The Original Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:29:21 -0400, Daedalus did the cha-cha, and
screamed:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:42:35 -0700, Ah Humps Art Deco Daily wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
"Daedalus" wrote
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
"marcia" wrote
And don't forget Brad, who recently resurrected himself on usenet
and has a history of going rl on people (my money's on Cranston,
tho).
Got any evidence for that libel?
Expressing her opinion is not libel. I did the same thing.
That's true.

Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
email.
I agree with you.
So do I.

This is despicable behavior.
Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
it gets.
If I read Kali's email right, one or several of her colleagues first
contacted the police. We have no idea what was in those emails. It
could have been death threats. It was something upsetting enough that
deleting and ignoring them did not seem wise to the people that
received them.
Kali, possibly knowing something about the incident, was obliged to
provide the info she knew to authorities. I believe strongly in civic
duties, anyway.
As do I. And I will supply any and all information in my possession
that might assist in clearing Mike's name.
And you should, if you feel strongly about it. I don't think the police
will have a difficult time figuring out he didn't do it. This is classic
Bowtie behavior.
By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
I don't know. Kali doesn't know Mike that well. He's been posting RL
info about her just because she called him a dog****er, but moreso to
get back at other people, which is irrational on a Steve Chaney level.
Control your hyperbole. It's not irrational. Even if it were, it's not
irrational on a Chaney level. Chaney level is going after 16 year old
daughters of his usenet enemies.
Chaney at the extreme level yes. I've never seen you go RL onthat level
which is why I'm defending you now. But the "rationale" of using someone
to get back at someone else is classic Chaney, Mike. ie - attacking
Ondrea's daughter to get back at Ondrea, posting things hurtful to Vlad to
get back at Ondrea.

Cranston also stalked someone who may or may not be related to Chaney,
solely because they _might_ be so related. Steve hasn't outed his
whereabouts, so Mr. Dog****er can't prove a thing, but I guess the Chuck
Norris of attorneys "knows" that Steve's lying about his initial
reaction being a troll. It's his Chuck Norris-like awesomeness, you see.

Kimberly Barnard didn't merely call me a dog****er. She endorsed and
participated in what she herself acknowledged was an effort to cause real
life consequences on me merely because I broiled her in a usenet
flamewar. My actions are a response to their google stacking and other
real-life jobbing. They're the ones who decided to go real life first.
And you know that.
I dont know, because I've ignored this headsplitting ****ing match as much
as possible and I have no intention of going back and starting at the
beginning.

- I'll only say three things: If they stated they meant to harm your
RL reputation then shame on them. It's a disgraceful effort, unbecoming of
k00kologists.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: I don't care about Michael J.
Cranston's RL reputation, or what effect "google stacking" might have on
his career in the long run. If Cranston still has any reputation left,
after his years of k00ky behaviour, his reputation is indestructible,
and he is indeed the "Chuck Norris of attorneys", capable of getting
away with practically anything, no sweat. If this is the straw that
breaks the camel's back, then it was inevitable that something would do
it, because of his already-clearly-stated sense of "ethics". Either way,
it makes no odds to me. I'm not doing this for RL shit; I'm after the
usual -- foam.

- They cannot do anything to your reputation merely by typing your
real name and occupation. Chaney has already done it thousands of times
and people will judge you more by your own behavior anyway.

Indeed.

- I have never considered posting common usenet knowledge about
people to be going RL, when those people are open about this info. (Chaney
is fat, Mike's a lawyer, Kali is a psychologist) Using that info to attack
people offline and harass them in RL is when it crosses the line. So far I
haven't seen that result from their actions.

I don't care for that kind of thing, so I don't do it. I notice that
either BowTie or Cranston is trying hard to do it to me, though.

Okay four things, my bad:

Posting someone's contact info is always filth. Lowest of the low. It is
in and of itself harassment and simply doing it implies that people should
use it. (Gee, look what just happened to Kali.)

Bad Steve! Oops, he's an acknowledged k00k. Never mind. K00ks do as they
are wont.

His outing posts look pretty much the same as Bowtie's. We know Bowtie
harasses people in RL all the time. I'm not sure I wouldn't have drawn
the same conclusion about Mike if I were in her position.
You don't give yourself enough credit for intelligence.
Thanks.

Kali had to assume the possibility that Cranston was the culprit as well
as BowTie (it isn't Brad), if only because Dog****er _has_ posted her RL
info, if only because the cops would find it highly suspicious if she
only pointed the finger at Rasta Khan and not miguel. Not that it
couldn't be any other k00ks, but those are the two main ones with the
know-how and sufficient motivation (remember T*mmy Chaney).

You're addicted to Cranston's c0ck aren't you, Gayton McFagg0t.

This whole thing has escalated to ridiculous proportions. This is
exactly why "No RL" is a hallowed usenet mantra that has been understood
by everyone but the k00ks for ages.
While I disagree with you philosophically on this point in certain
limited circumstances with respect to people like Chaney who deserve to
have their asses beat, our positions are not too far removed from one
another. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have the integrity to
acknowledge that it was your fellow kookologistkooks who violated this
"hallowed usenet mantra" first with respect to me.
I think I adequately explained above. If that was theri intent, shame on
them. I still don't see it being RL, unless it poses a real threat to you
in RL. I am not convinced it does, but I am open to being persuaded. This
would change my entire view on what going RL means.

All the Chuck Norris of attorneys is concerned about is his RL
*reputation*, a rep that would have been in a lot less danger if he
hadn't spent over a decade on gay lames and stalking alleged family
members of certain usenet foes. As it is, his rep means nothing to me.

You're terminally lame b1tch.
And as I said before, they hold the keys to the kingdom.

miguel
That's no more fair than them saying it to you. This agains sounds more
like something Chaney would do than you. Hell he's doing it now.

IMO - whoever lets it drop first will be the bigger person, not the loser.

He has awards to win before I let it drop. Also, I'm still being
Translation: "My pus$y still hurts. I can't drop it. I must continue to
foam and kookdance. My public demands it."
entertained by his foamage. What he's doing to Kali is on him, not me.
The most he can claim about me is that I trolled him into it (which I
did, in general, but not specifically), and he isn't saying anything
like that.
You're still mad that he rejected you and denied you the opportunity to
c0cksuck him, eh gayton mcfagg0t.