The Original Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:29:21 -0400, Daedalus did the cha-cha, and
> screamed:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:42:35 -0700, Ah Humps Art Deco Daily wrote:
>>> Daedalus wrote:
>>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
>>>>> "Daedalus" wrote
>>>>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
>>>>>>> "marcia" wrote
>>>>>>>> And don't forget Brad, who recently resurrected himself on usenet
>>>>>>>> and has a history of going rl on people (my money's on Cranston,
>>>>>>>> tho).
>>>>>>> Got any evidence for that libel?
>>>>>> Expressing her opinion is not libel. I did the same thing.
>>> That's true.
>>>
>>>>>>> Because I'll tell you something: the one sure fact that will come
>>>>>>> out of this investigation is that Mike had nothing to do with the
>>>>>>> email.
>>>>>> I agree with you.
>>> So do I.
>>>
>>>>>>>> This is despicable behavior.
>>>>>>> Indeed it is. Maliciously making a police report is about as low as
>>>>>>> it gets.
>>>>>> If I read Kali's email right, one or several of her colleagues first
>>>>>> contacted the police. We have no idea what was in those emails. It
>>>>>> could have been death threats. It was something upsetting enough that
>>>>>> deleting and ignoring them did not seem wise to the people that
>>>>>> received them.
>>>>>> Kali, possibly knowing something about the incident, was obliged to
>>>>>> provide the info she knew to authorities. I believe strongly in civic
>>>>>> duties, anyway.
>>>>> As do I. And I will supply any and all information in my possession
>>>>> that might assist in clearing Mike's name.
>>>> And you should, if you feel strongly about it. I don't think the police
>>>> will have a difficult time figuring out he didn't do it. This is classic
>>>> Bowtie behavior.
>>>>>> By attaching her name to the emails, whoever did this involved Kali
>>>>>> with the police, not the other way around. They would be speaking to
>>>>>> her whether she volunteered the info on Mike and Bowtie or not.
>>>>>> I dont' see how Kali had a choice about being involved here.
>>>>> Bringing Mike into it was unnecessary.
>>>> I don't know. Kali doesn't know Mike that well. He's been posting RL
>>>> info about her just because she called him a dog****er, but moreso to
>>>> get back at other people, which is irrational on a Steve Chaney level.
>>> Control your hyperbole. It's not irrational. Even if it were, it's not
>>> irrational on a Chaney level. Chaney level is going after 16 year old
>>> daughters of his usenet enemies.
>> Chaney at the extreme level yes. I've never seen you go RL onthat level
>> which is why I'm defending you now. But the "rationale" of using someone
>> to get back at someone else is classic Chaney, Mike. ie - attacking
>> Ondrea's daughter to get back at Ondrea, posting things hurtful to Vlad to
>> get back at Ondrea.
>
> Cranston also stalked someone who may or may not be related to Chaney,
> solely because they _might_ be so related. Steve hasn't outed his
> whereabouts, so Mr. Dog****er can't prove a thing, but I guess the Chuck
> Norris of attorneys "knows" that Steve's lying about his initial
> reaction being a troll. It's his Chuck Norris-like awesomeness, you see.
>
>>> Kimberly Barnard didn't merely call me a dog****er. She endorsed and
>>> participated in what she herself acknowledged was an effort to cause real
>>> life consequences on me merely because I broiled her in a usenet
>>> flamewar. My actions are a response to their google stacking and other
>>> real-life jobbing. They're the ones who decided to go real life first.
>>> And you know that.
>> I dont know, because I've ignored this headsplitting ****ing match as much
>> as possible and I have no intention of going back and starting at the
>> beginning.
>>
>> - I'll only say three things: If they stated they meant to harm your
>> RL reputation then shame on them. It's a disgraceful effort, unbecoming of
>> k00kologists.
>
> I said this before, and I'll say it again: I don't care about Michael J.
> Cranston's RL reputation, or what effect "google stacking" might have on
> his career in the long run. If Cranston still has any reputation left,
> after his years of k00ky behaviour, his reputation is indestructible,
> and he is indeed the "Chuck Norris of attorneys", capable of getting
> away with practically anything, no sweat. If this is the straw that
> breaks the camel's back, then it was inevitable that something would do
> it, because of his already-clearly-stated sense of "ethics". Either way,
> it makes no odds to me. I'm not doing this for RL shit; I'm after the
> usual -- foam.
>
>> - They cannot do anything to your reputation merely by typing your
>> real name and occupation. Chaney has already done it thousands of times
>> and people will judge you more by your own behavior anyway.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> - I have never considered posting common usenet knowledge about
>> people to be going RL, when those people are open about this info. (Chaney
>> is fat, Mike's a lawyer, Kali is a psychologist) Using that info to attack
>> people offline and harass them in RL is when it crosses the line. So far I
>> haven't seen that result from their actions.
>
> I don't care for that kind of thing, so I don't do it. I notice that
> either BowTie or Cranston is trying hard to do it to me, though.
>
>> Okay four things, my bad:
>>
>> Posting someone's contact info is always filth. Lowest of the low. It is
>> in and of itself harassment and simply doing it implies that people should
>> use it. (Gee, look what just happened to Kali.)
>
> Bad Steve! Oops, he's an acknowledged k00k. Never mind. K00ks do as they
> are wont.
>
>>>> His outing posts look pretty much the same as Bowtie's. We know Bowtie
>>>> harasses people in RL all the time. I'm not sure I wouldn't have drawn
>>>> the same conclusion about Mike if I were in her position.
>>> You don't give yourself enough credit for intelligence.
>> Thanks.
>
> Kali had to assume the possibility that Cranston was the culprit as well
> as BowTie (it isn't Brad), if only because Dog****er _has_ posted her RL
> info, if only because the cops would find it highly suspicious if she
> only pointed the finger at Rasta Khan and not miguel. Not that it
> couldn't be any other k00ks, but those are the two main ones with the
> know-how and sufficient motivation (remember T*mmy Chaney).

You're addicted to Cranston's c0ck aren't you, Gayton McFagg0t.
>
>>>> This whole thing has escalated to ridiculous proportions. This is
>>>> exactly why "No RL" is a hallowed usenet mantra that has been understood
>>>> by everyone but the k00ks for ages.
>>> While I disagree with you philosophically on this point in certain
>>> limited circumstances with respect to people like Chaney who deserve to
>>> have their asses beat, our positions are not too far removed from one
>>> another. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have the integrity to
>>> acknowledge that it was your fellow kookologistkooks who violated this
>>> "hallowed usenet mantra" first with respect to me.
>> I think I adequately explained above. If that was theri intent, shame on
>> them. I still don't see it being RL, unless it poses a real threat to you
>> in RL. I am not convinced it does, but I am open to being persuaded. This
>> would change my entire view on what going RL means.
>
> All the Chuck Norris of attorneys is concerned about is his RL
> *reputation*, a rep that would have been in a lot less danger if he
> hadn't spent over a decade on *** lames and stalking alleged family
> members of certain usenet foes. As it is, his rep means nothing to me.
>
You're terminally lame b1tch.
>>> And as I said before, they hold the keys to the kingdom.
>>>
>>> miguel
>> That's no more fair than them saying it to you. This agains sounds more
>> like something Chaney would do than you. Hell he's doing it now.
>>
>> IMO - whoever lets it drop first will be the bigger person, not the loser.
>
> He has awards to win before I let it drop. Also, I'm still being
Translation: "My pus$y still hurts. I can't drop it. I must continue to
foam and kookdance. My public demands it."
> entertained by his foamage. What he's doing to Kali is on him, not me.
> The most he can claim about me is that I trolled him into it (which I
> did, in general, but not specifically), and he isn't saying anything
> like that.
You're still mad that he rejected you and denied you the opportunity to
c0cksuck him, eh gayton mcfagg0t.
>