|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > January 2006 > ANONYMOUS REMAILERS AND ARROGANCE
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
ANONYMOUS REMAILERS AND ARROGANCE
|
|
|
| Anonymous remailers are not new. Internet vandalism from anonymous
remailers is as old as the very first remailer. Vandalism off the net is as
old as the first remailer.
What is interesting is the level of MORONS it can attract. Most users
are like anyone else, why they use remailers remains a mystery because they
could use ANY legitimate ISP. But remailers also attracts the WORST on the
internet.
What is funny is how EASY it is to set off those morons. Say anything
negative about remailers and they have a Pabinsky response. It's almost fun
to watch their INSANE defense of spamming newsgroups because they get
tweaked.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.privacy.anon-server.]
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:37:13 GMT, KRP wrote in
Message-Id: <dcQuf.712$Gu6.52@trnddc06>:
> Anonymous remailers are not new. Internet vandalism from anonymous
> remailers is as old as the very first remailer. Vandalism off the net is as
> old as the first remailer.
You've started a brand new thread attacking remailers and once again
included fl.general in the distribution. A few days ago you were
complaining about remailers posting there. Surely even to you it's
obvious that this is goading remailer users into posting there in
response to your attack?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBQ7vX+2oLu9HNUqmMAQrskAgAmKeV+ySG
2j9o5r3Gg8Cke+qZpX8jA7Hm
bSnzFNKVDqskt2i2mFCkDYGh7ufpTu2N+ptA8ZO8
a0inNr4fzb9KdxjoqY6QE4WY
tT1ZXQDJ17uKpenmekzGkkiSFG4KuorlN2FlU9/yjSCkp900m0rw12JIo6p2RSFD
VpGvU88xX147RbmMdU0cpvfBTO/r5L9F82PUN8PncYidopcKg5XapvzxlDgxf6l1
tH1BJ0kPtmpgEeZuGzGJhRg+syto1syL4Jt7lj8V
IMlcoRit400yk5dZZ4oSFqx5
CgLovKgyW7XLxgj6q0fRo2E9CAX0zOCCdXtxz9fU
0BIcM4w1V4k52A==
=cnWI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-04, 5:51 pm |
| Zax <fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA512
>
>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.privacy.anon-server.]
>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:37:13 GMT, KRP wrote in
>Message-Id: <dcQuf.712$Gu6.52@trnddc06>:
>
>
>You've started a brand new thread attacking remailers and once again
>included fl.general in the distribution. A few days ago you were
>complaining about remailers posting there. Surely even to you it's
>obvious that this is goading remailer users into posting there in
>response to your attack?
It's looking more and more like he wants these things to happen. He
complains constantly about some guy attacking him through a remailer, yet
when the same guy offered to bring this bizarre flamewar to an end, he came
up with excuses.
KRP seems to think this is some actual war he's fighting, and that
something of importance will be gained by continuing to fight it. He said
earlier that walking away from it would be "surrender" and that he had no
intention of doing that. He's been doing this for 8 years and written over
11,000 messages on this subject. I wouldn't count on him stopping anytime
soon, unfortunately.
Rich
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-04, 5:51 pm |
| > You've started a brand new thread attacking remailers and once again
> included fl.general in the distribution. A few days ago you were
> complaining about remailers posting there. Surely even to you it's
> obvious that this is goading remailer users into posting there in
> response to your attack?
He desires attention.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-04, 5:51 pm |
| On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Anonymous <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
>He desires attention.
He's been at it so long he can't imagine life without his imaginary friend,
Davey.
That's OK, though. He's fat and doughy and out of shape... maybe he'll have
a heart attack and fall over dead soon. No one will miss him, and many will
cheer his finally shutting the hell up!
| |
| [Anonymous] Persona 2006-01-04, 5:51 pm |
| -----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext
In <dcQuf.712$Gu6.52@trnddc06> " KRP" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
> Anonymous remailers are not new. Internet vandalism from anonymous
>remailers is as old as the very first remailer. Vandalism off the net is as
>old as the first remailer.
>
Vandalism off the net is as old as the Vandals, an East German tribe
that entered the Late Roman Empire in the 5th Century, A.D.
Persona
-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-04, 5:51 pm |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> It's looking more and more like he wants these things to happen. He
You're just now coming to terms with that reality? ;)
> complains constantly about some guy attacking him through a remailer,
> yet when the same guy offered to bring this bizarre flamewar to an end,
> he came up with excuses.
Of course he does. Ken's life revolves around taking the frustrations of
real life out on others from behind the safety of his Internet connection.
If he behaved the way he does here in front of real people, he'd be
residing in the prison infirmary.
Ken simply doesn't possess the intestinal fortitude to give up his
pathetic on line quest for the legitimization that eludes him elsewhere.
It's truly not in his power to to make honest attempts at improving
himself. He's far to long steeped in some bizarre misconception that one
can become "better" by practicing a zen like level of the worst behavior
any alleged adult can practice.
> KRP seems to think this is some actual war he's fighting, and that
> something of importance will be gained by continuing to fight it. He
This probably IS is Ken's reality. Or at least part of it. When you read
through the stuff he says with a critical eye you'll recognize a strange
lack of any real distinction between Usenet and Palm Harbor. Ken lives as
much in here, as he does out there. 
> said earlier that walking away from it would be "surrender" and that he
> had no intention of doing that. He's been doing this for 8 years and
> written over 11,000 messages on this subject. I wouldn't count on him
> stopping anytime soon, unfortunately.
ACK
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-04, 5:51 pm |
| KRP wrote:
> Anonymous remailers are not new. Internet vandalism from anonymous
> remailers is as old as the very first remailer. Vandalism off the net is
> as old as the first remailer.
Net abuse is as old as the net itself, and vehicular homicide is as
old as the automobile. Your entire argument is a logical error that's
commonly called a fallacy of composition.
It's also a classic case of the pot commenting on the kettle's lack of
color...
> What is interesting is the level of MORONS it can attract. Most users
Yes. We have in fact observed you for nearly two decades now, in stunned
amazement that you'd be able to sustain your curious level of amorality so
perfectly. I honestly can't remember ever seeing, or hearing about,
anything you've done to add any sort of value to any discussion or other
presence here on the net. That's not even an exaggeration Ken. You've been
nothing but a festering boil on the rear end of the net since you appeared
here, and likewise afflicted other similar venues prior to that.
> are like anyone else, why they use remailers remains a mystery because
> they could use ANY legitimate ISP.
At the moment I'm using remailers to avoid having my email addresses
bombed with forged threats from the police, and my phone number dialed by
caller ID blocked extensions in the middle of the night. Twice in the
past, addressing your behavior precisely as I'm doing now has produced
that exact effect. And even though I look on you as more of an amusement
than a thereat, Ken, I don't care to give you she self satisfaction of
doing it again. In light of what you've done to me myself and others, it's
a public service and a source of gratification to be able to say what you
and everyone else knows to be true, with complete impunity in respect to
your childish attempts at retribution.
Sure, you can take a wild guess. You might even get lucky and pick the
right person from among the dozens you've wholesale attacked outside these
groups. But you know if you don't restrain yourself to one or two, and
only small spurts of traffic, you'll be outed as a flooder now. You fear
that even the remailers you've used to successfully hide behind while
attacking those who expose you are getting so fed up with you that they
might break their "prime directive" and deal you yet another crushing
blow you'd spend the NEXT 20 years trying in vain to explain away with the
most ridiculous excuses to ever be immortalized in ASCII.
And this is precisely why you're on your mini-crusade this month. At least
one Remailer Operator posted here anonymously, threatening to expose you,
so just like newsgroups where you're exposed by numerous people you attack
the entity as a whole.
> But remailers also attracts the WORST
> on the internet.
Yes, we know you exist. There's really nothing we can do about you or it
would have been done a long time ago. Every time we get one of your
accounts canceled you get another, and it wouldn't be fair to the
majority, valid users of remailers to attack remailers directly. So we
mostly ignore your idiocy, unless addressing it amuses us for a time.
> What is funny is how EASY it is to set off those morons. Say anything
Absolutely. With only two or three posts driving home a single point
regarding your lying or other insidious activity you'll dive head long
into a flurry of mostly flaccid "vengeance" that puts garden variety
trolls and flooders to shame.
> negative about remailers and they have a Pabinsky response. It's almost
> fun to watch their INSANE defense of spamming newsgroups because they
> get tweaked.
Several well spoken and dedicated people handing you your XXX on a platter
with a side order of facts, common sense, and honesty, isn't the
definition of insanity Ken. Waging a near decade long war on the Internet
by accusing everyone and everybody of being the same person, and full
quoting almost every bit of abuse that person throws your way while peeing
yourself in public over what a severe threat that person is, is the
definition of insanity Ken. Foisting your empty bombast on this group when
it's so ridiculously obvious you're responsible for a very large chunk of
the problem you're whining and crying about is the definition of insanity,
Ken. Welcome to reality. Have a nice day. 
| |
|
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:3af2c1f8b7e4e5a25f292a572c65651d@ps
eudo.borked.net...
> Zax <fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote:
> up with excuses.
>
> KRP seems to think this is some actual war he's fighting, and that
> something of importance will be gained by continuing to fight it.
And you seem to have chosen sides Rich. The only question was when did you
do it?
| |
|
| DAVID MOORE AS
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:9dd3ab8c06ee55b22acd58dd34c8e4d2@mi
xmaster.it...
> KRP wrote:
>
>
> Net abuse is as old as the net itself, and vehicular homicide is as
> old as the automobile. Your entire argument is a logical error that's
> commonly called a fallacy of composition.
>
> It's also a classic case of the pot commenting on the kettle's lack of
> color...
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes. We have in fact observed you for nearly two decades now, in stunned
> amazement that you'd be able to sustain your curious level of amorality so
> perfectly. I honestly can't remember ever seeing, or hearing about,
> anything you've done to add any sort of value to any discussion or other
> presence here on the net. That's not even an exaggeration Ken. You've been
> nothing but a festering boil on the rear end of the net since you appeared
> here, and likewise afflicted other similar venues prior to that.
Davey you would be amusing if not so tragic,
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> At the moment I'm using remailers to avoid having my email addresses
> bombed with forged threats from the police, and my phone number dialed by
> caller ID blocked extensions in the middle of the night. Twice in the
> past, addressing your behavior precisely as I'm doing now has produced
> that exact effect. And even though I look on you as more of an amusement
> than a thereat, Ken, I don't care to give you she self satisfaction of
> doing it again. In light of what you've done to me myself and others, it's
> a public service and a source of gratification to be able to say what you
> and everyone else knows to be true, with complete impunity in respect to
> your childish attempts at retribution.
SURE YOU ARE DAVEY! Now post 30 messages as CAPTAIN FREEDOM telling us you
haven't posted to Usenet in 35 years! That'll be good for a chuckle or two.
You accusing people of what YOU do. YOU have called ME with death threats
and THAT is a ammter of record.
> And this is precisely why you're on your mini-crusade this month. At least
> one Remailer Operator posted here anonymously, threatening to expose you,
> so just like newsgroups where you're exposed by numerous people you attack
> the entity as a whole.
Nope no REMOP did any such thing. Here is simple. So we don't HIDE
behind the BULLSHIT, Mr. Moore. IF that REMOP has logs that prove I used his
remailer then I give permission to post them for the world to see. Of course
identifying himself. BUT since you and the other RETARDS in the remailer
heaven claim that there are NO LOGS and this would be IMPOSSIBLE.... Let me
just sit here Moore and laugh my XXX off at you.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, we know you exist. There's really nothing we can do about you or it
> would have been done a long time ago. Every time we get one of your
> accounts canceled you get another, and it wouldn't be fair to the
> majority, valid users of remailers to attack remailers directly. So we
> mostly ignore your idiocy, unless addressing it amuses us for a time.
My on my you claim that YOU have gotten MY accounts cancelled! I find
this fascinating since you WHINE like the little PANSY you are that the ONLY
reason you use remailers is because *I* get *YOUR* accounts cancelled. Isn't
this just a LAUIGH RIOT! Davey you just HAVE to trip over your bullshit
don't ya? Let's see Davey, IF I was worried about losing accounts I could
be just like you - AN XXXXXXX USING A REMAILER..................
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-04, 5:51 pm |
| George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
>You're just now coming to terms with that reality? ;)
What can I say, I'm a slow learner sometimes. I'm more of an optimist, and
I chose to give Ken the benefit of the doubt. Even when his remailer
forgeries were the issue, I gave him repeated opportunities to provide a
good explanation in his defense. Problem is the more you delve into this,
the less it makes sense. The part which really started to tip me off was
when he told me it was hard to keep his various stories straight "because
he was innocent".
The adversary "Moore" could be considered to share a portion of the blame,
and perhaps a tad obsessive. (An entire website???) But at least he seems
to be making good-faith efforts to put an end to the nonsense. Ken could
end this if he would simply accept his fair share of the blame, and move
on. And if he did this, and Moore didn't cease, I for one would be the
first to lead the charge against Moore.
>
>
>Of course he does. Ken's life revolves around taking the frustrations of
>real life out on others from behind the safety of his Internet connection.
>If he behaved the way he does here in front of real people, he'd be
>residing in the prison infirmary.
If he keeps on like this, sooner or later someone is going to take real
interest in him, and pursue action, civil or criminal or worse. As pointed
out his family's information is in the public domain, and you just have to
shake your head at the fact that this doesn't even seem to bother him.
>
>Ken simply doesn't possess the intestinal fortitude to give up his
>pathetic on line quest for the legitimization that eludes him elsewhere.
>It's truly not in his power to to make honest attempts at improving
>himself. He's far to long steeped in some bizarre misconception that one
>can become "better" by practicing a zen like level of the worst behavior
>any alleged adult can practice.
>
>
>This probably IS is Ken's reality. Or at least part of it. When you read
>through the stuff he says with a critical eye you'll recognize a strange
>lack of any real distinction between Usenet and Palm Harbor. Ken lives as
>much in here, as he does out there.
>
>
>ACK
Assuming he spent an average of 3 minutes typing each of those messages,
that translates in working hours to over 3 full months. Could have been
spent making a difference in his chosen line of work.
Rich
| |
|
| KRP wrote:
Davey you would be amusing if not so tragic,
Kakes why do you dis your opponents then steal their lines? Can't
you think of anything to say on your own? ROFLMAO! The "amusing if not
so tragic" line has been used to describe you dozens of times.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-04, 8:46 pm |
| On Wed, 04 Jan 2006, " KRP" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
> Let's see Davey, IF I was worried about losing accounts I could
>be just like you - AN XXXXXXX USING A REMAILER..................
Instead of just an XXXXXXX..no wait ... AN XXXXXXX.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-04, 8:46 pm |
| KRP wrote:
>
> "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:3af2c1f8b7e4e5a25f292a572c65651d@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
>
> And you seem to have chosen sides Rich. The only question was when did you
> do it?
Looks to me to be about the time you started showing your true colors. The
second your fat little fingers hit the keyboard...
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-04, 8:46 pm |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> What can I say, I'm a slow learner sometimes. I'm more of an optimist,
It's hard to be otherwise, considering the fact that the relative
anonymity of Usenet itself enables the "lesser" qualities in people. It's
a rare breed in deed that behaves themselves here in cyberspace like they
must in more personal interactions. You're not a slow learner, you're as
you say an optimist. Nothing wrong with that. It's generally better to err
on this cautious side than it is to be overly hard on those who only
occasionally fall victim to their own vanities because they feel less
"responsible" here.
This healthy caution only becomes a (minor) problem when dealing with the
Ken Pangborns of the world. His type is the sludge that gathers at the
bottom of the septic tank of real life, so naturally when they find
themselves unfettered by the threats of physical censure or retributions,
their abhorrent personality traits are magnified considerably. Even a
cursory glance at Ken's long and well documented history of immaturity and
abuse shows the striking difference between someone caught up in the
proverbial heated moment, and someone who simply is "that sort of person".
Your temporary indecision regarding Ken is nothing more than the
difficulty of being able to distinguish between the two personality types
without researching, or experiencing that timelessly diffusive history
first hand as many of us have.
> and I chose to give Ken the benefit of the doubt. Even when his remailer
> forgeries were the issue, I gave him repeated opportunities to provide a
> good explanation in his defense. Problem is the more you delve into this,
> the less it makes sense. The part which really started to tip me off was
> when he told me it was hard to keep his various stories straight "because
> he was innocent".
<laughing>
Yes, Ken has several little personality "tells", like this inability to
grasp the simple concept that innocent people don't have to devise
stories. There's nothing to "keep straight" in the first place because
they display that consistency self-knowledge of innocence brings to the
fray.
> The adversary "Moore" could be considered to share a portion of the
> blame,
Absolutely. Dig a little deeper and you'll find that a good portion of the
cross posting is initiated by the creep. He's by no means much different
than Ken, but he does enjoy an important luxury... he's spot on accurate
about Ken's abusive nature, and he's documented it fairly succinctly. This
disparity of being an annoying prat, and an annoying prat that eagerly
stoops to anything and everything short of physical violence[1], is the
difference between Ken having web sites taken down and accounts yanked out
from underneath him, and the tenure of aboutkenpangborn.com.
Another little "tell" of Kens is his years long claim that he can't get
that site canned because it's somehow protected by law, yet a reciprocal
creation was laid waste to because of an anonymous complaint. ;-)
> and perhaps a tad obsessive. (An entire website???) But at least he
I don't see the size and content of the web as obsessive so much as I do
the way Ken is followed around by Dave and hounded. Keeping a repository
of a miscreant's ongoing quest for global ridicule is a public service as
far as I'm concerned, but it could be done quietly. It's unnecessary to
shake Ken, he's unstable all on his own. The site would be just as
effective if it were given as-needed updates and advertised with short,
periodical announcements to the groups Ken infests.
> seems to be making good-faith efforts to put an end to the nonsense. Ken
Being a skeptic, I have to wonder. To be honest, I wouldn't make this
offer if for no other reason than the information at aboutkenpangborn is
valuable to people who are new to his idiocy. People like yourself can get
a more crystallized picture of the sot, and hopefully make an informed
decision to ignore him. Or at least have a clue about where the anonymous
abuse comes from if they don't.
> could end this if he would simply accept his fair share of the blame,
> and move on. And if he did this, and Moore didn't cease, I for one
> would be the first to lead the charge against Moore.
I agree, and feel the same. If it did come to pass that ken grew maturity
it would certainly turn the tables if Dave reneged. Might even lend
credence to some of the other stuff Ken banters on about. Unfortunately, I
have no delusions that we'll ever find out.
>
> If he keeps on like this, sooner or later someone is going to take real
> interest in him, and pursue action, civil or criminal or worse. As
I believe ken is well aware of this. A recent volley between him and
another poster more or less proves it. After initiating a challenge for
someone named "Jeff" to meet, and be shown hard proof that the things he
claims are true, Ken balked and waffled when confronted with the fact that
Jeff eagerly accepted. I've no doubts at all this was as much out of fear
for his physical safety in light of his behavior, as it was his inability
to produce any of the documents he claims to have. In fact, given the fact
that Ken posted forged boarding passes, one would have to assume he had
the ability to post copies of the rest. For some strange reason they've
never appeared.
Another little "tell" Ken doesn't seem to be aware of....
> pointed out his family's information is in the public domain, and you
> just have to shake your head at the fact that this doesn't even seem to
> bother him.
Astounding, isn't it? "I'm in fear for my safety because someone is making
inflammatory posts in my name, or about me and my family, and posting my
personal information, but here is the whole ball of wax posted again, one
for one with the originals."
Absolutely incredulous.
> Assuming he spent an average of 3 minutes typing each of those messages,
> that translates in working hours to over 3 full months. Could have been
> spent making a difference in his chosen line of work.
It may be that there's a bit of inverse cause and effect here. The
possibility that Ken's business is less than "booming" might be causative
to his behavior here. And the amount of time he spends here certainly
does tell us in no uncertain terms that he's got some to spare. It's
likely one of those vicious circles people talk about, where quality of
life leads to more of the behavior that lead to the decline in life's
quality to begin with.
I'd wager if Ken were thoroughly examined by a professional he'd be
diagnosed with a mid- to late-stage addiction. Much like an alcoholic who
nows the booze will eventually destroy them, but drinks anyway because
their body is so addicted they'll die if they don't, Ken is unable to put
down his Internet fix because he's been relieving the pressures of his
real life out here for so long he'd likely go stark raving mad if he were
to give it up at this point.
Which I suppose leads to a sad but possibly true conclusion. If Ken were
to just cold turkey, what would he wife's life be like? Assuming she
survived at all that is. It's almost impossible to imagine what might
happen if the sort of behavior Ken exhibits here were pent up for a while,
then released on someone even weaker than him.
No good would come of it I'd say...
::
[1] It's quite possible, and there is some evidence, that Ken Pangborn is
physically violent in addition to being mentally abusive.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-04, 8:46 pm |
| " KRP" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:3af2c1f8b7e4e5a25f292a572c65651d@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
>
>And you seem to have chosen sides Rich. The only question was when did you
>do it?
After numerous attempts to reason with you on this issue, to give you the
benefit of the doubt in spite of preponderance of evidence against you,
only to be told "XXXX you". And then when you have the opportunity to put
an end to 8 years of this nonsense, your stubborn ranting that you "must
not surrender" etc etc.
It's kind of sad, the time you've wasted needlessly. There are so many
other worthwhile ways in which it could have been spent.
Rich
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-05, 2:46 am |
| WOW.nothing I can say to add to that!
BRAVO!
Percy
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-05, 2:46 am |
| Notice that only Kenneth Robert Pangborn and the person using the
remailers to post the threats against his family and the racist post
use every few words IN ALL CAPS. Of COURSE we know it's YOU, Pigbarn!
Anything for attention.
No wonder your father blew his head off.
Percy
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-05, 2:46 am |
| In seriousness, I'll have to make some input on "
wwwaboutkenpangborn.com". If that website keeps just one person away
from Pigbarn, God bless David Moore! Am I qualified? I surely am. I've
got 15 of trial law behind me at this point. I'll send you my CV if you
call and ask for it. Pangborn is a vulture. He's a con man, a hoodwink,
a scammer. Pangborn holds himself out as a " trial consultant". I've
made calls and I've also talked to my share of people about Pangborn.
Why? Because he's selling snake oil. He's selling snake oil to
terminally ill people. Pigbarn is offering help to people when they are
at their lowest and most gullible. But the problem is, he's
ill-qualified to assist on painting a barn, much less a custody or
criminal trial. The man is a foaming idiot. Any competent attorney will
propound interrogatories.These are written questions. They MUST me
answered and sworn to. Typically, one or more will be formulated
thusly:
IDENTIFY each PERSON who prepared or helped prepare your responses to
these
interrogatories or who has assisted or consulted in any manner.
COMMUNICATION and COMMUNICATE includes any instance in which
information is
conveyed by or between one or more PERSONS by written and oral contacts
of
any kind including telephone calls, transmission of DOCUMENTS by any
means,
and face-to-face meetings.
IDENTIFY or IDENTITY, referring to a natural PERSON includes, and means
to
state:
a. Their full name;
b. Their last known residential ADDRESS and telephone number;
c. Their last known occupation, title and employer;
d. Their last known business ADDRESS and telephone number;
e. Their relationship with YOU.
IDENTIFY or IDENTITY, referring to a COMMUNICATION includes and means
to:
a. State the date, time and LOCATION it occurred;
b. State its subject matter and substance;
c. State whether it was in written, oral, documentary, telephonic,
face-to-face, or other form;
d. IDENTIFY any PERSON who was involved with or witnessed it and
describe
in detail their participation including the substance of what each
said,
did or communicated.
e. IDENTIFY any DOCUMENT or COMMUNICATION relating to it.
State whether the information furnished is within your personal
knowledge and, if not, IDENTIFY each PERSON to whom the information is
a
matter of personal knowledge;
As you can see........very shortly, the name Kenneth Robert Pangborn
would surface and then the shit would hit the fan!
Just picture yourself on a witness stand or sitting for a deposition as
the attorney for the " other side" started reviewing Pangborn's history
and some of his internet activity. Then of course, the NEXT move would
be to depose the Pigbarn.
Money wasted, hope shattered, you get the picture.
I truely hope to have Pangborn criminally prosecuted and am working to
that end as recently as today. He can belive it or not, he's going to
get some jail time. I'll bet the farm on it. And best of
all.........right now.....he knows what it's for. Don't you, Kakes.
Percival Mincer
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-05, 2:46 am |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
>It's hard to be otherwise, considering the fact that the relative
>anonymity of Usenet itself enables the "lesser" qualities in people. It's
>a rare breed in deed that behaves themselves here in cyberspace like they
>must in more personal interactions. You're not a slow learner, you're as
>you say an optimist. Nothing wrong with that. It's generally better to err
>on this cautious side than it is to be overly hard on those who only
>occasionally fall victim to their own vanities because they feel less
>"responsible" here.
>
>This healthy caution only becomes a (minor) problem when dealing with the
>Ken Pangborns of the world. His type is the sludge that gathers at the
>bottom of the septic tank of real life, so naturally when they find
>themselves unfettered by the threats of physical censure or retributions,
>their abhorrent personality traits are magnified considerably. Even a
>cursory glance at Ken's long and well documented history of immaturity and
>abuse shows the striking difference between someone caught up in the
>proverbial heated moment, and someone who simply is "that sort of person".
>Your temporary indecision regarding Ken is nothing more than the
>difficulty of being able to distinguish between the two personality types
>without researching, or experiencing that timelessly diffusive history
>first hand as many of us have.
Yeah and from some other recent posts, it looks as if he's been doing this
kind of thing since the BBS days. One has to wonder what he did before
online services existed?
>
>
><laughing>
>
>Yes, Ken has several little personality "tells", like this inability to
>grasp the simple concept that innocent people don't have to devise
>stories. There's nothing to "keep straight" in the first place because
>they display that consistency self-knowledge of innocence brings to the
>fray.
Exactly
>
>
>Absolutely. Dig a little deeper and you'll find that a good portion of the
>cross posting is initiated by the creep.
Which cross posting do you mean? I've seen many that were done by Ken,
where he takes existing discussions and adds in another group because he
thinks it will give him some sort of advantage. Example which comes to
mind is where he adds alt.privacy.anon-server and cries "LOOK AT THIS
EXAMPLE OF FREE SPEECH!"
> He's by no means much different
>than Ken, but he does enjoy an important luxury... he's spot on accurate
>about Ken's abusive nature, and he's documented it fairly succinctly. This
>disparity of being an annoying prat, and an annoying prat that eagerly
>stoops to anything and everything short of physical violence[1], is the
>difference between Ken having web sites taken down and accounts yanked out
>from underneath him, and the tenure of aboutkenpangborn.com.
>
>Another little "tell" of Kens is his years long claim that he can't get
>that site canned because it's somehow protected by law, yet a reciprocal
>creation was laid waste to because of an anonymous complaint. ;-)
Yeah I didn't follow that at all. I was reading on the archive.org page
and it looks like to get a page removed you would need to have access to
the domain.
>
>I don't see the size and content of the web as obsessive so much as I do
>the way Ken is followed around by Dave and hounded. Keeping a repository
>of a miscreant's ongoing quest for global ridicule is a public service as
>far as I'm concerned, but it could be done quietly. It's unnecessary to
>shake Ken, he's unstable all on his own. The site would be just as
>effective if it were given as-needed updates and advertised with short,
>periodical announcements to the groups Ken infests.
Well, with regard to the "Davey" stuff, I have seen Ken alleging that many
posts are coming from him. He even put "DAVID MOORE" at the top of one of
his replies to me, above my text, before I began adding my name to the end
of my posts. He seems to believe that "Moore" is the only person of whom
he's drawn the attention, and he seems unable to determine the difference
between distinct styles of writing. I recently told him that he's acting
silly and irrational, so I'm sure it's just a matter of time before I
become the next "Davey".
>
>
>Being a skeptic, I have to wonder. To be honest, I wouldn't make this
>offer if for no other reason than the information at aboutkenpangborn is
>valuable to people who are new to his idiocy. People like yourself can get
>a more crystallized picture of the sot, and hopefully make an informed
>decision to ignore him. Or at least have a clue about where the anonymous
>abuse comes from if they don't.
Well if he takes it down, we can always see it in that archive.org. Of
course, I heard it's very easy to forge requests to get archives removed
from there
>
>
>I agree, and feel the same. If it did come to pass that ken grew maturity
>it would certainly turn the tables if Dave reneged. Might even lend
>credence to some of the other stuff Ken banters on about. Unfortunately, I
>have no delusions that we'll ever find out.
Yeah I agree, I don't think he will ever "SURRENDER" as he put it.
>
>I believe ken is well aware of this. A recent volley between him and
>another poster more or less proves it. After initiating a challenge for
>someone named "Jeff" to meet, and be shown hard proof that the things he
>claims are true, Ken balked and waffled when confronted with the fact that
>Jeff eagerly accepted. I've no doubts at all this was as much out of fear
>for his physical safety in light of his behavior, as it was his inability
>to produce any of the documents he claims to have. In fact, given the fact
>that Ken posted forged boarding passes, one would have to assume he had
>the ability to post copies of the rest. For some strange reason they've
>never appeared.
Was Jeff the same person as "J.P. Young"? That was a name which came up
during one of my forays into Google Group.
>
>Another little "tell" Ken doesn't seem to be aware of....
>
>
>Astounding, isn't it? "I'm in fear for my safety because someone is making
>inflammatory posts in my name, or about me and my family, and posting my
>personal information, but here is the whole ball of wax posted again, one
>for one with the originals."
>
>Absolutely incredulous.
>
I have to wonder if his family is aware of all of this?
>
>It may be that there's a bit of inverse cause and effect here. The
>possibility that Ken's business is less than "booming" might be causative
>to his behavior here. And the amount of time he spends here certainly
>does tell us in no uncertain terms that he's got some to spare. It's
>likely one of those vicious circles people talk about, where quality of
>life leads to more of the behavior that lead to the decline in life's
>quality to begin with.
>
It certainly can't help. Web search "ken pangborn" or "kenneth pangborn"
and there are dozens of links immediately returned regarding all kinds of
abuse, lying to government agency, etc etc. I would think that in his line
of work people are going to research him before deciding to work with him.
>I'd wager if Ken were thoroughly examined by a professional he'd be
>diagnosed with a mid- to late-stage addiction. Much like an alcoholic who
>nows the booze will eventually destroy them, but drinks anyway because
>their body is so addicted they'll die if they don't, Ken is unable to put
>down his Internet fix because he's been relieving the pressures of his
>real life out here for so long he'd likely go stark raving mad if he were
>to give it up at this point.
>
>Which I suppose leads to a sad but possibly true conclusion. If Ken were
>to just cold turkey, what would he wife's life be like? Assuming she
>survived at all that is. It's almost impossible to imagine what might
>happen if the sort of behavior Ken exhibits here were pent up for a while,
>then released on someone even weaker than him.
>
>No good would come of it I'd say...
>
>::
>
>[1] It's quite possible, and there is some evidence, that Ken Pangborn is
>physically violent in addition to being mentally abusive.
Yeah maybe. How much do you know about the stuff on the about ken site?
Is that stuff all true? I looked at one or two things and they seemed to
check out but I didn't delve into everything on every page. That guestbook
is kind of wild too.
Rich
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-05, 2:46 am |
| Rich, he's too fat to be physically violent. Seriously, he waddles like
a penguin. He rather reminds you of a cross between a fat, Southern
hick used car salesman and a walrus.
Percy
| |
|
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:41f18d4983e2c48a7584a3d916993dfe@ps
eudo.borked.net...
> The adversary "Moore" could be considered to share a portion of the blame,
> and perhaps a tad obsessive. (An entire website???) But at least he
> seems
> to be making good-faith efforts to put an end to the nonsense. Ken could
> end this if he would simply accept his fair share of the blame, and move
> on. And if he did this, and Moore didn't cease, I for one would be the
> first to lead the charge against Moore.
What "good faith efforts" dimwit? He demands I make a statement that
EVERYTHING I have said is a LIE! EVERY last fukking word! Well bozo it
isn't!
He asks TOTAL UNILATERIAL SURRENDER! With the promise that he MIGHT take
down his web site AFTER a "while" I must cease ALL acrtivity on the net.
> If he keeps on like this, sooner or later someone is going to take real
> interest in him, and pursue action, civil or criminal or worse. As
> pointed
> out his family's information is in the public domain, and you just have to
> shake your head at the fact that this doesn't even seem to bother him.
Bother me? Well let's just say that but for some things Mr. Moore would
have been "taken care of" long ago. Things? "Promises made to me by
others."
I still wait to see how it pans out.
Oh and Rich you have NO idea how much you do NOT know... I don't think
you have ever had ANY interest in finding out the truth either.
| |
|
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:a77485ba4dd0fdcef6e4a0ed7f88b90f@ps
eudo.borked.net...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yeah I didn't follow that at all. I was reading on the archive.org page
> and it looks like to get a page removed you would need to have access to
> the domain.
Well let me explain this AGAIN for the "ard of hearing." That website
YOU revere so much Rich. Was thrown off almost a dozen times by various
ISPS. I am not counting the MANY times it was thrown off the SAME ISP such
as Tripod where it was removed at least a dozen times or Geocities where it
was removed maybe two dozen times. But places like MEDIAONE, A-NET, and
Skyport. Skyport went to the lengths that while it was up there for a year
the owner of Skyport had his attorneys have their "investigators" take a
look into Moore's allegations as they existed. Skyport took the highly
UNUSUAL step of not only removing the Material Moore had up - BUT in its
place posting a WARNING that the material was FALSE.
Now as you REVERE Moore as your GOD Rich, once ceruainly worthy of that
reverence, how do you deal with posts he has up there he claims are from
ME... (Disgrace to all mankind) where you can't find it in Google.
HOWEVER - - - IF you take LOTS and LOTS of time and do a ters (word) search
for the newsgroup you CAN find about 95% of that material in about a half
dozen or so of my posts in a vastly different context. A reasonably
intelligent person might see the CUT AND PASTE job that was done. Of course
Moore explains away the lack of that post appearing because I "had it
NUKED." Hmmmmmmmm ONE post in thousands. And how did I do that IF my
account had been termianted as Moore claims.
How do you deal with an Attorney he lists on his site as a "former
associate" who claims to be an Attorney in Baltimore, Maryland but there has
NEVER been an attorney in Baltimore, or anywhere in Maryland by that name,
and get this Rich never ANYWHERE in the United States. We could go on, like
alleged former client WILL RAINEY.. Isn't that interesting? Never had a
client by that name. Now with a little examination we can see that when
that name was CREATED, Moore was operating from his "Coalition Bunker" in
Bolingbrook, Illinois although NOW he claims to have NEVER lived there and
alternately claims to have moved 8 years ago. Both can easily be proven to
be lies. But WILL RAINEY like so many other identities created by Moore are
from people or landmarks in his own area. In this case the fictional WILL
RAINEY comes from Willian Rainey Harper college just a few miles from the
old Bolingbrook Fuehrerbunker! Shall we go on? Rob Wedlock? WHO was Rob
Wedlock?
Interesting if you read the Wedlock saga. It seems the huge XXXXX about
me there was that he couldn't get off my listerv. EVERY post on it has
instructions at the bottom on how to UNSUBSCRIBE from the list. Seems this
guy blames me because HE couldn't read simple instructions. With the
software we were then using the administrative process for adding and
removing people was a pain in the XXX. The newer software makes it far
easier. Why the change? Well let's see, Mr. Moore's HARASSSMENT of several
of my users, including sexually violent threats. Some similar posts can be
found of his on usenet, of course ANONYMOUSLY, toward my daughters. But
what do we see, we see the wholesale creation of FICTIONAL characters. We
also see false claims laid on a real client that was at one time listed ad a
referral on my website. Note that THIS WEEK David has been claiming that
another of my clients - one that we successfully defended from false
allegations, was in fact CONVICTED. So we have false attributions to a
client. What does Davey have? He has ONE real client that was pissed at me.
Why? Because I refused to return money to him. There was a contract. It was
clear that a refund would be made up to 72 hours before a trip, after that
NO refunds. He cancelled as I was leaving the house for the airport. He
alleged that the things we were going to do were "not allowed in Oregon"
which was not at all true. We had done it before in several cases and have
done it since in many cases in Oregon with 100% success. He also cancelled
payment on NON-REFUNDABLE tickets. Sticking my travel agent for them and
eventually ME.... WHICH by the way in the end EXCEEDED what he had paid me.
He graciously said I could keep MAYBE $500 for my time. WHICH - by the way
included spending almost 8 hours on the phone one night talking him out of
suicide.
David made MANY promises - you can look them up that if I could prove
"just one thing wrong" on his website he would take it down immediately. The
lawyer was PROVEN to be fake. Will Rainey was shown to be fake. The
Disgrace post was shown to be fake. Did Moore take his website down? NOPE!
Then he got into it with me and a chap known as "Kieth Ray" from Arizona.
With regard to his status with his discharge from the Marines. A LONG
discussion on that in Alt.Dads... You might weant to look that one up
because almost a half dozen people HAMMERED your hero on that one. Again
at the start the PROMISE was to "take down the site." Did he do it? Well
here we are almost 3 years later. Having this discussion Rich.
I love how you IGNORE Davey doing similar stuff to Judy McLinn, Stacy
Anderson,. Nancy Kopfthammer, Karen Hayward, Joe O'Connor, John Reinhagen
and others over the years. All of them his "MARKS" a term HE uses.. Not me.
Look up ID's contaiuing the words "FREEDOM" "JUSTICE" and "LIBERTY" on
soc.men Rich. Read up a little and see your HERO'S history. Then get back
to me.
>
> Yeah maybe. How much do you know about the stuff on the about ken site?
> Is that stuff all true? I looked at one or two things and they seemed to
> check out but I didn't delve into everything on every page. That
> guestbook
Evidence of violence? You are SERIOUSLY relying on the bguestbook?
REALLY RICH? You're a bigger dumbass than I have been starting to think.
TRY replying to soem of those addresses.
| |
|
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:1a4c1a1bf28945157c34f03aa3ef9a31@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
> After numerous attempts to reason with you on this issue, to give you the
> benefit of the doubt in spite of preponderance of evidence against you,
> only to be told "XXXX you". And then when you have the opportunity to put
> an end to 8 years of this nonsense, your stubborn ranting that you "must
> not surrender" etc etc.
>
> It's kind of sad, the time you've wasted needlessly. There are so many
> other worthwhile ways in which it could have been spent.
Rich you have in NO way wound up to be reasonable. You reject ANY contrary
evidence. Again in alt.dads there are posts where I quoted the old Dave
Moore website. Isn't it funny that right after I quoted it a few times it
was removed because, according to the admin of way back, that the "owner" of
that website "asked" that it be taken down. I have reason to KNOW that the
request came NOT from the owner but from DAVID MOORE... Want to chew on your
fairness game Rich?
| |
|
| ATTORNEY AT LAW
"Percival L Mincer" <percival_l_mincer@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1136434050.129840.189660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> In seriousness, I'll have to make some input on "
> wwwaboutkenpangborn.com". If that website keeps just one person away
> from Pigbarn, God bless David Moore! Am I qualified? I surely am. I've
> got 15 of trial law behind me at this point.
Percy you are full of shit! You are not an Attorney! PERIOD!
| |
| Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer 2006-01-05, 7:47 am |
| The fascination with Pangborn continues to amaze me. One of the first
things I did when I first ran a remailer was to make sure his name and
email address, along with several variations, was in the block list.
Pangborn has never been a problem for me or for any newsgroup to
which messages from my remailer have been sent.
| |
|
| KRP wrote:
> "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:1a4c1a1bf28945157c34f03aa3ef9a31@ps
eudo.borked.net...
did you[vbcol=seagreen]
you the[vbcol=seagreen]
to put[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Rich you have in NO way wound up to be reasonable. You reject ANY
contrary
> evidence. Again in alt.dads there are posts where I quoted the old Dave
> Moore website. Isn't it funny that right after I quoted it a few times
it was removed because, according to the admin of way back, that the
"owner" of that website "asked" that it be taken down. I have reason
to KNOW that the request came NOT from the owner but from DAVID
MOORE... Want to chew on your fairness game Rich?
In all FAIRNESS Kakes, show us some proof of this claim. (rolls eyes
at the obvious lie you have just told.)
| |
|
| KRP wrote:
> "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:a77485ba4dd0fdcef6e4a0ed7f88b90f@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
>
>
> Well let me explain this AGAIN for the "ard of hearing." That
website YOU revere so much Rich. Was thrown off almost a dozen times by
various ISPS.
Liar.
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-05, 5:49 pm |
| Pigbarn is a snake oil salesman. Plain and simple. His idiotic post and
simplistic wording are glaring proof of his lack of education and
intellectual agility.If David Moore keeps ONE person from dealing with
Pangborn, I think he deserves a medal. And I'll assure you, Pangborn's
" A Team".....what a joke. Are doing NO business. Look at the months
he's not been absent for even two hours from these forums.
The hens have come home to roost, fat boy. You cheap off the rack
wearing bloated piece of dross.
No wonder your father blew his head off.
www.KenPangborn.ChokesOnDick.com
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-05, 5:49 pm |
| tip-no-spam wrote:
> KRP wrote:
>
> did you
> you the
> to put
> contrary
> it was removed because, according to the admin of way back, that the
> "owner" of that website "asked" that it be taken down. I have reason to
> KNOW that the request came NOT from the owner but from DAVID MOORE...
> Want to chew on your fairness game Rich?
>
>
> In all FAIRNESS Kakes, show us some proof of this claim. (rolls eyes
> at the obvious lie you have just told.)
It's right there in a drawer next to David Moore's discharge papers and
the copy of the 1000 mile restraining order. You can stop by and see it
any time, unless you agree to stop by some time and see it.
How much more proof do you want?
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-05, 5:49 pm |
| Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
> The fascination with Pangborn continues to amaze me. One of the first
> things I did when I first ran a remailer was to make sure his name and
> email address, along with several variations, was in the block list.
>
> Pangborn has never been a problem for me or for any newsgroup to which
> messages from my remailer have been sent.
And that remailer would be.....?
[crickets]
That's what I thought.
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-05, 5:49 pm |
| KEN PANGBORN IS A CHILD MOLESTER
READ THIS SWORN STATEMENT
This is too shocking ! It was just posted on
http://www.kenpangborn.chokesondick.com/
READ IT FOR YOURSELF!
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-05, 5:49 pm |
| Pangborn can't even take care of his debt much less David Moore.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-05, 5:49 pm |
| " KRP" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:41f18d4983e2c48a7584a3d916993dfe@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
>
> What "good faith efforts" dimwit? He demands I make a statement that
>EVERYTHING I have said is a LIE! EVERY last fukking word! Well bozo it
>isn't!
No he doesn't demand that. He lists certain things which he wants you to
admit. I checked out one of those things and found out that you did,
indeed, lie about it. I'd be surprised if you had any proof to document
any of the others. You seem to have a penchant for making things up as
they suit you. Remember that I caught you in lies regarding the "time
stamp forgery" and about the archive.org.
>He asks TOTAL UNILATERIAL SURRENDER! With the promise that he MIGHT take
>down his web site AFTER a "while" I must cease ALL acrtivity on the net.
The site doesn't say any such thing. You're delusional on these points.
The page does demand "Ken will cease his abusive behavior." Are you
admitting that all of your activity on the net comprises abusive behavior?
In fairness to you, the site page in question is slightly vague about
exactly what items he considers to be inaccurate and is demanding apology
for. I'd also take issue with item 4, "Ken will also apologize to others
whom he has lied about and forged" as in my opinion this should rightfully
be between you and these unnamed "others". And with item 5 which requests
that you cease abusive behavior.
To Mr. Moore,if you are reading: I commend you if you are indeed making a
good faith effort to call a truce here. I don't disagree that your
adversary made untruthful statements in at least one instance that I know
of. However your terms as listed on your site are too vague and open to
interpretation. Mr. Pangborn seems to be under the impression that you
have called for him to leave the internet entirely. In his words, he says
you have demanded that he "SURRENDER".
Would you clarify this please? What items exactly are you requesting
apology for? "including but not limited to" leaves the door open for too
much interpretation. Can you quantify what you are looking for?
>
>
> Bother me? Well let's just say that but for some things Mr. Moore would
>have been "taken care of" long ago. Things? "Promises made to me by
>others."
>I still wait to see how it pans out.
My best guess is that you'll be waiting for another 8 years.
>
>
> Oh and Rich you have NO idea how much you do NOT know... I don't think
>you have ever had ANY interest in finding out the truth either.
On the contrary, I've asked you for facts and clarifications many times.
I *am* interested in finding out the truth and am hereby asking for your
assistance in this. By all means, feel free to post some facts which
support your arguments and claims. Please include links where I can look
relevant items up in Google, rather than you just stating that things
happened at some point in time.
For starters, you can produce these e-mails from "Moore" where he's asking
for "TOTAL UNILATERIAL SURRENDER" and for you to cease all activity on the
net.
Next, you mention that you have proof that David Moore used a remailer to
forge a request to archive.org, to successfully get some site removed, even
though their usual procedure requires that he would have needed to be the
legitimate owner of that site. Can you provide some proof on this?
Next, referring to the site of Mr. Moore's demand for apology, he says that
you have lied about military service record. Can you provide some
hard-copy proof that any claims you've made were in fact accurate? I'm not
looking for some "oh, several of us discussed it on the Dads forum a while
back" but rather specific links or documents which prove whatever it was
you were stating.
It also mentions "neo-Nazi affiliation" which you supposedly have accused
him of. Can you provide some proof of his affiliation with such a group?
As you see above, I have also suggested that he clarify exactly what he
feels he is owed an apology for. We can review each one in the same
manner.
Again I am interested in getting to the bottom, and finding out who is
lying and who is telling the truth. If you can post solid verifiable proof
of these items, I'll be happy to stand behind you 100%.
Rich
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-05, 8:47 pm |
| " KRP" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:a77485ba4dd0fdcef6e4a0ed7f88b90f@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
>
>
> Well let me explain this AGAIN for the "ard of hearing." That website
>YOU revere so much Rich. Was thrown off almost a dozen times by various
>ISPS.
And what does this have to do with your (lack of) explanation of the page
being unavailable in archive.org?
>I am not counting the MANY times it was thrown off the SAME ISP such
>as Tripod where it was removed at least a dozen times or Geocities where it
>was removed maybe two dozen times.
Tripod and Geocities are free web servers. As such, they don't have abuse
desks which can spend hours researching complaints. As such they will
likely delete a site if it gets a few complaints. Which leads to the
question of why you would need to complain about it, unless it had merit?
> But places like MEDIAONE, A-NET, and
>Skyport. Skyport went to the lengths that while it was up there for a year
>the owner of Skyport had his attorneys have their "investigators" take a
>look into Moore's allegations as they existed. Skyport took the highly
>UNUSUAL step of not only removing the Material Moore had up - BUT in its
>place posting a WARNING that the material was FALSE.
And this was when? 8 years ago? Looks like the site in question has been
up for quite some time. Why hasn't the current host followed the lead of
these others?
> Now as you REVERE Moore as your GOD Rich,
No I don't. I disagree with you and the way you are handling this matter.
Sorry that you can't tell the difference.
> once ceruainly worthy of that
>reverence, how do you deal with posts he has up there he claims are from
>ME... (Disgrace to all mankind) where you can't find it in Google.
> HOWEVER - - - IF you take LOTS and LOTS of time and do a ters (word) search
>for the newsgroup you CAN find about 95% of that material in about a half
>dozen or so of my posts in a vastly different context. A reasonably
>intelligent person might see the CUT AND PASTE job that was done. Of course
>Moore explains away the lack of that post appearing because I "had it
>NUKED." Hmmmmmmmm ONE post in thousands. And how did I do that IF my
>account had been termianted as Moore claims.
I have no need to deal with it. What about the posts he has up there
regarding military service, where there are links to your Google posts
where you were lying and changing your story? How do you deal with those?
>
> How do you deal with an Attorney he lists on his site as a "former
>associate" who claims to be an Attorney in Baltimore, Maryland but there has
>NEVER been an attorney in Baltimore, or anywhere in Maryland by that name,
>and get this Rich never ANYWHERE in the United States. We could go on, like
>alleged former client WILL RAINEY.. Isn't that interesting? Never had a
>client by that name. Now with a little examination we can see that when
>that name was CREATED, Moore was operating from his "Coalition Bunker" in
>Bolingbrook, Illinois although NOW he claims to have NEVER lived there and
>alternately claims to have moved 8 years ago. Both can easily be proven to
>be lies. But WILL RAINEY like so many other identities created by Moore are
>from people or landmarks in his own area. In this case the fictional WILL
>RAINEY comes from Willian Rainey Harper college just a few miles from the
>old Bolingbrook Fuehrerbunker! Shall we go on? Rob Wedlock? WHO was Rob
>Wedlock?
I don't care.
>
> Interesting if you read the Wedlock saga. It seems the huge XXXXX about
>me there was that he couldn't get off my listerv. EVERY post on it has
>instructions at the bottom on how to UNSUBSCRIBE from the list. Seems this
>guy blames me because HE couldn't read simple instructions. With the
>software we were then using the administrative process for adding and
>removing people was a pain in the XXX. The newer software makes it far
>easier. Why the change? Well let's see, Mr. Moore's HARASSSMENT of several
>of my users, including sexually violent threats. Some similar posts can be
>found of his on usenet, of course ANONYMOUSLY, toward my daughters. But
>what do we see, we see the wholesale creation of FICTIONAL characters. We
>also see false claims laid on a real client that was at one time listed ad a
>referral on my website. Note that THIS WEEK David has been claiming that
>another of my clients - one that we successfully defended from false
>allegations, was in fact CONVICTED. So we have false attributions to a
>client. What does Davey have? He has ONE real client that was pissed at me.
>Why? Because I refused to return money to him. There was a contract. It was
>clear that a refund would be made up to 72 hours before a trip, after that
>NO refunds. He cancelled as I was leaving the house for the airport. He
>alleged that the things we were going to do were "not allowed in Oregon"
>which was not at all true. We had done it before in several cases and have
>done it since in many cases in Oregon with 100% success. He also cancelled
>payment on NON-REFUNDABLE tickets. Sticking my travel agent for them and
>eventually ME.... WHICH by the way in the end EXCEEDED what he had paid me.
>He graciously said I could keep MAYBE $500 for my time. WHICH - by the way
>included spending almost 8 hours on the phone one night talking him out of
>suicide.
And you post this here? What happened to client confidentiality? Remind
me never to hire you.
>
> David made MANY promises - you can look them up that if I could prove
>"just one thing wrong" on his website he would take it down immediately.
Actually he said he would take it down if you apologized for some of your
remarks. The page in question didn't say anything about proving anything
wrong. Oh, let me guess.....he said this in "e-mail" right?
The
>lawyer was PROVEN to be fake. Will Rainey was shown to be fake. The
>Disgrace post was shown to be fake. Did Moore take his website down? NOPE!
>Then he got into it with me and a chap known as "Kieth Ray" from Arizona.
>With regard to his status with his discharge from the Marines. A LONG
>discussion on that in Alt.Dads... You might weant to look that one up
>because almost a half dozen people HAMMERED your hero on that one. Again
>at the start the PROMISE was to "take down the site." Did he do it? Well
>here we are almost 3 years later. Having this discussion Rich.
>
> I love how you IGNORE Davey doing similar stuff to Judy McLinn, Stacy
>Anderson,. Nancy Kopfthammer, Karen Hayward, Joe O'Connor, John Reinhagen
>and others over the years. All of them his "MARKS" a term HE uses.. Not me.
>Look up ID's contaiuing the words "FREEDOM" "JUSTICE" and "LIBERTY" on
>soc.men Rich. Read up a little and see your HERO'S history. Then get back
>to me.
He's not my "HERO". If you will read all of my messages to you, you will
note that I was in your corner until the bullshit simply became too deep.
>
> Evidence of violence? You are SERIOUSLY relying on the bguestbook?
>REALLY RICH? You're a bigger dumbass than I have been starting to think.
>
>TRY replying to soem of those addresses.
I don't care. My point remains that you have an unhealthy obsession with
this stuff, to the tune of 11,000 plus posts over 8 years. And that you
show no desire to stop it. "Moore" on the other hand, at least has made a
good faith offer to compromise.
Rich
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-05, 8:47 pm |
| Pangborn is a pederasting old feltch queenand he's as crazy as a shit
house rat.
Percy
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-06, 2:47 am |
| George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
>
>
> And that remailer would be.....?
Why eelbaxochesbogmodeus of course.
> [crickets]
>
> That's what I thought.
Think again.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-06, 2:47 am |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> Why eelbaxochesbogmodeus of course.
ROTFL!
XXXXXXX... I just shot coffee out my nose. ;)
| |
| Percival L Mincer 2006-01-06, 2:47 am |
| Pangborn is a pederasting old feltch queenand he's as crazy as a shit
house rat.
Percy
| |
| Tripper 2006-01-06, 7:48 am |
| On 5 Jan 2006 17:43:10 -0800, "Percival L Mincer"
<percival_l_mincer@lycos.com> wrote:
>Pangborn is a pederasting old feltch queenand he's as crazy as a shit
>house rat.
>
How 'bout you shut the XXXX up and piss the XXXX off...
--
Love and Best Wishes,
Tripper
| |
|
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:ed4d61ab9189cd411a62a2aa226ba273@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
> No I don't. Your "evidence" doesn't make sense. A website which isn't
> there?
>
> The "evidence" I've seen, on a website which *doesn't* have to be found in
> some dank archive, shows that the adversary in question seems willing to
> compromise and call a truce. You're the one who is screaming that you
> "must not surrender" and seemingly have the perverse need to continue.
>
>
> According to archive.org, the procedure to take down an archived page
> requires that a robots.txt file be placed on the current version of the
> site. Something which only the legitimate owner of the domain would have
> access to. In short, a non-replyable request from an anonymous remailer
> isn't going to do it.
>
> I'd also have to question why the site isn't still on the web, and is
> (was)
> seemingly only available in an old archive. Plus, the name "David Moore"
> isn't an uncommon name, so how would we know that it's even about the same
> person?
>
> Rich
Rich here it is plain and simple. The OWNER - Joe O'Connor jmoc34@snet.net
could be asked. Try it and put your beliefs to the test.
It is easy to invent a replyable address, CLAIM to be the owner and do that.
| |
|
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:3ed308cfab45fc72011ae28f1768f831@ps
eudo.borked.net...
> No he doesn't demand that. He lists certain things which he wants you to
> admit. I checked out one of those things and found out that you did,
> indeed, lie about it. I'd be surprised if you had any proof to document
> any of the others. You seem to have a penchant for making things up as
> they suit you. Remember that I caught you in lies regarding the "time
> stamp forgery" and about the archive.org.
Lie about what? His being tossed out of the Marines? FACT! That he
assaulkted his first wife and a reatraining order was granted? FACT.
>
> The site doesn't say any such thing. You're delusional on these points.
> The page does demand "Ken will cease his abusive behavior." Are you
> admitting that all of your activity on the net comprises abusive behavior?
He E-MAILS to ME DO!
>
> In fairness to you, the site page in question is slightly vague about
> exactly what items he considers to be inaccurate and is demanding apology
> for. I'd also take issue with item 4, "Ken will also apologize to others
> whom he has lied about and forged" as in my opinion this should rightfully
> be between you and these unnamed "others". And with item 5 which requests
> that you cease abusive behavior.
Since I have never "FORGED" anyone.......................
> To Mr. Moore,if you are reading: I commend you if you are indeed making a
> good faith effort to call a truce here. I don't disagree that your
> adversary made untruthful statements in at least one instance that I know
> of. However your terms as listed on your site are too vague and open to
> interpretation. Mr. Pangborn seems to be under the impression that you
> have called for him to leave the internet entirely. In his words, he says
> you have demanded that he "SURRENDER".
You picked sides Rich and you are stuck with it. Go back and search alt.dads
on the direct quotes from the website about Moore.
Try looking at traffic on or about May 4, 2005. And you'll find THIS TEXT
quoted from the Moore website:
"Introduction - Who David D. Moore is and who we are
The David D. Moore we are speaking of is an ex-Marine currently living in
the Chicago, Illinois area. He posts on a regular basis to
alt.child-support. Please click here for a list of his current and past
screen names. My name is Joe O'Connor and my associate's name is John
Reinhagen. We both are or have been moderately frequent posters to men's
rights/father's rights-related newsgroups. We've put together this web site
to showcase Moore's abusive behavior on the newsgroups we post to and on the
Internet in general.
A bit of history
About two years ago we witnessed a bizarre Usenet episode where an alleged
NOW rep calling herself "a...@infinity.net" started making ominous threats
to
self-styled fathers-rights advocate David Moore (he was calling himself
"Jeff Johnson" back then) on several of those newsgroups and demanded that
he take down his web pages. There was just one little problem; a comparison
of the subject headers of "Johnson's" posts with those of "ara" showed that
they were coming from the same computer. We both concluded that "ara" was a
sock-puppet cooked up by Moore to get hits on his web-counter and told him
he wasn't going to get any sympathy from us. Moore was quite angry with our
judgement and accused me of betraying him. I suppose he felt that the
pro-father's rights stance that we shared exempted him from critical
scrutiny. A few days later, he lost his Worldnet account (I wonder why).
Moore insisted that he was innocent and blamed his sudden departure from
Worldnet on a cabal of NOW feminists (he posted this on Usenet); although an
independent investigation proved otherwise. I finally got sick of his lying
and exposed him on his pet newsgroup alt.child-support. He didn't take too
kindly to this and a few months later retaliated by taking an old post of
mine and forging in an anti-Semitic comment. Unfortunately for him the
forgery was traced back to his workplace at Sara Lee and he lost his temp
job there. Again he was quite angry and made several posts that looked like
veiled threats of retaliation.
Ever since then, we have both had the displeasure of being treated to the
following:
a.. Repeated complaints to our ISPs.
b.. A mysterious anonymous remailer chorus that loves to post in Moore's
defense and seems excessively interested in his reputation and well-being.
c.. Virulent racist and ethnic forgeries under our screen names.
d.. Anonymous threats of violence.
e.. Anonymous posts begging for personal information about us.
Unfortunately, we're far from the only people who this has happened to, nor
do we claim to be his worst victims . It seems that whoever dares to speak
out against Moore's bizarre online behavior stands a good chance of getting
the same or worse directed against them. This is especially true for his
female 'marks'; Moore's ravings show a singular hatred of women.
About a year ago I put these pages at Geocities; it was taken down shortly
afterwards due to the sheer offensiveness of its content (Geocities didn't
seem to care that I wasn't the author of the crap that I was showcasing).
John generously offered to host the pages and and they've been here ever
since.
We'll be adding to this archive as time permits. Unfortunately keeping up
with Moore is a full-time occupation which neither of us really has time
for, so they will probably always be somewhat out of date.Please email me at
jmo...@snet.net or John at welcomer...@savageoasis.fc.net if you have any
questions or concerns.
This page ©1999 Joseph M. O'Connor and John Reinhagen."
Next Rich?
| |
|
| "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:db9e9fd1684b3dd5aca1bbe6a6bd1e92@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
> And what does this have to do with your (lack of) explanation of the page
> being unavailable in archive.org?
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Tripod and Geocities are free web servers. As such, they don't have abuse
> desks which can spend hours researching complaints. As such they will
> likely delete a site if it gets a few complaints. Which leads to the
> question of why you would need to complain about it, unless it had merit?
NOW you are fukking rationalizing Rich. Objectivity? A pretense?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> And this was when? 8 years ago? Looks like the site in question has been
> up for quite some time. Why hasn't the current host followed the lead of
> these others?
It has been up for 8 years in one form or another. After exhausting more
than a half dozen sites in the U.S. up to 2000, it was first moved to
Africa, and it was even tossed there, to it final resting place in New
Zealand about 3 years ago. Note that when Moore had the site hosted in
Africa he was claiming to be "DUSTIN CALLOWAY" from Kuala Lamour.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No I don't. I disagree with you and the way you are handling this matter.
> Sorry that you can't tell the difference.
No you support Moore's arguments by repeating them as valid.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have no need to deal with it. What about the posts he has up there
> regarding military service, where there are links to your Google posts
> where you were lying and changing your story? How do you deal with those?
You DO seem terribly invested in this Rich. Why? Most people snap a
rteply and then move on, but you don't. And you come up with an answer for
EVERYTHING I say and claim it is a LIE.. You never went back to the alleged
forgery and the issue of MY post showing it was a REPLY.. Why was that? Yet
you claim I *LIED* about it?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't care.
Yeah it is OBVIOUS you don't care about the truth here. THAT is comeing
screaming from your posts.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> And you post this here? What happened to client confidentiality? Remind
> me never to hire you.
He made it public Rich - confidentially is out the window when a client
does that! By the way I have NOT revealed any of the PRIVATE ocnversations
we had as to substance affecting his legal position. Just replying to his
allegations about the money. That **HE** and not I brought into public
forums. My CONTRACT which has been on my website for YEARS is there. It
advises that no LAST MINUTE refunds will be given unless *I* somehow fail to
be there for my duties.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Actually he said he would take it down if you apologized for some of your
> remarks. The page in question didn't say anything about proving anything
> wrong. Oh, let me guess.....he said this in "e-mail" right?
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> He's not my "HERO". If you will read all of my messages to you, you will
> note that I was in your corner until the bullshit simply became too deep.
Naw you NEVER were in my corner. You have had this "OBJECTIVE" crap from
the start and I just FLAT don't trust you. Again when confronted by FACTS
you just say; "I don't care." Again I put up a quote from that old website.
You can find it yourself or you can try to reach Mr. O'Connor for his side.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't care. My point remains that you have an unhealthy obsession with
> this stuff, to the tune of 11,000 plus posts over 8 years. And that you
> show no desire to stop it. "Moore" on the other hand, at least has made a
> good faith offer to compromise.
Again when you are confronted with FACTS to rebut your BELIEFS your constant
response is "I DON'T CARE" - "I DON'T CARE" well shit, if you don't care
about the TRUTH.
SCREW YOU!
"Introduction - Who David D. Moore is and who we are
The David D. Moore we are speaking of is an ex-Marine currently living in
the Chicago, Illinois area. He posts on a regular basis to
alt.child-support. Please click here for a list of his current and past
screen names. My name is Joe O'Connor and my associate's name is John
Reinhagen. We both are or have been moderately frequent posters to men's
rights/father's rights-related newsgroups. We've put together this web site
to showcase Moore's abusive behavior on the newsgroups we post to and on the
Internet in general.
A bit of history
About two years ago we witnessed a bizarre Usenet episode where an alleged
NOW rep calling herself "a...@infinity.net" started making ominous threats
to
self-styled fathers-rights advocate David Moore (he was calling himself
"Jeff Johnson" back then) on several of those newsgroups and demanded that
he take down his web pages. There was just one little problem; a comparison
of the subject headers of "Johnson's" posts with those of "ara" showed that
they were coming from the same computer. We both concluded that "ara" was a
sock-puppet cooked up by Moore to get hits on his web-counter and told him
he wasn't going to get any sympathy from us. Moore was quite angry with our
judgement and accused me of betraying him. I suppose he felt that the
pro-father's rights stance that we shared exempted him from critical
scrutiny. A few days later, he lost his Worldnet account (I wonder why).
Moore insisted that he was innocent and blamed his sudden departure from
Worldnet on a cabal of NOW feminists (he posted this on Usenet); although an
independent investigation proved otherwise. I finally got sick of his lying
and exposed him on his pet newsgroup alt.child-support. He didn't take too
kindly to this and a few months later retaliated by taking an old post of
mine and forging in an anti-Semitic comment. Unfortunately for him the
forgery was traced back to his workplace at Sara Lee and he lost his temp
job there. Again he was quite angry and made several posts that looked like
veiled threats of retaliation.
Ever since then, we have both had the displeasure of being treated to the
following:
a.. Repeated complaints to our ISPs.
b.. A mysterious anonymous remailer chorus that loves to post in Moore's
defense and seems excessively interested in his reputation and well-being.
c.. Virulent racist and ethnic forgeries under our screen names.
d.. Anonymous threats of violence.
e.. Anonymous posts begging for personal information about us.
Unfortunately, we're far from the only people who this has happened to, nor
do we claim to be his worst victims . It seems that whoever dares to speak
out against Moore's bizarre online behavior stands a good chance of getting
the same or worse directed against them. This is especially true for his
female 'marks'; Moore's ravings show a singular hatred of women.
About a year ago I put these pages at Geocities; it was taken down shortly
afterwards due to the sheer offensiveness of its content (Geocities didn't
seem to care that I wasn't the author of the crap that I was showcasing).
John generously offered to host the pages and and they've been here ever
since.
We'll be adding to this archive as time permits. Unfortunately keeping up
with Moore is a full-time occupation which neither of us really has time
for, so they will probably always be somewhat out of date.Please email me at
jmo...@snet.net or John at welcomer...@savageoasis.fc.net if you have any
questions or concerns.
This page ©1999 Joseph M. O'Connor and John Reinhagen."
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-06, 5:48 pm |
| " KRP" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:3ed308cfab45fc72011ae28f1768f831@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
Why did you crosspost this to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated?
>
> Lie about what? His being tossed out of the Marines? FACT!
Post some proof of this, please?
> That he
>assaulkted his first wife and a reatraining order was granted? FACT.
>
Post some proof of this, please?
Rich
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-06, 5:48 pm |
| " KRP" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:db9e9fd1684b3dd5aca1bbe6a6bd1e92@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
>
>
> NOW you are fukking rationalizing Rich. Objectivity? A pretense?
>
>
>
> It has been up for 8 years in one form or another. After exhausting more
>than a half dozen sites in the U.S. up to 2000, it was first moved to
>Africa, and it was even tossed there, to it final resting place in New
>Zealand about 3 years ago. Note that when Moore had the site hosted in
>Africa he was claiming to be "DUSTIN CALLOWAY" from Kuala Lamour.
And this proves what, other than that you complained about said site
repeatedly until they acquiesced to your demands and took it down? That
suggests that you have something to hide?
>
>
>
> No you support Moore's arguments by repeating them as valid.
Hate to break it to you, but at least one or two of his arguments as I've
read *are* valid. You're less than honest at times.
>
>
> You DO seem terribly invested in this Rich. Why? Most people snap a
>rteply and then move on, but you don't. And you come up with an answer for
>EVERYTHING I say and claim it is a LIE..
No, I said that in the situation I cited above, you lied. I notice that
you didn't give an explanation?
>You never went back to the alleged
>forgery and the issue of MY post showing it was a REPLY.. Why was that? Yet
>you claim I *LIED* about it?
Oh, please. You did lie about that. First you said that your Verizon post
was a forgery. Then you said that the remailer timestamp was "altered".
Then you came in with the incredulous line of crap that "it's difficult to
keep my story straight, because I didn't make the forgery." Only when all
your other explanations were shot down did you come up with the "it was a
reply" BS. And that was shot down as well.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah it is OBVIOUS you don't care about the truth here. THAT is comeing
>screaming from your posts.
>
>
>
> He made it public Rich - confidentially is out the window when a client
>does that!
Can you provide proof that he publicly announced being talked out of
suicide by you?
By the way I have NOT revealed any of the PRIVATE ocnversations
>we had as to substance affecting his legal position. Just replying to his
>allegations about the money. That **HE** and not I brought into public
>forums. My CONTRACT which has been on my website for YEARS is there. It
>advises that no LAST MINUTE refunds will be given unless *I* somehow fail to
>be there for my duties.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Naw you NEVER were in my corner. You have had this "OBJECTIVE" crap from
>the start and I just FLAT don't trust you. Again when confronted by FACTS
>you just say; "I don't care." Again I put up a quote from that old website.
>You can find it yourself or you can try to reach Mr. O'Connor for his side.
The only place I found it was on usenet, quoted by you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Again when you are confronted with FACTS to rebut your BELIEFS your constant
>response is "I DON'T CARE" - "I DON'T CARE" well shit, if you don't care
>about the TRUTH.
>SCREW YOU!
>
>"Introduction - Who David D. Moore is and who we are
>The David D. Moore we are speaking of is an ex-Marine currently living in
>the Chicago, Illinois area. He posts on a regular basis to
>alt.child-support.
A Google of alt.child-support shows no sign that the person we're speaking
of is "posting on a regular basis" there.
Got any proof that the same person is being referred to here?
Where can I view this information independently for myself (outside of your
posts?)
Where can I go to verify that this information is factual?
Do you have any proof of anything you say, or do you just like to shout at
the rain?
Rich
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-01-06, 5:48 pm |
| KRP wrote:
> Rich here it is plain and simple. The OWNER - Joe O'Connor
> jmoc34@snet.net could be asked. Try it and put your beliefs to the test.
> It is easy to invent a replyable address, CLAIM to be the owner and do
> that.
So just by forging the From header in an email you magically gain admin
access to that person's web site. The sort of access yo need to adjust a
robots.txt file?
What a fuktarded idiot you are Piglard.....
| |
|
| KRP wrote:
> "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:3ed308cfab45fc72011ae28f1768f831@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
you to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Lie about what? His being tossed out of the Marines? FACT!
Prove it Kakes. You have been challenged to prove it but you
continually come back with this "I already have" or "someone else has".
Prove Moore got kicked out of the Marines, here and now or STFU and
accept that we all know you are lying about it. IF it has already been
proven, show us a link without that line about you not wanting to do our
homework for us. Prove that Moore was kicked out of the Marines.
That he
> assaulkted his first wife and a reatraining order was granted? FACT.
Prove this too. As you know anyone can make an accusation and get a
restraining order against someone. That does not indicate guilt. It is
taken as a precautionary measure. Prove that Moore assaulted his wife
because I am sitting right here calling you a liar until you do, mutha
XXXXa. Show some document that proves that Moore assaulted his wife.
Someone could take out a restraining order and if the named party didn't
show up for the hearing, the order could be granted whether the accused
act took place or not.
[vbcol=seagreen]
take down his web site AFTER a "while" I must cease ALL acrtivity on the
net.
Liar. He says that you stop your abuse. Unless you can't control
yourself and unless you can't stop being abusive then you can still post
and he will remove the site if you admit to your lies.
| |
|
| DAVID DIPSHIT MOORE
<tip-no-spam@cotse.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:MTEzNjU4MjExMy50aXA.1136582113@nulluser.com...
> take down his web site AFTER a "while" I must cease ALL acrtivity on the
> net.
> Liar. He says that you stop your abuse. Unless you can't control
> yourself and unless you can't stop being abusive then you can still post
> and he will remove the site if you admit to your lies.
Well let's review the text of the e-mail you sent me just a couple hours ago
Davey:
" The site will stay up until you SURRENDER. This includes taking your site
down and leaving the internet entirely. We are going to rape Barbara if
you do not surrender immediately."
Moore how come your hushmail account is dead? Harass one too many
people from it? Don't blame me. As I tied to tell you, sissybritches, if
you TRIED to attack my wife it would be the very LAST memory you have of
life on Earth! THE VERY LAST. Get the picture dipshit?
| |
|
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:5f9dcc68fbe177664b912af8ca0fe2a4@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
>
> Oh, please. You did lie about that. First you said that your Verizon
> post
> was a forgery. Then you said that the remailer timestamp was "altered".
> Then you came in with the incredulous line of crap that "it's difficult to
> keep my story straight, because I didn't make the forgery." Only when all
> your other explanations were shot down did you come up with the "it was a
> reply" BS. And that was shot down as well.
You are confused. At first I tried to explain it with the times. I was
wrong. But then I WAS working from the slightly ALTERED versions that were
then on Moore's website. My fault, I should have known better. When I
looked at the GOOGLE originals that YOU posted, it was easy to see that MY
post was a REPLY and NOT the original. See the REFERENCES? Now RICH... IF
I had slipped up and "first posted it from MY account" as you believe there
would be NO "References" on the post which the headers DO indicate on
GOOGLE, but did NOT on the Moore version! In specific it references an
ANONYMOUS source.... I fully understand why the IDIOTS on AA don't get that,
but you put yourself off as somebody with considerable system knowledge. No
Rich it was NOT shot down. The REFERENCES are there clear as day. You can
TRY if you want to show that parts don't have the >>>> shit, but that
doesn't always appear, and when somebody replies in hast sometimes
misformatting happens. Depends on how a message is READ also.
I *DO* confess to usually being PISSED OFF when I read Moore forgeries
because they often get blamed on me.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-01-06, 5:48 pm |
| In article <dcQuf.712$Gu6.52@trnddc06>
" KRP" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> What is interesting is the level of MORONS it can attract. Most users
> are like anyone else, why they use remailers remains a mystery because they
> could use ANY legitimate ISP. But remailers also attracts the WORST on the
> internet.
If you crosspost everything to alt.privacy.anon-server, you
will get responses from people there. If you don't want to
get responses from them, stop crossposting here. It's simple.
| |
| kenneth_r_pangborn@consultant.com 2006-01-06, 8:46 pm |
| I made all that up. I know I goofed when I used the term " legal team".
Will you all forgive me for being an insane old fairy and feltch queen?
KRP
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-06, 8:46 pm |
| KRP wrote:
>
> "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:5f9dcc68fbe177664b912af8ca0fe2a4@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
> You are confused. At first I tried to explain it with the times. I was
No FIRST you claimed your real post was a forgery, then you flip flopped
on that to your forgery being the forgery, THEN you pulled your idiotic
"time stamp" bullshit out of your XXX.
You've told so many bullshit stories about it it's no wonder you can't
keep them straight. Sometimes heaping lies on top of lies turns out like
that for fools who think they can get away with it.
> wrong. But then I WAS working from the slightly ALTERED versions that were
> then on Moore's website. My fault, I should have known better. When I
Bullshit. Pure, bullshit. Both posts were linked directly at Google from
the very first day your stupidity was exposed. If you didn't bother to
look at those links you're just too XXXXing lazy for words.
Or.... you didn't HAVE to because you knew exactly what was there to begin
with.
> looked at the GOOGLE originals that YOU posted, it was easy to see that
> MY post was a REPLY and NOT the original. See the REFERENCES? Now
> RICH... IF I had slipped up and "first posted it from MY account" as you
> believe there would be NO "References" on the post which the headers DO
The only thing this proves is tha | | |