David in Devon <BDo...@REMOVE.gmail.com
news:0CqkE.194212$5U6....@fx03.fr7 Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:45:44 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> On 20/03/2019 12:16, Diesel wrote:
>> David in Devon <BDo...@REMOVE.gmail.com
>> news:vObiE.163463$Up5....@fx22.fr7 Wed, 13 Mar 2019 18:16:59
>> GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:
>>>> David, I realize your memory is foggy at times, but, you
>>>> confirmed your love for booze when I brought it up, several
>>>> years ago.
>>> I was taught the art of drinking from before the time when I
>>> drew and drank 'the tot'!
>> I'm glad to see you're not denying it.
> Why should I? I deal in TRUTH, Dustin!
I suspect you do, on a very rare occasion. For the most part though,
you're quite content to lie your ass off about another individual.
You lie about and concerning me all the time. You're almost as bad
as the remailer. You both get caught doing it easily, too.
>> How so? Your word has no value, David. I'm not going to take
>> anything you write as the truth without actual evidence to
>> support it. You simply making the claim doesn't count as evidence
>> to support it, David. I don't have the foggiest idea why you
>> think it would. Aside from excessive alcohol abuse over a long
>> period of time. The damage to your brain is most likely permanent
>> at this point.
> If you want to be sure, ask one of my real-life friends - someone
> who is in regular contact with me.
Where do you think I got the information from in the first place,
stupid? I've told you several times already. I wouldn't know
anything about your drinking problem or the resulting issues you've
created for yourself with various online and real life friendships
if I wasn't in contact with one or more people you know in person.
I knew that Ann wanted nothing to do with you long before Mike
Easter gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to find her for
you. Before he realized he shouldn't be doing that, that is.
How he gave you the benefit of the doubt when several regulars all
say the same things about you, is unknown to me. I could accept him
dismissing my comments due to him feeling I'm bullying you (He
hasn't explained the comment, and I seriously doubt he could even
attempt to do so and not look like a fucking idiot in the process at
this point), but Shadow, Bts, Char Jackson along with others from
rec.photo.digital and various mac groups you've xposted into? We
can't ALL be wrong about you, David. Mike Easter is just being an
idiot on this particular occasion, hands down.
>>>> You're now attempting (and failing) to rewrite this part of
>>>> your history as you've tried doing with ours, by knowingly
>>>> lying about the entire 'setting up a bad guy' routine. Much
>>>> like others you've stalked, you didn't consider me a bad guy
>>>> until I decided I didn't want to converse with you via email
>>>> anymore. You then took things to usenet, starting with what you
>>>> thought was a google street map view of my house.
>>> I decided that you are a 'bad guy' from the moment I saw those
>>> words you wrote about hating people. :-(
>> Quoting me out of context again. I didn't claim I hated all
>> people, David. And, are you again admitting that you were
>> continually lying to me in email correspondence? :)
> That you will never know! :-)
Based on your repeated refusal to answer a simple yes or no question
concerning something you recently wrote, It's a damn good bet you
were lying in email most if not all of the time.
>> Careful how you answer, rofl, because you recently claimed that
>> email was for truth and usenet was for entertainment. [g]
> Indeed it is.
Except that it isn't.
> It's International Friendship Day today!
We're not friends, David.
>>>> It's touching to see you try to dance around the site contents
>>>> by admitting you have a pile of nyms, but claiming someone was
>>>> stalking you as you do so. rofl!
>>> *SOMEONE* stalked me to find all those nyms. *DID* you pay them
>>> to do it?
>> See above, again. And, nobody stalked you.
> That's not how it seems.
That's only because years later, you still know fuck all about how
things work. As in, no idea.
>>> YOU are the one now propagating them to try and detract from the
>> I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm trying to ensure the truth
>> about you is passed around. There's nothing untrue about you on
>> Every single statement on the site is 100% true and can be
>> independently verified as such.
> No, it's not. I have NEVER posted as Dudley.
>>> *You did write viruses*.
>> Amongst other things, nearly twenty years ago.
> It doesn't matter WHEN you did it.
Yes, it does. I have no sense of shame for you fearing me because of
my superior coding abilities over yours. I know jealousy when I see
>>> You can NEVER be an 'ex' murderer as well you know!
>> That's a completely failed comparison. It only serves to show
>> your gross ignorance of the subject. Feel free to go ahead and
>> continue with the absurd comparison, the people laughing ahout it
>> aren't laughing with you, they're laughing at you.
> It doesn't matter WHEN someone commits murder.
Murder and code are two entirely different things. It's not
logically possible to compare the two. Here's another reason your
analogy is flawed (and how) ALL of the viruses I wrote can be
removed and the host restored to it's original bytes, entirely. You
can't unkill someone, but you can unvirus them if they have one of
How's that analogy working out for you now, asshat?
>>> You have been tarred for life.
>> No David, it's you who's the known sociopath, drunk, stalker,
>> amongst other wonderful (sarcasm Mike!) things. I'm
>> just doing a public service by continuing to warn others about
>> you. As Char, Shadow, Bts all do. You're bad news, no matter what
>> you claim. If even one person can avoid being stalked by you
>> later on, it's worth it.
> So you say - without having ANY clue who they are.
If It was just my opinion, I'd state it as such. Fact is, it's not.
Even Rhonda wrote this about you: (blame the remailer for reminding
me of her posts<G>)
From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net
Subject: Re: BD believes I'm a founding partner of PirateBay.
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:45:22 -0400
Organization: Datemas.de http://www.news.datemas.de
G. Morgan wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>>> Should I drag up some posts that have writing about you
>>> threatening to kill or cause harm to BD, and a 'visit' to Jenn?
>> Do you think I care what you do? You've been caught with trollish
> Switching follow-ups to other groups was not a troll move, it was
> an intelligence test. You failed.
It was funny the first time someone did it, but lo these many years
later, it's just a pain in the ass.
Heinlein offers a good explanation of the "funny once" concept in
/The Moon is a Harsh Mistress/. Unfortunately, 99% of humans are
nowhere near as smart as a baby AI with the emotional maturity of a
5 year old.
> Meatplow responded to one of the 'preloaded' ones, and he managed
> to fix it before hitting "Send".
MP is a long-time poster in auk, where no one understands "funny
once." In other words, trolling of all kinds is an everyday event in
the armpit of usenet, but that doesn't make it okay to do it in any
group with a pretense to utility.
> Heh, what's wrong? Embarrassed? You should be.
Setting follow-ups without noting them in the body of the post is
just lame. "Lame" is the ultimate embarrassment in a text medium.
>> threatened me, say.. what happens if I make you angry,
>> fuckwit? you going to kick my ass or something? Laugh laugh.
> I didn't threaten you, slimeball.
> Don't you dare play the victim. Your history is filled with Usenet
> death threats, assault threats, and "drop the docs" threats. It's
> recent history too, post your self-proclaimed "reform".
Dustin is full of bluster, but he's not the total dirtbag you're
making him out to be. For that, you need to look to BD. With Dustin,
what you see is what you get--he's not a sneak, even when he isn't
doing quite the right thing. Note that not doing quite the right
thing is not quite the same as doing something outright wrong.
> Would you care to threaten me? I doubt you're that stupid, but
> there is always hope. I would love nothing more than to see your
> ass locked-up with the rest of the sociopath's before you really
> do physically harm someone.
The person who needs to be locked up is BD, not Dustin. At worst,
Dustin would now and again benefit if a friend would endeavor to
duct-tape his fingers together long enough to give him time to think
it through before he types. Nonetheless, he doesn't sit around
plotting about how he's going to drag someone through the mud. In
other words, he's a little impulsive, but he isn't evil. BD, on the
other hand, is a manipulative, conniving sociopath.
FYI, I have not followed any of this--I have bigger fish to fry
right now--but I had a free moment this evening, and I thought this
post worth commenting on.
And no, Dustin is not my favorite person in the world by any stretch
of the imagination, but fair is fair. And your assessment of him is
simply not fair.
**** end paste
>>>> What specifically isn't correct about the site contents, David?
>>> Specifically? *I have NEVER posted using the nym 'Dudley
>> That's all you're claiming is wrong with this url:
Why do you continue post editing my things, David? Anyone can read
the reply you're responding to and pull the urls you've elected to
remove. I realize that you'd prefer people not be able to visit a
single link and learn so much about you all in one place. That's
very bad for you.
> That was NOT truthful.
David, you admit that you went to another persons home, had them
access their computer and visit a specific site on your behalf, to
post a message that you wrote for them on paper beforehand. As you
were standing there the entire time, telling them what to do. You
might as well have written it yourself, David. You essentially did.
So, despite your claim that it's not true, it is.
>> According to you, you visited a friend, accessed his machine,
>> told him what to write in the post on your behalf. So, what
>> exactly is wrong with the nym listed? You weren't hitting the
>> keys (so you claim), but you might as well have been.
> I wrote on a piece of paper what I'd like him to ask. Thereafter
> he did it all by himself. Ask him if you won't believe me.
Ahh? See, admission of what I described you doing. Case closed. It's
another one of your nyms.
>> I fixed your post edit work. :)
>>> The abusive information has been removed by the site owner as
>>> I'm sure you are now well aware. In fact, you said he was a
>>> coward for doing so after he recognised that I am the good guy
>>> and YOU are the bad!
>> The owner removed your page at one point so long as you stopped
>> stalking him. You did not do so, so he resurrected your page.
>> He's never claimed you were a good guy, or that I was a bad guy
>> for that matter. Quite the contrary. He as well as myself,
>> Shadow, and Char Jackson all claim (and back it up with urls
>> demonstrating it) you're a bad guy. And that's never changed. Oh,
>> and you lied again. [g]
> You are are all mistaken.
Highly unlikely, David.
>> *waves* at all the mac people you xposted your attack to. I hope
>> you enjoy my reply as much as I did writing it. [g]
> You should spend your time doing more productive things.
Exposing you for for the nutjob stalker you are is a very productive
use of my time.
> (Follow-up set)
Yea, about that. I opted not to respect your last minute change
there. They'll see this reply to your post in the same newsgroups
you left the first time you replied. It's part of my public service
announcement to keep people safer online; you're a stalker and so,
it's not safe for anyone not to know about you and what you do.
C:\pet C:\pet\cat C:\pet\cat\ignore\human