WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
... bringing you closer to the true attribution
you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>On 20/01/2013 8:16 AM, Kia wrote:
>> kensi wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2013 1:11 PM, Bruce Dollep wrote:
>>>> kensi brought next idea :
>>>>> Haven't you got anything better to do, like frantically getting that
>>>>> illegally-taken photo pulled off that webshite before the cops come
>>>>> knocking or something?
>> You first. What is a "illegally-taken photo" exactly?
>Skulking around in the bushes on private property taking stalker-photos
>of someone's back yard, kOok.
I believe you are in error with your definition but I do say those
allegations (of themselves) could well bring you a whole new
paradigm of pain, Paul.. were you to pursue them at your
>>>> This one?
>>> No, that's just a bit of photoshopped fanfic, and it's from Steve, not
>> The image is not pshopp'd, idiot.
>Prove it, ko0ky. Also, prove it is who you say it is.
To what end, Paul?
To satisfy your beg for help with images?
>>> Murphy. I was talking about the surreptitious photos Murphy took of
>>> someone's house (someone who he *thinks* is Derbyshire, and who might
>>> actually *be* Derbyshire for all I know, but Murphy's track record
>>> suggests a very low likelihood he was right that particular time) and
>>> which are evidence of illegal stalking for which he could probably get
>>> his lo0ny ass arrested.
>> He did?
>> Is that what you did with "Murphy", got him arrested?
>Are you currently still posting your foamy bubbles of retardation to usenet?
>Do they typically allow prisoners access to the net?
>Then it is my sad duty to inform you that no, you have not yet been
>arrested for your crimes.
Articles exist on servers for the purpose of reading/interpreting,
do you agree with that basic?
Where ^some^ net.people choose to regurgitate your posts it is
a very long bow to draw in branding that work an indictable
offence and even loonier still to preempt a conviction.
But that is your skill, Paul... producing preemptions as accusations in
partnership with fanciful fait accompli conclusions.
Here is just a sample of your posts you can now use to
report my posting of them as an indictable offense! haw haw!
First.. your link to that silly script (robot) you insist on
as one of your personalities (MPD affliction);
From: thoolen <th0...@th0lenbot.thorium>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:04:03 -0400
Message-ID: <j49erj$k3u$1 @speranza.aioe.org
From: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:17:12 -0400
Message-ID: <j49fk8$lfc$2 @speranza.aioe.org
Then.. your obsession with discrediting the
Down Under antepodeans;
From: Cthun <cthu...@qmail.net.au
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:45:29 -0500
Message-ID: <jgsk40$htn$2 @speranza.aioe.org
From: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:40:36 -0500
Message-ID: <jgsjqr$htn$1 @speranza.aioe.org
You got a number for your sherriff's office?
Maybe I should be calling this in, Paul?
>That you had to ask me instead of already knowing the answer speaks
>volumes about whatever passes for your "intellectual capacity", by the
Do tell how I am retarded (your view) in not knowing what you did
with "Murphy". It is now a crime of intelligence (IQ) to ask you
>>> He even photoshopped in some text (scribbled like a child, natch, just
>>> like his usenet posts come across) so it's likely the image file has
>>> metadata identifying the Adobe software license registration information
>>> *and* the make, model, and serial number of the camera he used. Why, if
>>> that photo were to become the focus of any kind of serious criminal
>>> investigation, the cops'd be on his doorstep within *minutes* afterward.
>> ... yew got a link to this photo?
>Suffering from memory problems, ko0ky?
>Here, this oughta jog your memory, you fucking imbecile:
... just another posted list of your known identity shifts, so what?
>I checked just the other day and the URL at the bottom of that post is
>*still* live. Better get rid of it quick. Oh, but won't that be
>destruction of evidence? Uh-oh. Looks like you may be screwed either
>way. Evidence tampering, or criminal harassment and interstate stalking?
>Choose your charge(s), fel0n.
... yer a piece of work, in naivety. Paul.
How and why would I or anyone else pursue removing
that file from that server, and why is a removal so
important to ^you^?
Second, why do you not garnish the message posting with
the same lame you use to excuse your refusal to man up
on Ray Banana reaming you a new asshole?
... said excuse being;
"The question post's headers are suspect"
Thirdly, there is enough data in that file to develop a
search via Google Earth where indeed it is seen a mobile
very similar to the one you post is parked, out of full
view I note. I (personally) would lean to the conclusion you
are in the process of constructing an entrapment. To what
end I would leave to others in drawing their own conclusions.
But there is the exact lily livered kunt act you would embark
on (in your naivety) as you know very well the first step of
complaining about that file is to make a complaint to an
investigator who has the powers to peel back the layers.
What denies ^you^ that step is your fear of the list of questions
you would be asked at an initial interview, amongst which
"And Mr. Derbyshire do ^you^ send net.message to the
billboard that image was linked to?"
<crickets.wav> to that one, eh Paul?
There is why you will never complain to anyone but your
fantasy audience, Paul. You have built your own confines,
beginning with your spews from and about Carleton U more
than a decade ago. So, now trapped in that spin you will
always be unless of course you do post using your birthed
name whereupon you can have as much fun with your
'kooks' as Gwiggles will have when he posts
"I did it, it was me me me. I am that Usenet force el supremo".