Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Barbecue (alt.food.barbecue) Discuss barbecue and grilling--southern style "low and slow" smoking of ribs, shoulders and briskets, as well as direct heat grilling of everything from burgers to salmon to vegetables. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote:
>Dan Krueger wrote: > >> Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >> computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >> you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >> post so why is it such a problem for you? > >That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. > >> I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >> result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like more >> of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >> and spare the people here your sad story. >> >> I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >> "stalking". > >Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >makes you a lowlife bitch. Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. These are the facts: 1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed there are a lot of kooks out there. 2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." 3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet he know's Dank's name. 4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name because Dank is the source of the complaints. 5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were forgeries, so why bother? If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" (Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response to Dank's complaints. Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to imply by asking it?" I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >Shame on you. Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. |
|
|||
|
|||
What is this all about?
Oh, right, its a.f.b. Nevermind. "Max" > wrote in message news > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > > wrote: > >>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote: >> >>>Dan Krueger wrote: >>> >>>> Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >>>> computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >>>> you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >>>> post so why is it such a problem for you? >>> >>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. >>> >>>> I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >>>> result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like >>>> more >>>> of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >>>> and spare the people here your sad story. >>>> >>>> I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >>>> "stalking". >>> >>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >>>makes you a lowlife bitch. >> >>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped >>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group >>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if >>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to >>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal >>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. >> >>These are the facts: >> >>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's >>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed >>there are a lot of kooks out there. >> >>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without >>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this >>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." >> >>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet >>he know's Dank's name. >> >>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the >>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why >>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole >>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. >>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories >>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from >>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name >>because Dank is the source of the complaints. >> >>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by >>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm >>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into >>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were >>forgeries, so why bother? >> >>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the >>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to >>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to >>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a >>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from >>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" >>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) >> >>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the >>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response >>to Dank's complaints. >> >>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do >>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to >>imply by asking it?" >> >>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also >>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had >>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I >>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily >>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe >>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause >>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. >> >>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. >>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? >>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >> >>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. >> >>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. >>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower >>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >> >>>Shame on you. >> >>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a >>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least >>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's >>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. >> > > Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/ > And YHL! > > Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND. > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:21:52 -0700, "CS" >
wrote: >What is this all about? Ask Dank. But don't be surprised is he then e-mails your boss repeatedly, in an impotent attempt to get you fired. >Oh, right, its a.f.b. > >Nevermind. > >"Max" > wrote in message >news >> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote: >>> >>>>Dan Krueger wrote: >>>> >>>>> Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >>>>> computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >>>>> you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >>>>> post so why is it such a problem for you? >>>> >>>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. >>>> >>>>> I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >>>>> result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like >>>>> more >>>>> of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >>>>> and spare the people here your sad story. >>>>> >>>>> I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >>>>> "stalking". >>>> >>>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >>>>makes you a lowlife bitch. >>> >>>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped >>>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group >>>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if >>>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to >>>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal >>>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. >>> >>>These are the facts: >>> >>>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's >>>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed >>>there are a lot of kooks out there. >>> >>>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without >>>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this >>>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." >>> >>>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet >>>he know's Dank's name. >>> >>>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the >>>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why >>>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole >>>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. >>>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories >>>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from >>>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name >>>because Dank is the source of the complaints. >>> >>>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by >>>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm >>>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into >>>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were >>>forgeries, so why bother? >>> >>>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the >>>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to >>>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to >>>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a >>>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from >>>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" >>>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) >>> >>>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the >>>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response >>>to Dank's complaints. >>> >>>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do >>>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to >>>imply by asking it?" >>> >>>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also >>>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had >>>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I >>>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily >>>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe >>>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause >>>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. >>> >>>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. >>>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? >>>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >>> >>>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >>>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. >>> >>>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. >>>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower >>>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >>> >>>>Shame on you. >>> >>>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a >>>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least >>>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's >>>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. >>> >> >> Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/ >> And YHL! >> >> Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND. >> > |
|
|||
|
|||
Weak response, Kevvie. Keep on trollin'...
Kevin S. Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:21:52 -0700, "CS" > > wrote: > > >>What is this all about? > > > Ask Dank. But don't be surprised is he then e-mails your boss > repeatedly, in an impotent attempt to get you fired. > > >>Oh, right, its a.f.b. >> >>Nevermind. >> >>"Max" > wrote in message >>news >> >>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Dan Krueger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >>>>>>computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >>>>>>you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >>>>>>post so why is it such a problem for you? >>>>> >>>>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >>>>>>result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like >>>>>>more >>>>>>of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >>>>>>and spare the people here your sad story. >>>>>> >>>>>>I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >>>>>>"stalking". >>>>> >>>>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >>>>>makes you a lowlife bitch. >>>> >>>>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped >>>>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group >>>>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if >>>>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to >>>>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal >>>>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. >>>> >>>>These are the facts: >>>> >>>>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's >>>>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed >>>>there are a lot of kooks out there. >>>> >>>>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without >>>>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this >>>>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." >>>> >>>>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet >>>>he know's Dank's name. >>>> >>>>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the >>>>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why >>>>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole >>>>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. >>>>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories >>>>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from >>>>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name >>>>because Dank is the source of the complaints. >>>> >>>>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by >>>>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm >>>>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into >>>>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were >>>>forgeries, so why bother? >>>> >>>>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the >>>>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to >>>>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to >>>>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a >>>>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from >>>>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" >>>>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) >>>> >>>>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the >>>>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response >>>>to Dank's complaints. >>>> >>>>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do >>>>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to >>>>imply by asking it?" >>>> >>>>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also >>>>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had >>>>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I >>>>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily >>>>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe >>>>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause >>>>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. >>>> >>>>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. >>>>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? >>>>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >>>> >>>> >>>>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >>>>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. >>>> >>>>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. >>>>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower >>>>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >>>> >>>> >>>>>Shame on you. >>>> >>>>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a >>>>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least >>>>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's >>>>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. >>>> >>> >>>Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/ >>>And YHL! >>> >>>Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND. >>> >> > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:45:56 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote: >Weak response, Kevvie. Keep on trollin'... Thanks for reposting the story of how you e-mailed my boss in an attempt to get me censured or fired, Dank. I like the idea that more people will now likely see it. Good job. If you're proud enough of the story to repost it, why aren't you man enough to admit that it's true? Until you do, you're nothing but a sad, pathetic, cowardly little man, Dank. >Kevin S. Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:21:52 -0700, "CS" > >> wrote: >> >> >>>What is this all about? >> >> >> Ask Dank. But don't be surprised is he then e-mails your boss >> repeatedly, in an impotent attempt to get you fired. >> >> >>>Oh, right, its a.f.b. >>> >>>Nevermind. >>> >>>"Max" > wrote in message >>>news >>> >>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Dan Krueger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >>>>>>>computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >>>>>>>you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >>>>>>>post so why is it such a problem for you? >>>>>> >>>>>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >>>>>>>result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like >>>>>>>more >>>>>>>of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >>>>>>>and spare the people here your sad story. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >>>>>>>"stalking". >>>>>> >>>>>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >>>>>>makes you a lowlife bitch. >>>>> >>>>>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped >>>>>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group >>>>>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if >>>>>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to >>>>>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal >>>>>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. >>>>> >>>>>These are the facts: >>>>> >>>>>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's >>>>>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed >>>>>there are a lot of kooks out there. >>>>> >>>>>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without >>>>>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this >>>>>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." >>>>> >>>>>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet >>>>>he know's Dank's name. >>>>> >>>>>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the >>>>>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why >>>>>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole >>>>>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. >>>>>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories >>>>>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from >>>>>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name >>>>>because Dank is the source of the complaints. >>>>> >>>>>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by >>>>>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm >>>>>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into >>>>>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were >>>>>forgeries, so why bother? >>>>> >>>>>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the >>>>>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to >>>>>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to >>>>>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a >>>>>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from >>>>>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" >>>>>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) >>>>> >>>>>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the >>>>>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response >>>>>to Dank's complaints. >>>>> >>>>>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do >>>>>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to >>>>>imply by asking it?" >>>>> >>>>>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also >>>>>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had >>>>>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I >>>>>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily >>>>>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe >>>>>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause >>>>>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. >>>>> >>>>>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. >>>>>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? >>>>>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >>>>>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. >>>>> >>>>>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. >>>>>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower >>>>>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Shame on you. >>>>> >>>>>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a >>>>>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least >>>>>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's >>>>>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/ >>>>And YHL! >>>> >>>>Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND. >>>> >>> >> |
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:52:43 -0500, Kevin S. Wilson
> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:48:49 -0500, Kevin S. Wilson > wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:33:01 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>wrote: >> >Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ! > Whiner bitch. Thanks for reposting the story of how Dan Kreuger e-mailed my boss in an impotent attempt to get me fired. With your help, more and more people will know what kind of person Dan Kreuger is. What I don't understand is why he's so afraid to admit to what he did. PS: You really don't want to continue forging my name into the FROM fields of your posts. Really. >----------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:21:52 -0700, "CS" > >>>wrote: >>> >>>>What is this all about? >>> >>>Ask Dank. But don't be surprised is he then e-mails your boss >>>repeatedly, in an impotent attempt to get you fired. >>> >>>>Oh, right, its a.f.b. >>>> >>>>Nevermind. >>>> >>>>"Max" > wrote in message >>>>news >>>>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Dan Krueger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >>>>>>>> computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >>>>>>>> you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >>>>>>>> post so why is it such a problem for you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >>>>>>>> result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >>>>>>>> and spare the people here your sad story. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >>>>>>>> "stalking". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >>>>>>>makes you a lowlife bitch. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped >>>>>>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group >>>>>>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if >>>>>>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to >>>>>>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal >>>>>>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. >>>>>> >>>>>>These are the facts: >>>>>> >>>>>>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's >>>>>>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed >>>>>>there are a lot of kooks out there. >>>>>> >>>>>>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without >>>>>>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this >>>>>>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." >>>>>> >>>>>>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet >>>>>>he know's Dank's name. >>>>>> >>>>>>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the >>>>>>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why >>>>>>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole >>>>>>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. >>>>>>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories >>>>>>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from >>>>>>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name >>>>>>because Dank is the source of the complaints. >>>>>> >>>>>>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by >>>>>>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm >>>>>>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into >>>>>>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were >>>>>>forgeries, so why bother? >>>>>> >>>>>>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the >>>>>>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to >>>>>>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to >>>>>>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a >>>>>>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from >>>>>>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" >>>>>>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) >>>>>> >>>>>>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the >>>>>>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response >>>>>>to Dank's complaints. >>>>>> >>>>>>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do >>>>>>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to >>>>>>imply by asking it?" >>>>>> >>>>>>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also >>>>>>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had >>>>>>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I >>>>>>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily >>>>>>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe >>>>>>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause >>>>>>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. >>>>>> >>>>>>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. >>>>>>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? >>>>>>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >>>>>> >>>>>>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >>>>>>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. >>>>>> >>>>>>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. >>>>>>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower >>>>>>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Shame on you. >>>>>> >>>>>>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a >>>>>>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least >>>>>>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's >>>>>>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/ >>>>> And YHL! >>>>> >>>>> Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND. >>>>> >>>> |
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:52:43 -0500, Kevin S. Wilson > > wrote: > > >On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:48:49 -0500, Kevin S. Wilson > > wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:33:01 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > > >>wrote: > >> > >Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ! > > Whiner bitch. > > Thanks for reposting the story of how Dan Kreuger e-mailed my boss in > an impotent attempt to get me fired. With your help, more and more > people will know what kind of person Dan Kreuger is. > > What I don't understand is why he's so afraid to admit to what he did. > > PS: You really don't want to continue forging my name into the FROM > fields of your posts. Really. Maybe this the other Kevin Wilson of the Masonic fame? |
|
|||
|
|||
Reposted? Keep telling yourself that, pro.
Kevin S. Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:45:56 GMT, Dan Krueger > > wrote: > > >>Weak response, Kevvie. Keep on trollin'... > > > Thanks for reposting the story of how you e-mailed my boss in an > attempt to get me censured or fired, Dank. I like the idea that more > people will now likely see it. Good job. > > If you're proud enough of the story to repost it, why aren't you man > enough to admit that it's true? Until you do, you're nothing but a > sad, pathetic, cowardly little man, Dank. > > >>Kevin S. Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:21:52 -0700, "CS" > >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>What is this all about? >>> >>> >>>Ask Dank. But don't be surprised is he then e-mails your boss >>>repeatedly, in an impotent attempt to get you fired. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Oh, right, its a.f.b. >>>> >>>>Nevermind. >>>> >>>>"Max" > wrote in message >>>>news >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Dan Krueger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >>>>>>>>computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >>>>>>>>you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >>>>>>>>post so why is it such a problem for you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >>>>>>>>result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like >>>>>>>>more >>>>>>>>of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >>>>>>>>and spare the people here your sad story. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >>>>>>>>"stalking". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >>>>>>>makes you a lowlife bitch. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped >>>>>>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group >>>>>>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if >>>>>>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to >>>>>>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal >>>>>>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. >>>>>> >>>>>>These are the facts: >>>>>> >>>>>>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's >>>>>>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed >>>>>>there are a lot of kooks out there. >>>>>> >>>>>>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without >>>>>>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this >>>>>>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." >>>>>> >>>>>>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet >>>>>>he know's Dank's name. >>>>>> >>>>>>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the >>>>>>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why >>>>>>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole >>>>>>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. >>>>>>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories >>>>>>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from >>>>>>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name >>>>>>because Dank is the source of the complaints. >>>>>> >>>>>>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by >>>>>>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm >>>>>>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into >>>>>>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were >>>>>>forgeries, so why bother? >>>>>> >>>>>>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the >>>>>>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to >>>>>>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to >>>>>>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a >>>>>>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from >>>>>>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" >>>>>>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) >>>>>> >>>>>>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the >>>>>>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response >>>>>>to Dank's complaints. >>>>>> >>>>>>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do >>>>>>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to >>>>>>imply by asking it?" >>>>>> >>>>>>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also >>>>>>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had >>>>>>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I >>>>>>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily >>>>>>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe >>>>>>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause >>>>>>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. >>>>>> >>>>>>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. >>>>>>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? >>>>>>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >>>>>>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. >>>>>> >>>>>>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. >>>>>>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower >>>>>>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Shame on you. >>>>>> >>>>>>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a >>>>>>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least >>>>>>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's >>>>>>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/ >>>>>And YHL! >>>>> >>>>>Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND. >>>>> >>>> > |
|
|||
|
|||
What do you have to hide? What could be forwarded to your "boss" to
hurt you? It seems you aren't proud of your behavior. Too bad for you, pro. Kevin S. Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:52:43 -0500, Kevin S. Wilson > > wrote: > > >>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:48:49 -0500, Kevin S. Wilson > wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:33:01 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>>wrote: >>> >> >>Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a! >>Whiner bitch. > > > Thanks for reposting the story of how Dan Kreuger e-mailed my boss in > an impotent attempt to get me fired. With your help, more and more > people will know what kind of person Dan Kreuger is. > > What I don't understand is why he's so afraid to admit to what he did. > > PS: You really don't want to continue forging my name into the FROM > fields of your posts. Really. > > >>----------------------------------------------------- >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:21:52 -0700, "CS" > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>What is this all about? >>>> >>>>Ask Dank. But don't be surprised is he then e-mails your boss >>>>repeatedly, in an impotent attempt to get you fired. >>>> >>>> >>>>>Oh, right, its a.f.b. >>>>> >>>>>Nevermind. >>>>> >>>>>"Max" > wrote in message >>>>>news >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Dan Krueger wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >>>>>>>>>computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >>>>>>>>>you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >>>>>>>>>post so why is it such a problem for you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >>>>>>>>>result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like >>>>>>>>>more >>>>>>>>>of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >>>>>>>>>and spare the people here your sad story. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >>>>>>>>>"stalking". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >>>>>>>>makes you a lowlife bitch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped >>>>>>>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group >>>>>>>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if >>>>>>>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to >>>>>>>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal >>>>>>>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>These are the facts: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's >>>>>>>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed >>>>>>>there are a lot of kooks out there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without >>>>>>>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this >>>>>>>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet >>>>>>>he know's Dank's name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the >>>>>>>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why >>>>>>>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole >>>>>>>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. >>>>>>>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories >>>>>>>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from >>>>>>>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name >>>>>>>because Dank is the source of the complaints. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by >>>>>>>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm >>>>>>>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into >>>>>>>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were >>>>>>>forgeries, so why bother? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the >>>>>>>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to >>>>>>>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to >>>>>>>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a >>>>>>>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from >>>>>>>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" >>>>>>>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the >>>>>>>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response >>>>>>>to Dank's complaints. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do >>>>>>>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to >>>>>>>imply by asking it?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also >>>>>>>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had >>>>>>>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I >>>>>>>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily >>>>>>>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe >>>>>>>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause >>>>>>>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. >>>>>>>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? >>>>>>>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >>>>>>>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. >>>>>>>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower >>>>>>>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Shame on you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a >>>>>>>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least >>>>>>>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's >>>>>>>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/ >>>>>>And YHL! >>>>>> >>>>>>Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND. >>>>>> >>>>> > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:15:08 GMT, Dan Krueger
> wrote: >What do you have to hide? What could be forwarded to your "boss" to >hurt you? Not a thing, Dank. > It seems you aren't proud of your behavior. This from a sniveling coward who won't even own up to the fact that he e-mailed my boss in attempt to get me fired. PS: Thanks for quoting in its entirety the story of how you tried to get me fired. Funny that you're too ashamed of your actions to admit what you did, yet you keep quoting the story for all to see. >Kevin S. Wilson wrote: > >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:52:43 -0500, Kevin S. Wilson >> > wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:48:49 -0500, Kevin S. Wilson > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:33:01 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>> >>>Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa! >>>Whiner bitch. >> >> >> Thanks for reposting the story of how Dan Kreuger e-mailed my boss in >> an impotent attempt to get me fired. With your help, more and more >> people will know what kind of person Dan Kreuger is. >> >> What I don't understand is why he's so afraid to admit to what he did. >> >> PS: You really don't want to continue forging my name into the FROM >> fields of your posts. Really. >> >> >>>----------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:21:52 -0700, "CS" > >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>What is this all about? >>>>> >>>>>Ask Dank. But don't be surprised is he then e-mails your boss >>>>>repeatedly, in an impotent attempt to get you fired. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Oh, right, its a.f.b. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nevermind. >>>>>> >>>>>>"Max" > wrote in message >>>>>>news71th157ama0heojo6mhups21br864q1i5@4ax. com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson > >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Dan Krueger wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your >>>>>>>>>>computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what >>>>>>>>>>you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I >>>>>>>>>>post so why is it such a problem for you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the >>>>>>>>>>result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like >>>>>>>>>>more >>>>>>>>>>of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology >>>>>>>>>>and spare the people here your sad story. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is >>>>>>>>>>"stalking". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that >>>>>>>>>makes you a lowlife bitch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped >>>>>>>>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group >>>>>>>>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if >>>>>>>>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to >>>>>>>>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal >>>>>>>>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>These are the facts: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's >>>>>>>>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed >>>>>>>>there are a lot of kooks out there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without >>>>>>>>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to **** off this >>>>>>>>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet >>>>>>>>he know's Dank's name. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the >>>>>>>>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why >>>>>>>>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole >>>>>>>>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints. >>>>>>>>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories >>>>>>>>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from >>>>>>>>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name >>>>>>>>because Dank is the source of the complaints. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by >>>>>>>>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm >>>>>>>>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into >>>>>>>>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were >>>>>>>>forgeries, so why bother? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the >>>>>>>>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to >>>>>>>>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to >>>>>>>>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a >>>>>>>>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from >>>>>>>>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?" >>>>>>>>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the >>>>>>>>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response >>>>>>>>to Dank's complaints. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do >>>>>>>>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to >>>>>>>>imply by asking it?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also >>>>>>>>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had >>>>>>>>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I >>>>>>>>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily >>>>>>>>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe >>>>>>>>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause >>>>>>>>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more. >>>>>>>>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank? >>>>>>>>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to >>>>>>>>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign. >>>>>>>>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower >>>>>>>>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Shame on you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a >>>>>>>>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least >>>>>>>>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's >>>>>>>>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/ >>>>>>>And YHL! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
the weber q grill | Barbecue | |||
Weber Grill? | General Cooking | |||
Extension for Weber grill | Barbecue | |||
Help With Weber Propane Grill | Barbecue |