leach,
> > >something she failed at doing. Her intentions were pure evil and done
out
> of
> > >hatred for Leach and Bradbury.
> > >
>
> Sorry, news server problems.
>
> The claim referred to was writing to 'all the newspapers in Philadelphia',
> if I recall what seems to have been cut out.
> How do you know what her intentions were? Are you psychic?
Don't have to be. Her intentions were evil and were meant to harm a man who
made her look bad in email and dared to defend something she hated. It was
something she totally failed at and got laughed at, just like in Arkansas
when the DA laughed at her. I think it's archived on the web.
Don't play stupid and pretend she cares about the voters in Pennsylvania.
That's bullshit and you know it.
>
> It's her right to hold a candidate for public office up to scrutiny. Why
> do you think elections are held, if not to find the most suitable
candidate
> for the position?
She doesn't care about elections in Pennsylvania. Her intentions were evil.
Psycho in behavior. She got humiliated by Leach and wanted revenge. Sara has
never learned to control her anger.
>
> Didn't the Americans have this little revolution to ensure that they could
> do that...? Or would you rather the Queen gave you your lawyers and
> judges?
To use free speech? Ok then, would you support me using my 1st admendment
free speech rights to notify her school district of Cougar's postings about
training his step-daughter as a "domme" ??
It's a yes or no answer.
>
> The point of your democratic right is to allow you to stand up on your
hind
> feet and say what you need to. If you did this anonymously, you weren't
> exercising a democratic right.
This shows you are stupid and ignorant.
a.. McIntyre v. Ohio. 1995 Supreme Court decision upholding the right to
distribute anonymous political leaflets. Real Audio recording of the oral
argument before the Supreme Court.
a.. Talley v. California. 1960 Supreme Court decision upholding the right to
anonymous speech.
Learn what you are talking about next time fool.
>
> She signed her name. Did you?
Haven't wrote a newspaper in a while.
>
> You lack the backbone that the Knolls have
They have more backbone than you ever will. And certainly they know what
they are talking about.
Thanks for the laugh....
Pat
Patrick Keenan
"Pat" <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:jV3i8.33988$3O2.13...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Prove it. Prove her intentions.
> It was
> something she totally failed at and got laughed at, just like in Arkansas
> when the DA laughed at her. I think it's archived on the web.
>
> Don't play stupid and pretend she cares about the voters in Pennsylvania.
> That's bullshit and you know it.
No, I don't know that, and neither do you. It's her right to publicly
discuss the behaviour and beliefs of a candidate for public office. Are you
suggesting that she should not have that right?
>
> >
> > It's her right to hold a candidate for public office up to scrutiny.
Why
> > do you think elections are held, if not to find the most suitable
> candidate
> > for the position?
>
> She doesn't care about elections in Pennsylvania. Her intentions were
evil.
> Psycho in behavior. She got humiliated by Leach and wanted revenge.
Still, no proof is offered.
>Sara has
> never learned to control her anger.
>
And you know this, how? Been stalking?
> >
> > Didn't the Americans have this little revolution to ensure that they
could
> > do that...? Or would you rather the Queen gave you your lawyers and
> > judges?
>
> To use free speech? Ok then, would you support me using my 1st admendment
> free speech rights to notify her school district of Cougar's postings
about
> training his step-daughter as a "domme" ??
>
> It's a yes or no answer.
First, you still haven't proven that he was doing so. And I don't think
that you believe it, anyway.
If you feel that he is doing something illegal as a citizen, it is your
civic duty to make such a notification. If you haven't done so, it's most
likely because you *do not really believe* that he has done so.
If you do believe this and you haven't reported it, you are demonstrating
that you really don't care at all about the children in question.
Its one or the other. You believe it and report it (or be complicit), or
you don't believe it and you don't report it.
>
> >
> > The point of your democratic right is to allow you to stand up on your
> hind
> > feet and say what you need to. If you did this anonymously, you
weren't
> > exercising a democratic right.
>
> This shows you are stupid and ignorant.
>
> a.. McIntyre v. Ohio. 1995 Supreme Court decision upholding the right to
> distribute anonymous political leaflets. Real Audio recording of the oral
> argument before the Supreme Court.
>
> a.. Talley v. California. 1960 Supreme Court decision upholding the right
to
> anonymous speech.
>
> Learn what you are talking about next time fool.
Sure, you can be anonymous. But it carries a lot less weight than having a
real person standing up for their beliefs. And neither Sara or Cougar are
running for political office, so are you sure that ruling applies? Even if
it does, it doesn't make it any less cowardly. It's just an anonymous
attack on a private individual.
> >
> > She signed her name. Did you?
>
> Haven't wrote a newspaper in a while.
But you'll be glad to anonymously send materials to the school district,
right? It's not a political leaflet, remember.
>
> >
> > You lack the backbone that the Knolls have
>
> They have more backbone than you ever will. And certainly they know what
> they are talking about.
Right, like that 'Bruno Craxsi' was burned at the stake.
And yes.. they sign their names, and don't hide.
-pk
Patrick Keenan
"Pat" <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:jV3i8.33988$3O2.13...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Prove it. Prove her intentions.
> It was
> something she totally failed at and got laughed at, just like in Arkansas
> when the DA laughed at her. I think it's archived on the web.
>
> Don't play stupid and pretend she cares about the voters in Pennsylvania.
> That's bullshit and you know it.
No, I don't know that, and neither do you. It's her right to publicly
discuss the behaviour and beliefs of a candidate for public office. Are you
suggesting that she should not have that right?
>
> >
> > It's her right to hold a candidate for public office up to scrutiny.
Why
> > do you think elections are held, if not to find the most suitable
> candidate
> > for the position?
>
> She doesn't care about elections in Pennsylvania. Her intentions were
evil.
> Psycho in behavior. She got humiliated by Leach and wanted revenge.
Still, no proof is offered.
>Sara has
> never learned to control her anger.
>
And you know this, how? Been stalking?
> >
> > Didn't the Americans have this little revolution to ensure that they
could
> > do that...? Or would you rather the Queen gave you your lawyers and
> > judges?
>
> To use free speech? Ok then, would you support me using my 1st admendment
> free speech rights to notify her school district of Cougar's postings
about
> training his step-daughter as a "domme" ??
>
> It's a yes or no answer.
First, you still haven't proven that he was doing so. And I don't think
that you believe he's actually done this, anyway. If you did believe it,
you would have actually reported it. And you wouldn't be speaking in
specutlative terms about doing so.
If you feel that he is doing something illegal as a citizen, it is your
civic duty to make such a notification. If you haven't done so, it's most
likely because you *do not really believe* that he has done so.
If you do believe this and you haven't reported it, you are demonstrating
that you really don't care at all about the children in question.
Its one or the other. You believe it and report it (or be complicit), or
you don't believe it and you don't report it.
So, I guess you didn't get the joke about having a demanding child.
> >
> > The point of your democratic right is to allow you to stand up on your
> hind
> > feet and say what you need to. If you did this anonymously, you
weren't
> > exercising a democratic right.
>
> This shows you are stupid and ignorant.
>
> a.. McIntyre v. Ohio. 1995 Supreme Court decision upholding the right to
> distribute anonymous political leaflets. Real Audio recording of the oral
> argument before the Supreme Court.
>
> a.. Talley v. California. 1960 Supreme Court decision upholding the right
to
> anonymous speech.
>
> Learn what you are talking about next time fool.
Sure, you can be anonymous. But it carries a lot less weight than having a
real person standing up for their beliefs. And neither Sara or Cougar are
running for political office, so are you sure that ruling applies? Even if
it does, it doesn't make it any less cowardly.
It's just an anonymous attack on a private individual. Made by someone who
will not stand up and be counted. Sara did. You don't seem to want to do
that.
> >
> > She signed her name. Did you?
>
> Haven't wrote a newspaper in a while.
But you'll be glad to anonymously send materials to the school district,
right? It's not a political leaflet, and theyre not running for office,
remember.
> >
> > You lack the backbone that the Knolls have
>
> They have more backbone than you ever will.
Yet here you are, whining about whether or not you have the right to
anonymously attack a private individual. Instead, you could be standing up
for those children you obviously don't care about at all.. except as a
weapon.
Sara signed her name. You want to hide.
> And certainly they know what they are talking about.
Right, like that 'Bruno Craxsi' was burned at the stake. That's pretty
funny.
And yes.. they sign their names, and don't hide, and don't seem to use
sock-puppets. They know their views aren't popular, but stand up for them
anyway - behind ther names.
-pk
Orac
> Orac <Or...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Orac-A16217.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
> > > You wrote a letter to New Line Times as part of your
> > > harassment campaign against Daylin Leach.
> > > Do I have your permission to post a transcription of the letter?
> >
> > So what if she wrote a letter to the editor?
> >
> > Somehow, if she wrote a letter to the editor in order for it to be seen
> > by a lot of people, I doubt she'd care if you reposted it. Just be sure
> > not to violate the paper's copyright...
>
> Dave, is it normal behaviour for a resident of Denver to
> send letters to every single newspaper in Philadelphia?
Why do you think it's abnormal?
> As usual PsychoSara is playing the same harassment games
> that she complains about.
No, it is Sara exercising her rights under the U. S. Constitution. Sorry
if you have a problem with that. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Sara
Sure it is. The Letters to the Editor pages of major newspapers have
letters from all over the world.
>
> As usual PsychoSara is playing the same harassment games
> that she complains about.
>
> EJ
Really?! When was I running for public office?
Sara
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/9/02 6:01 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <catamont-DFF8F5...@news.concentric.net>
What I want to know is, how does she grip the pen, without a prehensile
appendage?
You guys should take her on the road, a hog with those sort of talents will
rake in a fortune.
According to 'Charlottes Web' (excuse me if I don't give a refernce).
Bathe her in buttermilk and brush her hair.... thats apparently Zuckermans
secret for gettin a hog ready for show.
Now how does that song go........?
Oh yeah.... 'Fine swine, wish she was mine .....'
Sounds a bit like Bruno 'worshiping' her from afar!
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>
> > Orac <Or...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Orac-A16217.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>
> > > > You wrote a letter to New Line Times as part of your
> > > > harassment campaign against Daylin Leach.
> > > > Do I have your permission to post a transcription of the letter?
> > >
> > > So what if she wrote a letter to the editor?
> > >
> > > Somehow, if she wrote a letter to the editor in order for it to be seen
> > > by a lot of people, I doubt she'd care if you reposted it. Just be sure
> > > not to violate the paper's copyright...
> >
> > Dave, is it normal behaviour for a resident of Denver to
> > send letters to every single newspaper in Philadelphia?
>
> Why do you think it's abnormal?
Well suppose I excercised my first amendment-protected right
to write to all the newspapers in Colorado about Sara. Would
you consider that a normal thing to do?
EJ
Dr. Ewan Jackson
I fail to see the pertinence of the fact that Leach was running
for public office. If it was you running for public office,
do you approve or disapprove of people publicising your
alt.sex.bondage postings? Please cross (x) one box:
( ) Approve
( ) Disapprove
EJ
Sara
If I were running for public office? Absolutely.
Since I am not, I'd call it a bizarre fixation on your part. And I
seriously doubt Colorado newspapers would be interested in your
fixations.
My objections to Daylin Leach, if you bothered to read my letter, had to
do with his ability to reasonably represent his constituents. As someone
who had some personal experience with Mr. Leach, I felt it was my right
as a citizen to share that experience with other citizens -- especially
those who were in a position to put him in office.
And _you_? _Your_ reason for writing to Colorado newspapers about me
would be... ?
Sara
Sara
If I were running for public office, I would assume that any public
statements I had made in the past would be fair game.
If you were running for public office, would your trolling and spamming
be publicized?
GassenBurnham
>Message-id: <catamont-CF0EB7...@news.concentric.net>
> > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>>I fail to see the pertinence of the fact that Leach was running
>>for public office. If it was you running for public office,
>>do you approve of people publicising your
alt.sex.bondage postings?
>>
>>EJ
>
>If I were running for public office? Absolutely.
>
>Sara
>Sara
>
Hmmm, so you admit that your strange sexual practices are a subject that would
be of interest to the 'normal' person in the street, when deciding if you were
fit for public office?
Patrick Keenan
"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
Hmmm.. when did Australia adopt the US constiution? I didn't see that in
the news.
-pk
Roger
in message <IOfi8.115$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>,
>"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
>> Well suppose I excercised my first amendment-protected right
>> to write to all the newspapers in Colorado about Sara. Would
>> you consider that a normal thing to do?
>Hmmm.. when did Australia adopt the US constiution? I didn't see that in
>the news.
Because it's all a conspiracy, silly. Now behave before I mention a
certain party, and sic zie on you.
(it's like the urban legend -- you look in the mirror and chant "Mad
Revisionist" five times and zie'll appear and prove that you don't
exist. Or is that simply mention zie once in a post?)
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> "GassenBurnham" <gassen...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20020308054246...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Now why would Sara ...
> > >From: "Pat" notdo...@netscape.net
> > >Date: 3/8/02 5:23 PM E. Australia Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <fGZh8.10732$y65.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
> > >
> > >"Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:rAYh8.217$GJ3....@sapphire.mtt.net...
> > >
> > >> Assuming that is a valid claim, in the context of an election campaign,
> yes,
> > >> it could easily be normal behaviour. One would write to all the
> newspapers
> > >> in the jurisdiction in question.
> > >
> > >Well what valid claim is that? She did it to cause harm to Daylin Leach,
> > >something she failed at doing. Her intentions were pure evil and done out
> of
> > >hatred for Leach and Bradbury.
> > >
>
> Sorry, news server problems.
>
> The claim referred to was writing to 'all the newspapers in Philadelphia',
> if I recall what seems to have been cut out.
> How do you know what her intentions were? Are you psychic?
>
> It's her right to hold a candidate for public office up to scrutiny. Why
> do you think elections are held, if not to find the most suitable candidate
> for the position?
The point of my post, which you evidently read but did not grasp, is that
Sara is going after Mr Leach NOT out of a genuine concern for the people
living in PA, but as a personal vendetta. She doesn't give a shit
about the voters. She is trying to bring down Mr. Leach solely because
he wrote an email she didn't like. And, if you read the email, you
would see that Mr. Leach was 100% correct about everything he said.
Basically, Sara is trying to make a huge scandal over an inconsequential
email, in an effort to ruin Mr Leach's dreams and aspirations.
> Didn't the Americans have this little revolution to ensure that they could
> do that...? Or would you rather the Queen gave you your lawyers and
> judges?
>
> Candidates for public office must expect to have their suitability
> scritinized. While there is no defect in providing the best defence to a
> client, showing support for harrasment does show a defect that must be
> examined.
Let me ask you, Patrick: do you consider Sara an appropriate candidate
to stand for office, given her usenet posting history?
> > >>
> > >> > As usual PsychoSara is playing the same harassment games
> > >> > that she complains about.
> > >>
> > >> You seem to have some problems with the exercise of basic democratic
> rights.
> > >> Didn't you pretend to be a Communist a while ago?
> > >
> > >Sara goes psycho when free speech is used against her. Like our 1st
> > >admendment right to tell her neighbors about her and Cougar's public
> sexual
> > >sadism postings, postings that little children can read.
>
> Yes, you certainly made sure that 'little children' could read them, didnt'
> you? I don't think your concern is genuine.
>
> It appears to me that your goal is to harm her and her children, and you're
> hiding behind 'first amendment rights claims' and an anonymous account to do
> so.
>
> If you were actually using the first amendment, you'd have signed your name.
>
> The context is entirely different. Sara was not campaiging for public
> office, Leach was, and you claim to have sent these materials to private
> individuals, not newspapers. That's private smear, not public discussion.
>
> Finally, she signed her name. Did you? Or did you send them
> 'anonymously'?
Now, Mr Keenan, it is funny you should mention sending information
anonymously. Sara's phone calls to Leach's DEM Party
associates, and her prolific letter-writing campaign to Philadelphia
newspapers are only the tip of the iceberg. Did you know that
one of her friends, a certain uni lecturer you might be familiar with,
placed an anonymous phone call to the DEM Party office in an
effort to discredit Mr Leach?
Interesting, no? What do you have to say about that?
EJ
Pat
> >Subject: Re: Now why would Sara ...
> >From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
> >Date: 3/9/02 11:05 AM E. Australia Standard Time
> >Message-id: <catamont-CF0EB7...@news.concentric.net>
> > > In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > > ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>
>
> >>I fail to see the pertinence of the fact that Leach was running
> >>for public office. If it was you running for public office,
> >>do you approve of people publicising your
> alt.sex.bondage postings?
> >>
> >>EJ
>
> >
> >If I were running for public office? Absolutely.
> >
> >Sara
> >Sara
> >
>
> Hmmm, so you admit that your strange sexual practices are a subject that
would
> be of interest to the 'normal' person in the street, when deciding if you
were
> fit for public office?
She holds a position of public interest, in the Autism Society of Colorado
board of members. So certainly the public and especially the ASC, have the
right to know they are dealing with a person who makes her sexual sadist
stories public so children can read them. If you had a autistic child,
wouldn't you want to know that a member of the board of directors is a
sexual deviant who infects children with her stories of sexual torture? Also
that her husband jokes about her daughter being trained as a sexual domme.
BTW, notice Sara's silence about Don's daughter being harassed, her sign of
endorsing it.
I have already condemned the postings about her kids, including the ones
that Sara did herself in gain sympathy points.
Pat
Ah, but you do hold a position of public trust, as a member of the Board of
Directors of the Autism Society of Colorado. They certainly have the right
to know about your sexual sadist postings that children of all ages can read
& the Cougar Chronicles, in order to protect their children against you kind
of public filth.
>
> If you were running for public office, would your trolling and spamming
> be publicized?
Sara would go out of her way to make sure.
Out of uncontrolled hatred and evil.
Pat
Well certainly the Autism society of Colorado should know about you,
wouldn't you agree? They have a right to know they kind of people are in
their organisation. They have the right to know what kind of people have
exposure to their austistic children.
Your neighbors also have to right to know that you and your husband
published pornographic stories on the web that children can easily read,
stories that include human sexual torture and sadism.
>
> Since I am not, I'd call it a bizarre fixation on your part. And I
> seriously doubt Colorado newspapers would be interested in your
> fixations.
That Sara is on the board for the Autism Society of Colorado, they might be
interested although they would publish it.
As most Pennsylvania newspaper were not interested in yours.
>
> My objections to Daylin Leach, if you bothered to read my letter, had to
> do with his ability to reasonably represent his constituents.
It had nothing to do with that. It had to do with your uncontrolled hatred
of the man because he a) defended Bradbury and b) made you look foolish
(which isn't hard to do). Since you are not a Pennsylvania resident, you
have no idea what his constituents want.
> And _you_? _Your_ reason for writing to Colorado newspapers about me
> would be... ?
The same reason you wrote about Leach. Sara in a sense is a public servant
because of her role with the Autism Society of Colorado. Anyone involved in
that organisation has the right to know about Sara and Cougar. Because her
work involves the public, the public certainly has the right to know about
their public admissions.
Sara is always looking for an excuse to justify her hatred. In this case,
she justifies it by claiming it's ok because he is a public servant.
Just like this current campaign of harassing Don's kid, she whines about
hers being harassed but when it comes to Don's, she endorses it with her
total silence. I have on record, condemned the postings about her two
children. Sara's silence on the issue can only mean she endorses harassment
of kids.
Another sign she is simply evil.
--
Pat
Patrick Keenan
"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
OK, please provide proof of what was in her mind. You are making a
positive claim to know her motivations and concerns. Now prove it.
>She is trying to bring down Mr. Leach solely because
> he wrote an email she didn't like.
Or perhaps because that mail (which I haven't read) exhibited views that
voters might find incompatible with being an elected representative.
A related anecdote: a Canadian Member of Parliament, Mr. Tom Wappell, was
approached by a constituent who happened to be a blind, partially deaf, poor
military veteran, for assistance in some matter. Mr. Wappell somehow
happened to know that this constituent did not vote for him or his party.
Mr. Wappell found it appropriate to write back wondering why he should be
expected to aid those who did not vote for him. His reply was phrased in a
discourteous manner.
The constituent found this attitude incompatible with his idea of the
function of a Member of Parliament, which is to represent *all*
constituents, regardless of their voting record (which should have been
unknown to Mr. Wappell).
>And, if you read the email, you
> would see that Mr. Leach was 100% correct about everything he said.
Mr. Wappell's letter was probably factually correct. It didn't make it
right, or remotely appropriate for an elected representative.
I don't recall reading the letter you refer to, but I do recall that when
you keep harping on this "100%" thing, it means you're going to run away
from the claim soon.
> Basically, Sara is trying to make a huge scandal over an inconsequential
> email, in an effort to ruin Mr Leach's dreams and aspirations.
So you say. You also claim to know her motivations, and I don't think that
you do. Prove that you do, or I will not accept your claim as anything
other than another attempt to troll.
>
> > Didn't the Americans have this little revolution to ensure that they
could
> > do that...? Or would you rather the Queen gave you your lawyers and
> > judges?
> >
> > Candidates for public office must expect to have their suitability
> > scritinized. While there is no defect in providing the best defence to
a
> > client, showing support for harrasment does show a defect that must be
> > examined.
>
> Let me ask you, Patrick: do you consider Sara an appropriate candidate
> to stand for office, given her usenet posting history?
What history are you referring to? If you're referring to legal,
consensual relations between adults, that's none of my business - or yours,
or anyone but those directly involved. IIRC (from Sara's editorial
letter, which I have skimmed) Mr. Leach, on the other hand,. was displaying
contempt for the laws he would be sworn to respect, and quite potentially
for a segment of his constitients were he elected. There's rather a
large difference in the two situations.
I think your speculation is just a way to try to justify continuing
harrasment. She's not running for public office. Until such time as she
does, you are just trolling for effect - again. It's what you do, after
all.
First, I'd have to say that I have absolutely no idea who the 'certain uni
lecturer' is. Then I'd wonder how you knew who made the call (assuming one
was made) if it was anonymous. Your information is too suspect.
I suspect that you're rather far from the locations where this call was made
and received - assuming again that it happened - and that you're relying on
second or third-hand reports. Don't you think that if someone
intelligent is trying to be anonymous, they'd use some simple mechanism to
prevent the originating number from being either discovered or relevant?
Since a fair amout of what you post is not true, I see absolutely no reason
to automatically assume that this claim of yours is true.
And you're still not dealing with the simple fact that Sara signed her name
to the letter and stands behind her statements. The Knolls sign their
names. They all know their statements may not be popular, but they have
the backbone to stand for them anyway.
-pk
>
> EJ
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/9/02 2:01 PM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <IOfi8.115$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>
Perhaps Ewan had a jewish mother..... wouldn't that make him American?
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/9/02 3:16 PM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>
Was it Lacrimonious Andy?
Sounds like his caper, probably made the call between 'drinks' at one of those
fag bars.
Orac
> Sara <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
If she were running for public office, it would be perfectly acceptable
to publicize them. When a person runs for public office, he/she
knowingly gives up a great deal of his/her privacy. That's just part of
the price for the job, and a person's character is certainly relevant.
For private citizens, this does not apply.
Orac
First off, you're not an American citizen. You're not covered by the
First Amendment unless you're actually in this country, and even then
you wouldn't necessarily have as many rights under the Amendment as
American citizens do.
However, there's nothing to stop you from doing so if you wanted. Just
don't be surprised if the newspaper ignores you, as it's not newsworthy.
Orac
> "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<tn3i8.23$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
> > The claim referred to was writing to 'all the newspapers in Philadelphia',
> > if I recall what seems to have been cut out.
> > How do you know what her intentions were? Are you psychic?
> >
> > It's her right to hold a candidate for public office up to scrutiny. Why
> > do you think elections are held, if not to find the most suitable candidate
> > for the position?
>
> The point of my post, which you evidently read but did not grasp, is that
> Sara is going after Mr Leach NOT out of a genuine concern for the people
> living in PA, but as a personal vendetta. She doesn't give a shit
> about the voters. She is trying to bring down Mr. Leach solely because
> he wrote an email she didn't like.
Even if you were correct about your characterization of Sara's
motivation (which you are not), she would STILL have every right to do
what she did. When a person runs for public office, sometimes people
he's pissed off come back to bite him. It's up to the voters to decide
if the person has a legitimate reason to criticize him or not.
>And, if you read the email, you
> would see that Mr. Leach was 100% correct about everything he said.
> Basically, Sara is trying to make a huge scandal over an inconsequential
> email, in an effort to ruin Mr Leach's dreams and aspirations.
Oh, please. Leach was dismissive and sarcastic. If anything, the e-mail
reveals much about his character that would be of interest to voters.
[Remainder of Ewan's drivel snipped]
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> > Now, Mr Keenan, it is funny you should mention sending information
> > anonymously. Sara's phone calls to Leach's DEM Party
> > associates, and her prolific letter-writing campaign to Philadelphia
> > newspapers are only the tip of the iceberg. Did you know that
> > one of her friends, a certain uni lecturer you might be familiar with,
> > placed an anonymous phone call to the DEM Party office in an
> > effort to discredit Mr Leach?
> >
> > Interesting, no? What do you have to say about that?
>
> First, I'd have to say that I have absolutely no idea who the 'certain uni
> lecturer' is.
Andrew Mathis.
> Then I'd wonder how you knew who made the call (assuming one
> was made) if it was anonymous.
The call was traced.
> Your information is too suspect.
The source of my info is confidential.
> I suspect that you're rather far from the locations where this call was made
> and received - assuming again that it happened - and that you're relying on
> second or third-hand reports. Don't you think that if someone
> intelligent is trying to be anonymous, they'd use some simple mechanism to
> prevent the originating number from being either discovered or relevant?
He probably did take simple measures to avoid idenitifying himself. He failed.
EJ
Patrick Keenan
"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
news:<k3ji8.126$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
>
> > > Now, Mr Keenan, it is funny you should mention sending information
> > > anonymously. Sara's phone calls to Leach's DEM Party
> > > associates, and her prolific letter-writing campaign to Philadelphia
> > > newspapers are only the tip of the iceberg. Did you know that
> > > one of her friends, a certain uni lecturer you might be familiar with,
> > > placed an anonymous phone call to the DEM Party office in an
> > > effort to discredit Mr Leach?
> > >
> > > Interesting, no? What do you have to say about that?
> >
> > First, I'd have to say that I have absolutely no idea who the 'certain
uni
> > lecturer' is.
>
> Andrew Mathis.
>
> > Then I'd wonder how you knew who made the call (assuming one
> > was made) if it was anonymous.
>
> The call was traced.
And you received the telephone records, how?
>
> > Your information is too suspect.
>
> The source of my info is confidential.
The source of your info may well be a lie, mightn't it? How have you
verified it?
> > I suspect that you're rather far from the locations where this call was
made
> > and received - assuming again that it happened - and that you're relying
on
> > second or third-hand reports. Don't you think that if someone
> > intelligent is trying to be anonymous, they'd use some simple mechanism
to
> > prevent the originating number from being either discovered or relevant?
>
> He probably did take simple measures to avoid idenitifying himself. He
failed.
So you say. But then, you say a lot of things you don't actually believe
and aren't actually true, don't you?
>
> EJ
Jeffrey G. Brown
> "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<k3ji8.126$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
> [...deletia...]
> > Your information is too suspect.
>
> The source of my info is confidential.
Translation: Stainboay "Ewan" is lying -- again. It does not have any "info".
All it has are unsupported accusations.
JGB
====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeffrey...@yahoo.com
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997
Pat
> In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>
> > "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<tn3i8.23$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
>
> > > The claim referred to was writing to 'all the newspapers in
Philadelphia',
> > > if I recall what seems to have been cut out.
> > > How do you know what her intentions were? Are you psychic?
> > >
> > > It's her right to hold a candidate for public office up to scrutiny.
Why
> > > do you think elections are held, if not to find the most suitable
candidate
> > > for the position?
> >
> > The point of my post, which you evidently read but did not grasp, is
that
> > Sara is going after Mr Leach NOT out of a genuine concern for the people
> > living in PA, but as a personal vendetta. She doesn't give a shit
> > about the voters. She is trying to bring down Mr. Leach solely because
> > he wrote an email she didn't like.
>
> Even if you were correct about your characterization of Sara's
> motivation (which you are not),
100% correct that her intentions were evil and she even got Andrew Mathis to
make an so-called anonymous phone call to the Dem party headquarters.
Sara is evil.
Pat
news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
news:<k3ji8.126$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
>
> > > Now, Mr Keenan, it is funny you should mention sending information
> > > anonymously. Sara's phone calls to Leach's DEM Party
> > > associates, and her prolific letter-writing campaign to Philadelphia
> > > newspapers are only the tip of the iceberg. Did you know that
> > > one of her friends, a certain uni lecturer you might be familiar with,
> > > placed an anonymous phone call to the DEM Party office in an
> > > effort to discredit Mr Leach?
> > >
> > > Interesting, no? What do you have to say about that?
> >
> > First, I'd have to say that I have absolutely no idea who the 'certain
uni
> > lecturer' is.
>
> Andrew Mathis.
Ah, the same Andrew Mathis who called Matt Giwer's father using the name of
Ken McVay (without Ken's knowledge or permission) and later having to
apologize for it when he got caught.
Vellicet
>Message-id: <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>
>
Ewan,
These elaborate constructs would be fascinating, even in an abstract sense
enjoyable, except you are intruding on others private affairs.
Jason James
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> 100% correct that her intentions were evil
Proof? Zero. The unsupported claims of a lying bigot like Patshit Blakely are
worthless.
Pat
news:jeffrey_g_br0wn-00...@news.alt.net...
> In article <znri8.17254$y65.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Patshit
Blakely
> wrote:
>
> > 100% correct that her intentions were evil
>
> Proof? Zero. The unsupported claims of a lying bigot like Patshit Blakely
are
> worthless.
It's already been 100% presented. Learn how to read threads in their
entirety and comprehend.
Another defeat of Jeff Brown.
Jeffrey G. Brown
<notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> "Jeffrey G. Brown" <jeffrey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jeffrey_g_br0wn-00...@news.alt.net...
> > In article <znri8.17254$y65.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Patshit Blakely
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 100% correct that her intentions were evil
> >
> > Proof? Zero. The unsupported claims of a lying bigot like Patshit Blakely are
> > worthless.
>
> It's already been 100% presented.
Fabrication noted. No such proof has been presented. Patshit proves itself to be
a lying jackass, once again.
Pat
> In article <636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson) wrote:
>
> > "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<k3ji8.126$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> > > Your information is too suspect.
> >
> > The source of my info is confidential.
>
> Translation: Stainboay "Ewan" is lying -- again. It does not have any
"info".
> All it has are unsupported accusations.
Ewan has already proven he does have the evidence as Sara's admission to
having mass emailed and wrote Pennsylvania newspapers comparing the activies
of Daylin Leach and Scott Bradbury to racist murderers?
Of course logic and fact meaning nothing to blowhard Jeff Brown.
Jeffrey G. Brown
<notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Ewan has already proven he does have the evidence as Sara's admission to
> having mass emailed and wrote Pennsylvania newspapers comparing the activies
> of Daylin Leach and Scott Bradbury to racist murderers?
Nope. No such "comparison" was made.
Keep lying, bigot...
Pat
*snip* Back to the statement Brown didn't address
Ewan has already proven he does have the evidence as Sara's admission to
having mass emailed and wrote Pennsylvania newspapers comparing the activies
of Daylin Leach and Scott Bradbury to racist murderers?
Of course logic and fact meaning nothing to blowhard Jeff Brown.
Keep name calling and jumping up and down. I will keep presenting the facts
to you.
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> "Jeffrey G. Brown" <jeffrey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jeffrey_g_br0wn-C8...@news.alt.net...
>
> *snip* Back to the statement Brown didn't address
>
> Ewan has already proven he does have the evidence as Sara's admission to
> having mass emailed and wrote Pennsylvania newspapers comparing the activies
> of Daylin Leach and Scott Bradbury to racist murderers?
Patshit is lying again. That's the exact statement I addressed: I said that it
was a lie. Sara made no such comparison.
> Of course logic and fact meaning nothing to blowhard Jeff Brown.
Of course, Patshit does not present any facts to support its claim.
> Keep name calling and jumping up and down. I will keep presenting the facts
> to you.
Then do so, lying moron.
Show us this so-called "comparison".
Run away, little coward...
Pat
>>Keep name calling and jumping up and down. I will keep presenting the
facts to you.
Did I call this one right or what?
*snip again*
*snip* Back to the statement Brown didn't address
Ewan has already proven he does have the evidence as Sara's admission to
having mass emailed and wrote Pennsylvania newspapers comparing the activies
of Daylin Leach and Scott Bradbury to racist murderers?
Of course logic and fact meaning nothing to blowhard Jeff Brown.
I'll add another question to you then also. If she wasn't comparing the
activities of Daylin and Tavish to murderers and racist, why did she bring
them up? hummmmmmmmmm?
Orac
"Pat" <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
I notice you snipped the last part of my post. Why?
> Sara is evil.
You are dishonest.
Orac
"Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
> > "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<k3ji8.126$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
> > > Your information is too suspect.
> >
> > The source of my info is confidential.
>
> The source of your info may well be a lie, mightn't it? How have you
> verified it?
Well, given that his sources have previously told him about a "THHP
list" run on ICQ, one has to wonder about his source in this matter as
well...
[Snip]
Patrick Keenan
> In article <30ri8.24$FD3....@sapphire.mtt.net>,
> "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<k3ji8.126$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
>
> > > > Your information is too suspect.
> > >
> > > The source of my info is confidential.
> >
> > The source of your info may well be a lie, mightn't it? How have you
> > verified it?
>
> Well, given that his sources have previously told him about a "THHP
> list" run on ICQ, one has to wonder about his source in this matter as
> well...
>
> [Snip]
>
Exactly.
-pk
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3Gei8.34546$3O2.13...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com> in
alt.revisionism, on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:44:15 GMT, "Pat"
<notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I have on record, condemned the postings about her two
> children.
Yeah, right after you posted them.
Fuck off, you perverted freak.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPIqFaZQgvG272fn9EQKOzgCfWlO2+EH83fFjls8S4QGZTUyg8vEAoMJd
7QRIjKD5COGYRulOhWdOX3rk
=q35R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <qJei8.34571$3O2.14...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com> in
alt.revisionism, on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:47:50 GMT, "Pat"
<notdo...@netscape.net> is a perverted freak.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPIqFlpQgvG272fn9EQIeqQCePrMqCkGdF8wzU4oRdhFp9cMzQxgAn2hO
krEWyY8Kcyv9/l5Tr/AAeodu
=W5K2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In <qJei8.34571$3O2.14...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com> in
>alt.revisionism, on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:47:50 GMT, "Pat"
><notdo...@netscape.net> is a perverted freak.
That's news?
--PLH, it probably is to Dumb Donnie
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/10/02 12:18 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <Orac-043B14.0...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
Anyone who condones the teaching of sexual domination to a 12 year old, is a
pedophile.
Anyone who has the misfortune to live next to a pedophile, has a right to know,
if only to protect their children.
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/10/02 7:57 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <p91l8u8gnnggbr0i0...@4ax.com>
Thats a pretty strong allegation, Jack.
Even comming from a man with your credentials...(Canada's longest serving
professional student).
I take it you can provide proof?
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/10/02 3:09 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <5lri8.17253$y65.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
>"Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
>> "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<k3ji8.126$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
>>
>> > > Now, Mr Keenan, it is funny you should mention sending information
>> > > anonymously. Sara's phone calls to Leach's DEM Party
>> > > associates, and her prolific letter-writing campaign to Philadelphia
>> > > newspapers are only the tip of the iceberg. Did you know that
>> > > one of her friends, a certain uni lecturer you might be familiar with,
>> > > placed an anonymous phone call to the DEM Party office in an
>> > > effort to discredit Mr Leach?
>> > >
>> > > Interesting, no? What do you have to say about that?
>> >
>> > First, I'd have to say that I have absolutely no idea who the 'certain
>uni
>> > lecturer' is.
>>
>> Andrew Mathis.
>
>Ah, the same Andrew Mathis who called Matt Giwer's father using the name of
>Ken McVay (without Ken's knowledge or permission) and later having to
>apologize for it when he got caught.
>
ROTFLMFAO..... For a University lecturer, lacrimonious Andy is sure a slow
learner!
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/10/02 3:39 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020309123925...@mb-fd.aol.com>
Good old 'Hopalong' James, stumbles into the fray, tripping over his bandaged
feet.
Now if Ewans information consists of 'fascinating constructs' (ie: fantasy),
how could they impinge on anybody's private affairs?
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> "Dr. Ewan Jackson" <ewanlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:636415e9.02030...@posting.google.com...
> > "Patrick Keenan" <pkee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<k3ji8.126$mj4....@sapphire.mtt.net>...
> >
> > > > Now, Mr Keenan, it is funny you should mention sending information
> > > > anonymously. Sara's phone calls to Leach's DEM Party
> > > > associates, and her prolific letter-writing campaign to Philadelphia
> > > > newspapers are only the tip of the iceberg. Did you know that
> > > > one of her friends, a certain uni lecturer you might be familiar with,
> > > > placed an anonymous phone call to the DEM Party office in an
> > > > effort to discredit Mr Leach?
> > > >
> > > > Interesting, no? What do you have to say about that?
> > >
> > > First, I'd have to say that I have absolutely no idea who the 'certain
> uni
> > > lecturer' is.
> >
> > Andrew Mathis.
>
> Ah, the same Andrew Mathis who called Matt Giwer's father using the name of
> Ken McVay (without Ken's knowledge or permission) and later having to
> apologize for it when he got caught.
>
Yes, Mr Mathis is at it again. But don't expect Sara's friends
to condemn this particular anonymous harassment.
EJ
Patrick Keenan
Perhaps if you provided evidence. As it is, it's only your word, and that's
not worth much - you've been making a successful effort to get to that
point.
-pk
Gord McFee
If it was anyone but Ewie the Screwy Troll, someone might take him
seriously.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Pat
Ewan produced evidence that Sara had launched a smear campaign against Mr.
Leach. Sara was forced to admit this.Since Ewan knew of this,without it
being public knowledge on this group, you have to assume Ewan knows what he
is talking about here.
When you start asking for the same level of evidence from the Nizkorphile
people on their statements, then you might have the right to ask for more
evidence. Until then, you don't.
Pat
Sara
<notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
No. he didn't. He made a statement, backed by nothing, that I had called
the Democratic HQ, and that I had written a "letter to the Editor."
> Sara was forced to admit this.
Forced? Not likely. Since there was absolutely nothing wrong with what
I did, I had absolutely no problem acknowledging it. After all, "Pat," I
_did_ use my real name when I called and wrote.
> Since Ewan knew of this,without it
> being public knowledge on this group, you have to assume Ewan knows what
> he
> is talking about here.
>
Not at all. I "have to assume" that Daylin Leach is feeding information
to you. Only it's NOT an assumption. It's based on evidence YOU yourself
presented to this very newsgroup; that YOU knew about what happened in
court even before Mr. Bradbury did.
And, of course, the fact that Mr. Leach would associate himself with
someone like you in order to further harass me, is even more proof thaht
he is unfit for public office.
Thanks again, Pat!
Sara
--
"Americans have different ways of saying things. They say "elevator",
we say "lift" ... they say "President", we say "stupid psychopathic git."
Alexai Sayle.
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> Ewan produced evidence that Sara had launched a smear campaign against Mr.
> Leach.
False. No "smear" was involved -- merely a factual report of Leach's own words
and actions.
Keep lying, Patshit. I'll keep shoving your lies right back in your face.
Patrick Keenan
Did he really? I must have missed that. I did see a reference to a letter
by Sara. I note that you don't argue that she has no constitutional right
to challenge people running for public office.
>Sara was forced to admit this.
Sara did post the text of the letter that she wrote, demonstrating the
behaviour of a person running for public office. It's not a smear, since
there is a very valid reason for examining his behaviour.
>Since Ewan knew of this,without it
> being public knowledge on this group, you have to assume Ewan knows what
he
> is talking about here.
Considering the amount of usubstantiated and outright wrong crap he's
posted, I have to assume nothing of the kind.
> When you start asking for the same level of evidence from the Nizkorphile
> people on their statements, then you might have the right to ask for more
> evidence. Until then, you don't.
So do you believe that he's a communist, too?
-pk
>
>
> Pat
>
Pat
> In article <Uvzi8.44347$3O2.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Patshit
Blakely
> wrote:
>
> > Ewan produced evidence that Sara had launched a smear campaign against
Mr.
> > Leach.
>
> False. No "smear" was involved -- merely a factual report of Leach's own
words
> and actions.
Tell us how Daylin Leach's actions compare to the murder of a immigrant in
Denver which Sara mentioned in her letter.
Psychos of a feather, flock together......
Like I told Sara and this applies to you, I (or anyone else) can not defeat
someone who is mentally ill or lacks a conscience.
Pat
A lie. In fact, I didn't even know about your harassment of Daylin until
Ewan posted he had proof, and then you burped it up saving him the trouble.
>Only it's NOT an assumption. It's based on evidence YOU yourself
> presented to this very newsgroup; that YOU knew about what happened in
> court even before Mr. Bradbury did.
Perhaps I did but it didn't have to do with Daylin telling me. It is called
calling the courthouse which was published several times to. Ever hear of
the FOIA? Of course, your hatred of me blinds you of rational thinking.
And yes Sara, I used my real name when asked.
>
> And, of course, the fact that Mr. Leach would associate himself with
> someone like you in order to further harass me, is even more proof thaht
> he is unfit for public office.
You've hit full *psycho* mode again. Daylin has never associated himself
with me to harass you.
In fact, Daylin has never harassed you. It was you who was harassing him
with threats and emails. He only responded to them, via private email which
*you* made public. If calling you a *crackpot* is harassment, you really are
diseased in the mind.
Your evil hatred of me, Daylin, and Bradbury is warping your thoughts.
Your hatred is because he dared to defend Scott Bradbury (on my advise when
I told Scott to spend the few hundred to shut Edeiken up, which was a total
success on his part, to his credit) and he made you look like the crackpot
that you are when he showed your threats to him. It was you, not him who
exposed those emails, which nearly everyone outside of this group laughed
at. Despite my problems with Scott now, I was glad to offer him assistance
at the time in this fraud of a lawsuit that Edeiken filed, knowing it was in
the wrong jurisdiction (which I pointed out immediately when the suit was
announced)
But you know what i find psycho most about you. You claim now to be Scott
Bradbury's friend but yet compare him and his lawyer to murderers and racist
just last month.
Maybe I should of been exposing you instead of him, because it appears you
are more evil than he ever will be.
Like I have said, I can not win an argument against you because you can not
defeat someone without a conscience or mentally ill.
>
> Thanks again, Pat!
Thanks again for proving you are a liar and unbalanced mentally. I'm sure
your friends will try to rescue you again.
cc: Daylin Leach
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/10/02 12:27 PM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <Uvzi8.44347$3O2.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
Yeah Paddy.... this isn''t one of your Irish sheepdog trials!
Sara
<notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> cc: Daylin Leach
>
>
My point exactly. Thanks for validating it, "Pat."
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> "Jeffrey G. Brown" <jeffrey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jeffrey_g_br0wn-CF...@news.alt.net...
> > In article <Uvzi8.44347$3O2.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Patshit
> Blakely
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ewan produced evidence that Sara had launched a smear campaign against Mr.
> > > Leach.
> >
> > False. No "smear" was involved -- merely a factual report of Leach's own words
> > and actions.
>
> Tell us how Daylin Leach's actions compare to the murder of a immigrant in
> Denver which Sara mentioned in her letter.
Patshit knows that Sara's letter does not compare Leach's actions to the murder
of an immigrant. It actually expects that we will believe that merely because
two things are mentioned in the same document, that the author MUST have been
comparing them. This is, of course, a measure of its dishonesty.
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> You claim now to be Scott
> Bradbury's friend but yet compare him and his lawyer to murderers and racist
> just last month.
False. Sara has made no such comparison. Patshit is, as always, lying.
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> Like I have said, I can not win an argument against you because you can not
> defeat someone without a conscience or mentally ill.
Patshit again projects its own character flaws onto someone else.
Sara
Absolutely correct.
My point, which obviously went miles over Pat's head was that there have
been some rather high profile racial murders here in Denver, and that
having my address posted daily on the Internet was a major source of
concern.
And of course, I'm equally amused by Pat's claim that he knew about
Bradbury's trail before Bradbury did due to the "FOIA."
It's more proof that Pat Blakely and Daylin Leach have been feeding each
other information for quite some time.
Sara
Jeffrey G. Brown
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
> In article <jeffrey_g_br0wn-EB...@news.alt.net>,
> "Jeffrey G. Brown" <jeffrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...deletia...]
> > Patshit knows that Sara's letter does not compare Leach's actions to the
> > murder of an immigrant. It actually expects that we will believe that merely
> > because two things are mentioned in the same document, that the author MUST have
> > been comparing them. This is, of course, a measure of its dishonesty.
> >
> Absolutely correct.
>
> My point, which obviously went miles over Pat's head was that there have
> been some rather high profile racial murders here in Denver, and that
> having my address posted daily on the Internet was a major source of
> concern.
No, your point didn't go "miles over Pat's head". Patshit simply chose to lie
about the contents of your letter. It was a deliberate choice.
The funny part is that Patshit actually has the chutzpah to berate others for
having "no conscience", when its own conscience clearly atrophied into
nothingness years ago for lack of use...
Pat
news:catamont-1490D9...@news.concentric.net...
> In article <kIBi8.44565$3O2.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Pat"
> <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> > cc: Daylin Leach
> >
> >
>
It only shows that I sent him a copy of the message.
You only keep proving you are a psycho.
Pat
news:catamont-7E1561...@news.concentric.net...
Which of course is a lie and another defamtion of Daylin Leach. Just as your
comparision of him to murderers in Colorado.
cc: Daylin Leach
Sara
<notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> cc: Daylin Leach
>
>
Thanks again for proving my point. If you were NOT in contact with Leach
all these months, WHY would you forward this exchange to him?
"Lookee here, Daylin!! I told Sara she was comparing you to a murderer!
Even though she isn't, it sure looks good in print, don't it?"
You're so transparent, Pat, you must glow in the dark.
Sara
<notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
And why, pray tell, would you a) copy your post to a total stranger
(since you claim you have no relationship with Mr. Leach); and b) make a
point of letting everyone here KNOW that you're copying Mr. Leach (which
you could certainly do without the public announcemetn of such).
It's simply further proof that Ewan's "anonymous" source is, in fact,
Daylin Leach, via Pat Blakely.
Thanks for once again making it obvious to everyone but you and your
delusional friends.
Vellicet
>From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
>Date: 11/03/02 10:00 AM AUS Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <catamont-0114CC...@news.concentric.net>
>
>
>It's simply further proof that Ewan's "anonymous" source is, in fact,
>Daylin Leach, via Pat Blakely.
>
The guy's a kid,...that must explain to some extent why he'd get tangled up
with Ellis. if only for the expedience of an ultra shit-stir.
Any Aussies want to help pull the rope on this side of the mud hole?? Ewan
and Cummins have have split to kiss-ass t'other side.
Jason James
Pat
> In article <_rRi8.23598$y65.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Pat"
> <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > "Crackpot" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:catamont-1490D9...@news.concentric.net...
> > > In article <kIBi8.44565$3O2.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Pat"
> > > <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > cc: Daylin Leach
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > It only shows that I sent him a copy of the message.
> > You only keep proving you are a psycho.
> >
> >
>
> And why, pray tell, would you a) copy your post to a total stranger
> (since you claim you have no relationship with Mr. Leach);
Relationship and knowing who a person is two different things. Only a Psycho
would fail to understand that. I know who Michael Jordan is, but I have no
relationship with him. I know who Sara Salzman is, so if I email you a
letter, that means we have a relationship.
Crackpot again gets dealt another defeat
and b) make a
> point of letting everyone here KNOW that you're copying Mr. Leach (which
> you could certainly do without the public announcemetn of such).
It's being honest, something you know nothing about. I could of BCC him
instead but that is something that Psycho's like doing.
>
> It's simply further proof that Ewan's "anonymous" source is, in fact,
> Daylin Leach, via Pat Blakely.
A another Psycho lie totally baseless.
This is why you are a *crackpot*
You really are this ill aren't you?
Pat
> In article <_tRi8.23602$y65.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Pat"
> <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > cc: Daylin Leach
> >
> >
>
> Thanks again for proving my point. If you were NOT in contact with Leach
> all these months, WHY would you forward this exchange to him?
It's my first admendment right. Do you have a problem with that?
Now answer the question Psycho:
How did Daylin Leach harass you?
Run away like the Psycho you are....
GassenBurnham
>Date: 3/11/02 9:52 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020310185214...@mb-fe.aol.com>
Split eh?
Can you please provide some of the pro-kike posts I made, before I split?
You are a fool, son.
No wonder you sat on the side of Dunneedoo airstrip and wanked all your life,
it's what you do best!
You are feeling decidedly lonely, aren't you, Dopey?
The only jewboy on the block.... tell ya what, write a letter to Joe Gutnick,
he might be able to hire you some help.
You know.... order the Collingwood footy team to post in your defence or
threaten to sack them.
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> In article <_tRi8.23602$y65.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Pat"
> <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > cc: Daylin Leach
> >
> >
>
> Thanks again for proving my point. If you were NOT in contact with Leach
> all these months, WHY would you forward this exchange to him?
>
> "Lookee here, Daylin!! I told Sara she was comparing you to a murderer!
> Even though she isn't, it sure looks good in print, don't it?"
>
> You're so transparent, Pat, you must glow in the dark.
>
> Sara
PsychoSara is again using a smokescreen. She's changed the subject
from her defamtaion of Daylin Leach, and cast herself in the victim
role yet again.
btw Sara, do you condone Mr Mathis making anonymous phonecalls?
Yes or no? And don't tell me you didn't know about it.
EJ
Patrick Keenan
Mr. 'notdonellis' condones it; after all, as he points out, it's protected
by the First Amendment. Which of course applies to neither you, or I.
-pk
----------
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jV3i8.33988%243O2.13333763%40typhoon.so
utheast.rr.com&output=gplain
From: "Pat" <notdo...@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <jV3i8.33988$3O2.13...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
<snip>
To use free speech? Ok then, would you support me using my 1st admendment
free speech rights to notify her school district of Cougar's postings about
training his step-daughter as a "domme" ??
<snip>
a.. McIntyre v. Ohio. 1995 Supreme Court decision upholding the right to
distribute anonymous political leaflets. Real Audio recording of the oral
argument before the Supreme Court.
a.. Talley v. California. 1960 Supreme Court decision upholding the right to
anonymous speech.
------------
Jeffrey G. Brown
> Sara <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:<catamont-ADB464...@news.concentric.net>...
> [...deletia...]
> > Thanks again for proving my point. If you were NOT in contact with Leach
> > all these months, WHY would you forward this exchange to him?
> >
> > "Lookee here, Daylin!! I told Sara she was comparing you to a murderer!
> > Even though she isn't, it sure looks good in print, don't it?"
> >
> > You're so transparent, Pat, you must glow in the dark.
> >
> > Sara
>
> PsychoSara is again using a smokescreen. She's changed the subject
> from her defamtaion of Daylin Leach, and cast herself in the victim
> role yet again.
Sara is being accused of making statements she did not make.
Had you a milligram of integrity, shitstain, you'd realize that that was wrong.
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> In article <_rRi8.23598$y65.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Pat"
> <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > "Crackpot" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:catamont-1490D9...@news.concentric.net...
> > > In article <kIBi8.44565$3O2.15...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Pat"
> > > <notdo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > cc: Daylin Leach
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > It only shows that I sent him a copy of the message.
> > You only keep proving you are a psycho.
> >
> >
>
> And why, pray tell, would you a) copy your post to a total stranger
> (since you claim you have no relationship with Mr. Leach); and b) make a
> point of letting everyone here KNOW that you're copying Mr. Leach (which
> you could certainly do without the public announcemetn of such).
>
> It's simply further proof that Ewan's "anonymous" source is, in fact,
> Daylin Leach, via Pat Blakely.
You and your conspiracy theories Sara. They are so entertaining.
By the way, that Mr Mathis friend of yours sure gets mad over
the phone, referring to Mr Leach as a "cancer".
Interesting, no?
Do you condone this sort of behaviour?
EJ
Dr. Ewan Jackson
You sure are beating the hell out of Sara today.
Did you know the poor woman spends 3 hours a day making
a spreadsheet of everything we say, recording
header info, date, time etc.
Sara isn't the brightest lightbulb on the tree, that's all
I can say.
EJ
GassenBurnham
>From: ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Jackson)
>Date: 3/11/02 2:13 PM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <636415e9.02031...@posting.google.com>
ROTFL..... If you had Mathis' credibility.... would you tell people who you
were, Ewan?
Dr. Ewan Jackson
> In article <636415e9.02031...@posting.google.com>,
> ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Shitstain) wrote:
>
> > Sara <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:<catamont-ADB464...@news.concentric.net>...
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> > > Thanks again for proving my point. If you were NOT in contact with Leach
> > > all these months, WHY would you forward this exchange to him?
> > >
> > > "Lookee here, Daylin!! I told Sara she was comparing you to a murderer!
> > > Even though she isn't, it sure looks good in print, don't it?"
> > >
> > > You're so transparent, Pat, you must glow in the dark.
> > >
> > > Sara
> >
> > PsychoSara is again using a smokescreen. She's changed the subject
> > from her defamtaion of Daylin Leach, and cast herself in the victim
> > role yet again.
>
> Sara is being accused of making statements she did not make.
>
> Had you a milligram of integrity,
>shitstain
When people use words like these they come across as angry
and irrational.
And you wonder why we don't respect you.
*rolls eyes*
EJ
Jeffrey G. Brown
ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Shitstain) wrote:
> "Jeffrey G. Brown" <jeffrey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<jeffrey_g_br0wn-AF...@news.alt.net>...
> [...deletia...]
> > Sara is being accused of making statements she did not make.
> >
> > Had you a milligram of integrity,
> >shitstain
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> When people use words like these they come across as angry
> and irrational.
>
> And you wonder why we don't respect you.
I'm not here for respect, shitstain -- especially not the worthless respect of
vermin such as yourself.
I'm here to rub your face in your own lies.
Pat
> In article <636415e9.02031...@posting.google.com>,
> ewanlo...@my-deja.com (Dr. Ewan Shitstain) wrote:
>
> > "Jeffrey G. Brown" <jeffrey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<jeffrey_g_br0wn-AF...@news.alt.net>...
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> > > Sara is being accused of making statements she did not make.
> > >
> > > Had you a milligram of integrity,
> > >shitstain
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > When people use words like these they come across as angry
> > and irrational.
> >
> > And you wonder why we don't respect you.
>
> I'm not here for respect, shitstain -- especially not the worthless
respect of
> vermin such as yourself.
>
> I'm here to rub your face in your own lies.
Angry and irrational like you said. Jeff just lost another wicket.
--
Pat