Stay out of my mailbox. If you have something to say in reply to a
Usenet post from me, say it on Usenet.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Totally a mistake! Nothing else!

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> Stay out of my mailbox. If you have something to say in reply to a
> Usenet post from me, say it on Usenet.
>
> --
> Kevin S. Wilson
> Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
> "When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
> useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J.
Furr

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> If you have something to say in reply to a
> Usenet post from me, say it on Usenet.

Isn't what follows the corollary to the above? - If you have something to
say in reply to an e-mail from someone, say it in an e-mail to that person.

I usually avoid meaningless threads like this. However,read KevinS's
initial post. I am not to respond to his mailbox. I felt the need to
respond, and this is the only means of doing so.
Cheers to all, and sorry for the O.T.
Kent

Anon wrote:
>
> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> > If you have something to say in reply to a
> > Usenet post from me, say it on Usenet.
>
> Isn't what follows the corollary to the above? - If you have something to
> say in reply to an e-mail from someone, say it in an e-mail to that person.

Kent,

Been there, done that. He's a trolling a-hole. Once he receives an email (to
likely save him some embarrassment in the group) he posts this crap.

He allegedly reported me to my ISP but they are aware of these idiots and don't
waste their time on them.

Regards,
Dan


Kent H. wrote:

> I usually avoid meaningless threads like this. However,read KevinS's
> initial post. I am not to respond to his mailbox. I felt the need to
> respond, and this is the only means of doing so.
> Cheers to all, and sorry for the O.T.
> Kent
>
> Anon wrote:
>
>>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>If you have something to say in reply to a
>>>Usenet post from me, say it on Usenet.
>>
>>Isn't what follows the corollary to the above? - If you have something to
>>say in reply to an e-mail from someone, say it in an e-mail to that person.

He sets his own rules. Don't bother....

Anon wrote:

> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>>If you have something to say in reply to a
>>Usenet post from me, say it on Usenet.
>
>
> Isn't what follows the corollary to the above? - If you have something to
> say in reply to an e-mail from someone, say it in an e-mail to that person.
>
>
>
>
>

"Kent H." > wrote in message >...
> I usually avoid meaningless threads like this. However,read KevinS's
> initial post. I am not to respond to his mailbox. I felt the need to
> respond, and this is the only means of doing so.
> Cheers to all, and sorry for the O.T.
> Kent

Kevin has a tendency to file lawsuits, so be careful.

-- Yip

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:59:01 -0500, "Anon" >
wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> If you have something to say in reply to a
>> Usenet post from me, say it on Usenet.
>
>Isn't what follows the corollary to the above? - If you have something to
>say in reply to an e-mail from someone, say it in an e-mail to that person.
>
You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
welcome?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:33:04 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote:

>Kent,
>
>Been there, done that. He's a trolling a-hole. Once he receives an email (to
>likely save him some embarrassment in the group) he posts this crap.

I get frequently get e-mail from people on AFB. The first e-mail I
received from you consisted of two letters: "FU."

Are you still wondering why I might welcome e-mail from some people,
but not from you? If so, you aren't particularly bright.

>He allegedly reported me to my ISP but they are aware of these idiots and don't
>waste their time on them.

When you continued to e-mail me, you violated your ISP's AUP. I asked
them to enforce that policy. And I now notice you no longer dump your
garbage in my mailbox. Hmmm.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On 8 Oct 2004 18:48:56 -0700, (Yip Yap) wrote:

>"Kent H." > wrote in message >...
>> I usually avoid meaningless threads like this. However,read KevinS's
>> initial post. I am not to respond to his mailbox. I felt the need to
>> respond, and this is the only means of doing so.
>> Cheers to all, and sorry for the O.T.
>> Kent
>
>Kevin has a tendency to file lawsuits, so be careful.
>
Against spammers, putz. But you knew that already, didn't you? Funny
that you didn't mention it.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

> >
> You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
> from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
> welcome?
>
Why did you think we all wanted to see your message to him?

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:28:04 GMT, "Kevin" > wrote:

>> >
>> You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
>> from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
>> welcome?
>>
> Why did you think we all wanted to see your message to him?
>
Someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read every message
posted to AFB? Including ones clearly addressed to an individual?

BTW, I expect consistency out of you, son. The next time someone posts
a "PING: Joe Bleaux" message, I expect you to be all over them like
ugly on a cheap suit. Don't disappoint me.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Kevin wrote:
>> You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
>> from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
>> welcome?
>>
> Why did you think we all wanted to see your message to him?

KevinS doesn't care. This is his private playground that he uses to bitch and
chide others that don't play by his rules. He'll now post a question or
something that he cooked in a thinly veiled attempt to make the gullible believe
that he does care about this newsgroup. He'd make a snappy comeback to my
message, but I'm right now reminding him that he's stated that he's plonked me,
and if he responds to this, he'd out himself as the lier that he is.

BOB

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:06:24 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:

>Kevin wrote:
>>> You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
>>> from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
>>> welcome?
>>>
>> Why did you think we all wanted to see your message to him?
>
>KevinS doesn't care. This is his private playground that he uses to bitch and
>chide others that don't play by his rules.

My rules? The word "Netiquette" mean anything to you? E-mail
follow-ups--particularly when they are duplicates of posted
follow-ups--have long been frowned on. Who wants to waste time
responding via e-mail only to find the same message on Usenet? In this
case, who wants e-mail from Kent? Not me. I get enough idiotic spam,
most of which I suspect you could benefit from, if those pills
actually work.

>He'll now post a question or
>something that he cooked in a thinly veiled attempt to make the gullible believe
>that he does care about this newsgroup.

Want to bet?

> He'd make a snappy comeback to my
>message, but I'm right now reminding him that he's stated that he's plonked me,
>and if he responds to this, he'd out himself as the lier that he is.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Let's reason through this, shall
we? If I plonked you, then it is also within my power to unplock you,
correct? In fact, I can even automate the process, so that you are
automatically unplonked after so many days, so I can see if your
thinking has improved. (It hasn't, BTW.)

You'd think after all this time throwing the word around, you would
have learned to spell "liar" correctly.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:06:24 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>
>> Kevin wrote:
>>>> You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
>>>> from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
>>>> welcome?
>>>>
>>> Why did you think we all wanted to see your message to him?
>>
>> KevinS doesn't care. This is his private playground that he uses to bitch
>> and
>> chide others that don't play by his rules.
>
> My rules? The word "Netiquette" mean anything to you? E-mail
> follow-ups--particularly when they are duplicates of posted
> follow-ups--have long been frowned on. Who wants to waste time
> responding via e-mail only to find the same message on Usenet? In this
> case, who wants e-mail from Kent? Not me. I get enough idiotic spam,
> most of which I suspect you could benefit from, if those pills
> actually work.
>
>> He'll now post a question or
>> something that he cooked in a thinly veiled attempt to make the gullible
>> believe that he does care about this newsgroup.
>
> Want to bet?
>
>> He'd make a snappy comeback to my
>> message, but I'm right now reminding him that he's stated that he's plonked
>> me, and if he responds to this, he'd out himself as the lier that he is.
>
> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Let's reason through this, shall
> we? If I plonked you, then it is also within my power to unplock you,
> correct? In fact, I can even automate the process, so that you are
> automatically unplonked after so many days, so I can see if your
> thinking has improved. (It hasn't, BTW.)
>
> You'd think after all this time throwing the word around, you would
> have learned to spell "liar" correctly.
>
> --
> Kevin S. Wilson
> Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
> "When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
> useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

How about "OFF TOPIC"? Mean anything to you? I didn't think so.

Why don't you pick any month and see how many ON topic posts that you have made,
then look at the OFF topic posts. Which is larger?

BOB

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:06:24 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>
>> Kevin wrote:
>>>> You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
>>>> from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
>>>> welcome?
>>>>
>>> Why did you think we all wanted to see your message to him?
>>
>> KevinS doesn't care. This is his private playground that he uses to bitch
>> and
>> chide others that don't play by his rules.
>
> My rules? The word "Netiquette" mean anything to you? E-mail
> follow-ups--particularly when they are duplicates of posted
> follow-ups--have long been frowned on. Who wants to waste time
> responding via e-mail only to find the same message on Usenet? In this
> case, who wants e-mail from Kent? Not me. I get enough idiotic spam,
> most of which I suspect you could benefit from, if those pills
> actually work.

Oh, I missed the personal attack last time...I must have been laughing my ass of
at your attempt to prove your superiority to everyone else.

Is your wife on the her peoiod? Is that why you go off on a superior rant at
least once a month? See, I can get personal, too.

>
>> He'll now post a question or
>> something that he cooked in a thinly veiled attempt to make the gullible
>> believe that he does care about this newsgroup.
>
> Want to bet?

But if I hadn' typed that...?

>
>> He'd make a snappy comeback to my
>> message, but I'm right now reminding him that he's stated that he's plonked
>> me, and if he responds to this, he'd out himself as the lier that he is.
>
> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Let's reason through this, shall
> we? If I plonked you, then it is also within my power to unplock you,
> correct? In fact, I can even automate the process, so that you are
> automatically unplonked after so many days, so I can see if your
> thinking has improved. (It hasn't, BTW.)

No, you have no concept of truth and/or fiction in the real world. Your memory
seems to be short, too. Why don't you use your "automatic" features to just
plonk your automatic rants that no one wishes to read? You sound just like the
"bozos" and "Sparkies" that you are constantly chiding for not following the
rules of "Netiquette".

>
> You'd think after all this time throwing the word around, you would
> have learned to spell "liar" correctly.

Nah, I can spell it correctly if I wish. It's troll bait and it's working,
isn't it? Catches a "Kevvie-Fish" every time.
Oh? I didn't use the word "troll" to your definition? Too bad. I'm using it in
the since of fishing (as do many that aren't in your little pathetic world).


Oh, by the way, HAND, MF

BOB
>
> --
> Kevin S. Wilson
> Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
> "When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
> useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Or read a post from Idaho

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:49:34 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:

>Why don't you pick any month and see how many ON topic posts that you have made,
>then look at the OFF topic posts. Which is larger?

DYOFH.

You know, you share a common ailment with many of the newbies who pass
through he You really don't understand Usenet or Usenet culture.
You want Usenet to be something that it isn't and never was, and it
chafes your ass that you are impotent to make it be what you want it
to be.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:00:00 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:06:24 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> You'd think after all this time throwing the word around, you would
>> have learned to spell "liar" correctly.
>
>Nah, I can spell it correctly if I wish. It's troll bait and it's working,
>isn't it? Catches a "Kevvie-Fish" every time.
>Oh? I didn't use the word "troll" to your definition? Too bad.

Oh, I see. You meant to do it. Uh-huh. Gotcha.

> I'm using it in
>the since of fishing (as do many that aren't in your little pathetic world).
^^^^^

Bet you meant to do that, too.

What's your first language, Bob?
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:49:34 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>
>> Why don't you pick any month and see how many ON topic posts that you have
>> made, then look at the OFF topic posts. Which is larger?
>
> DYOFH.

BMY,AH

>
> You know, you share a common ailment with many of the newbies who pass
> through he You really don't understand Usenet or Usenet culture.
> You want Usenet to be something that it isn't and never was, and it
> chafes your ass that you are impotent to make it be what you want it
> to be.
>
Ah, but here's the rub. Read all "your" posts chiding others. It's OK for
"*YOU*" but not for others? You really are a prick, aren't you?

BOB
and I notice that you snipped the parts where you couldn't come up with a
quickie retort

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:00:00 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:06:24 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You'd think after all this time throwing the word around, you would
>>> have learned to spell "liar" correctly.
>>
>> Nah, I can spell it correctly if I wish. It's troll bait and it's working,
>> isn't it? Catches a "Kevvie-Fish" every time.
>> Oh? I didn't use the word "troll" to your definition? Too bad.
>
> Oh, I see. You meant to do it. Uh-huh. Gotcha.

Yep. It gets you going just about every time, too.

>
>> I'm using it in
>> the since of fishing (as do many that aren't in your little pathetic world).
> ^^^^^
>
> Bet you meant to do that, too.

No, you got me there. It must be really great to be perfect like you, and never
make a mistake. Oh, wait! Since you are perfect, you really *DO* like to try
to **** people off, is that it?

>
> What's your first language, Bob?

Obviously, not Idahoian. Some of the language that I speak sounds like the
Texas dwawl that gets your panties in a wad so frequently. Some of my language
sounds like pure North/South Carolina, or maybe even Alabama. What's your
point? I didn't think you had one, except to argue.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:08:01 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:49:34 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>> You know, you share a common ailment with many of the newbies who pass
>> through he You really don't understand Usenet or Usenet culture.
>> You want Usenet to be something that it isn't and never was, and it
>> chafes your ass that you are impotent to make it be what you want it
>> to be.
>>
>Ah, but here's the rub. Read all "your" posts chiding others. It's OK for
>"*YOU*" but not for others? You really are a prick, aren't you?

Don't put words in my mouth, Boob. Never have I said that others
aren't allowed to say whatever they want to say. For you to suggest
otherwise is disengenuous at best; at worst, it's a lie.

Chide away, Boob. Knock yourself out. You're allowed, so long as you
abide by your ISP's AUP.

Top-post all you want. Quote screen after screen of irrelevant text.
Post off-topic political bullshit. No one is stopping you, though
eventually you'll end up in killfiles and be talking to yourself.

That you haven't figure this out yet--that I can post what I want
within my ISP's AUP and only peer pressure and killfiles will make any
differnce--speaks volumes about your ignorance of Usenet culture. You
can stamp your feet all you want, but it isn't going to do any good.
The tradeoff? You, too, can post whatever you want. I sure am not
stopping you, no matter what you say or how many times you say it.

>and I notice that you snipped the parts where you couldn't come up with a
>quickie retort
>
My goodness, son, if I had to point every flaw in your fractured
logic, I'd never get _anything_ done.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:17:54 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:00:00 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:06:24 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You'd think after all this time throwing the word around, you would
>>>> have learned to spell "liar" correctly.
>>>
>>> Nah, I can spell it correctly if I wish. It's troll bait and it's working,
>>> isn't it? Catches a "Kevvie-Fish" every time.
>>> Oh? I didn't use the word "troll" to your definition? Too bad.
>>
>> Oh, I see. You meant to do it. Uh-huh. Gotcha.
>
>Yep. It gets you going just about every time, too.

You have a bad habit of saying things you can't prove. I'll wait while
you go find one other instance of me pointing out that you can't spell
"liar."

When you make untrue statements, some people might conclude that
spelling isn't the only problem you have with the concept of lying.
>>
>>> I'm using it in
>>> the since of fishing (as do many that aren't in your little pathetic world).
>> ^^^^^
>>
>> Bet you meant to do that, too.
>
>No, you got me there. It must be really great to be perfect like you, and never
>make a mistake. Oh, wait! Since you are perfect, you really *DO* like to try
>to **** people off, is that it?
>
>>
>> What's your first language, Bob?
>
>Obviously, not Idahoian. Some of the language that I speak sounds like the
>Texas dwawl that gets your panties in a wad so frequently.

A Texas drawl doesn't bother me. Idiots regularly posting ham-handed
attempts at written dialect bother me, as does anyone who purposely
makes it difficult for readers to figure out what the hell he's trying
to say. Not much of a problem, though. Frohe can stay in my killfile
until he learns to care more about his readers than about entertaining
himself.

>Some of my language
>sounds like pure North/South Carolina, or maybe even Alabama.

You don't know the difference between a dialect and a language, do
you?

>What's your point?

I'll type slowly:

By. Asking. The. Question. I. Was. Implying. That. Your. Language.
Skills. Are. Inferior. Which. Might. Lead. One. To. Believe. That.
English. Is. Not. Your. First. Language.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
> By. Asking. The. Question. I. Was. Implying. That. Your. Language.
> Skills. Are. Inferior. Which. Might. Lead. One. To. Believe. That.
> English. Is. Not. Your. First. Language.
>

Translation:
I, Kevin S. Wilson am perfect and superior to everyone else in the world. At
least in my own little sheltered world, that is.


Kevin, do you have any friends in the real world? No, I don't mean those that
you work with, those that have to put up with you. I mean real, true friends.
With your attitude, I didn't think so.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:37:05 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:

>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>> By. Asking. The. Question. I. Was. Implying. That. Your. Language.
>> Skills. Are. Inferior. Which. Might. Lead. One. To. Believe. That.
>> English. Is. Not. Your. First. Language.
>>
>
>Translation:
>I, Kevin S. Wilson am perfect and superior to everyone else in the world.

Sensitive little thing, aren't you? You do know what they say about
people who can't take a joke, right?

> At least in my own little sheltered world, that is.

Sheltered world? You know jack-all about me or my life, Chuckles, but
just for entertainment why don't you go right ahead and explain in
what way my world is or ever was sheltered.

Preemptively, because you are SO predictable, I'll remind you that
academia is every bit as much a part of the "real world" as corporate
America, a small business, or a construction site. And, yes, I've
worked in all three, for many more years than I've worked in academia.

Your turn. You were explaining how my world is sheltered, remember?
>
>Kevin, do you have any friends in the real world? No, I don't mean those that
>you work with, those that have to put up with you. I mean real, true friends.
>With your attitude, I didn't think so.

Again, you know jack-all about me or my life. Somehow I think that
bothers you.

Good.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:37:05 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> By. Asking. The. Question. I. Was. Implying. That. Your. Language.
>>> Skills. Are. Inferior. Which. Might. Lead. One. To. Believe. That.
>>> English. Is. Not. Your. First. Language.
>>>
>>
>> Translation:
>> I, Kevin S. Wilson am perfect and superior to everyone else in the world.
>
> Sensitive little thing, aren't you? You do know what they say about
> people who can't take a joke, right?

So, once again, only *you* your net-ness, are the only one allowed to make
jokes? That says volumes about your perceived superiority.

>
>> At least in my own little sheltered world, that is.
>
> Sheltered world? You know jack-all about me or my life, Chuckles, but
> just for entertainment why don't you go right ahead and explain in
> what way my world is or ever was sheltered.

It's a joke. I didn't think you'd understand. Oh, and thanks for calling me
"Chuckles". I've been waiting for that.

>
> Preemptively, because you are SO predictable, I'll remind you that
> academia is every bit as much a part of the "real world" as corporate
> America, a small business, or a construction site. And, yes, I've
> worked in all three, for many more years than I've worked in academia.

Ah! So you do really believe that you've experienced it all. Your perceived
superiority is showing, once again.

>
> Your turn. You were explaining how my world is sheltered, remember?
>>
>> Kevin, do you have any friends in the real world? No, I don't mean those
>> that
>> you work with, those that have to put up with you. I mean real, true
>> friends.
>> With your attitude, I didn't think so.
>
> Again, you know jack-all about me or my life. Somehow I think that
> bothers you.

I know you come off as a bully, shoving people around on usenet. Somehow, I do
beilive that there's some truth to this.
BOTHERS ME? You do give yourself much more credit for your effects on me than
are there. You're the only one that can harass people on usenet? You seem to
get uptight and foaming at the mouth any time someone gives you back some of
your crap. Go back and read *ANY* oof your posts where someone calls you on
your self0-serving BS. You're the same old broken record. You do really need
to get a life. Or at least a new tune. I could keep this up for as long as
you, but I don't think that the others in afb appreciate the off topic bullshit
that you seem so intent on spewing. HAND, again, your superior net-ness.
>
> Good.
>
> --
> Kevin S. Wilson
> Tech Writer

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 16:43:41 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:

>You do really need to get a life.

BINGO! That fills up my Usenet Cliche Game Card. Thanks, but what took
you so long?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 12:37:05 -0400, " BOB" > wrote:
>
> >Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> By. Asking. The. Question. I. Was. Implying. That. Your. Language.
> >> Skills. Are. Inferior. Which. Might. Lead. One. To. Believe. That.
> >> English. Is. Not. Your. First. Language.
> >>
> >
> >Translation:
> >I, Kevin S. Wilson am perfect and superior to everyone else in the world.
>
> Sensitive little thing, aren't you? You do know what they say about
> people who can't take a joke, right?

Its not a joke if you have to explain it .. or something like that you wrote
to me the otherday

> >Kevin, do you have any friends in the real world? No, I don't mean those
that
> >you work with, those that have to put up with you. I mean real, true
friends.
> >With your attitude, I didn't think so.
>
> Again, you know jack-all about me or my life. Somehow I think that
> bothers you.

Well do you and I don't me that in a DrDoLittle sense?

-CAL

" BOB" > wrote in message
...
.....cut

> I know you come off as a bully, shoving people around on usenet. Somehow,
I do
> beilive that there's some truth to this.
> BOTHERS ME? You do give yourself much more credit for your effects on me
than
> are there. You're the only one that can harass people on usenet? You
seem to
> get uptight and foaming at the mouth any time someone gives you back some
of
> your crap. Go back and read *ANY* oof your posts where someone calls you
on
> your self0-serving BS. You're the same old broken record. You do really
need
> to get a life. Or at least a new tune. I could keep this up for as long
as
> you, but I don't think that the others in afb appreciate the off topic
bullshit
> that you seem so intent on spewing. HAND, again, your superior net-ness.


Say this to each other please :"Could you please stop feeding the trolls, we
are worthless. ...Plonk (back to Gus and Daves opening)"

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:33:04 GMT, Dan Krueger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Kent,
>>
>>Been there, done that. He's a trolling a-hole. Once he receives an email (to
>>likely save him some embarrassment in the group) he posts this crap.
>
>
> I get frequently get e-mail from people on AFB. The first e-mail I
> received from you consisted of two letters: "FU."
>
> Are you still wondering why I might welcome e-mail from some people,
> but not from you? If so, you aren't particularly bright.

Wondering? Sure, I stay up all night thinking about that.
>
>
>>He allegedly reported me to my ISP but they are aware of these idiots and don't
>>waste their time on them.
>
>
> When you continued to e-mail me, you violated your ISP's AUP. I asked
> them to enforce that policy. And I now notice you no longer dump your
> garbage in my mailbox. Hmmm.
>
FU was a response to an attack you made on someone else. I sent it via email to
spare the group of an OT message. I did send you one other email so I guess you
can't count. Not a peep from my ISP. They can Google people just like anyone
else and judge the character of the complainant.

Doesn't surprise me. A lot of people need a second income.

Yip Yap wrote:

> "Kent H." > wrote in message >...
>
>>I usually avoid meaningless threads like this. However,read KevinS's
>>initial post. I am not to respond to his mailbox. I felt the need to
>>respond, and this is the only means of doing so.
>>Cheers to all, and sorry for the O.T.
>>Kent
>
>
> Kevin has a tendency to file lawsuits, so be careful.
>
> -- Yip

As a Netcop, you should know that OT messages are inappropriate. Why "PING"?
Try email, it works better and saves hundreds of people browsing the group the
added time deciding what to read.

Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:28:04 GMT, "Kevin" > wrote:
>
>
>>>You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
>>>from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
>>>welcome?
>>>
>>
>>Why did you think we all wanted to see your message to him?
>>
>
> Someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read every message
> posted to AFB? Including ones clearly addressed to an individual?
>
> BTW, I expect consistency out of you, son. The next time someone posts
> a "PING: Joe Bleaux" message, I expect you to be all over them like
> ugly on a cheap suit. Don't disappoint me.
>

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:28:04 GMT, "Kevin" > wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> You didn't think very long about this, did you? I don't want e-mail
> >> from Kent. Why would I expect my e-mail to him would be any more
> >> welcome?
> >>
> > Why did you think we all wanted to see your message to him?
> >
> Someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read every message
> posted to AFB? Including ones clearly addressed to an individual?
>
> BTW, I expect consistency out of you, son. The next time someone posts
> a "PING: Joe Bleaux" message, I expect you to be all over them like
> ugly on a cheap suit. Don't disappoint me.

First, I am not your son. Thankfully.

I expect consistency out of you. How come you don't jump on every single
top poster? You seem to be all over some of them like ugly on your cheap
suit. But you disappoint me, there have been some top posters you let
slide. So, on what basis do you make that discriminatory decision?

This is not your playground alone to set the rules. You are very quick to
pounce. Is someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to read every
message to AFB? Including the ones top posting? I happen to prefer bottom
posting, or intertwined responses, myself; but your holier than thou
attitude about is just dumb.

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:28:04 GMT, "Kevin" > wrote:
>>
> BTW, I expect consistency out of you, son. The next time someone posts
> a "PING: Joe Bleaux" message, I expect you to be all over them like
> ugly on a cheap suit. Don't disappoint me.
>
> --
> Kevin S. Wilson
> Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
> "When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
> useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J.
Furr

BTW, there is also a difference between a "PING: Joe Bleaux" message, and
yours. Shall I spell it out for you?

The PING message - often the sender of this type of message doesn't have Joe
Bleaux's email address. Since you are a big proponent of anti-spam (I
commend you for your efforts on this, and your success and hope you actually
collected the award), I'm sure you understand that many people don't post
with their live address. So the PING is the only way of reaching some
people on usenet.

Your message - since KentH sent you an email, you obviously had his address.
Given your email header decoding skills, you are quite capable of
determining if the reply address was legitimate.

The PING message - usually FRIENDLY.

Your message - clearly inflammatory with an intent to instigate. (and save
your normal response of "welcome to usenet")