 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / December 2007Kent and his ""real world friend Mike""
Your ""mutual real world friend named Mike"" is pulling your leg. Long ago somebody in the hyena pack came up with some kind of record about a guy with the same first and last name as mine who worked at Best Buy in this area and had a liquor problem. But it wasn't me. I have never worked at Best Buy in my life. I never liked liquor and never had a drinking problem. Last year Firemonkey falsely accused me of infecting her computer with two different virus's something like 6 months apart. Supposedly one of them said "Best Buy" somewhere inside of it. I think this is the one that was set up to report to a Canadian cable internet address. One of the two virii she claimed I had "arranged" was supposedly transmitted by way of a JPEG file I had linked to at an address something like photobucket. Both of the virii mentioned were old and well documented. One of them is only able to infect Windows XP SP0 or SP1 and no other operating system. Apparently Firemonkey was surfing the internet withOUT a valid updated and active antivirus program, and withOUT any Firewall program. Despite abyssmally poor technical knowledge, Firemonkey strongly asserted my guilt. I questioned the accusations on the grounds that a person genuinely attempting to infect somebody else's computer would not use such old and well known virii. I explained that basically EVERY program would recognize old ones like those. I ridiculed Firemonkey for being so stupid as to surf the internet without the most basic security precautions, yet blaming me specifically, and with no logical proof. One of the two virii is documented as commonly contracted from PORN SITES. I also ridiculed her for accusing me of spying on her using a virus that reports to a CANADIAN cable internet address! Then as she was new to Firewall's and watching closely, she had the usual amazement about all of the background pings that any internet user receives. She complained that I was pinging her a lot. It took her MONTHS to accept that pings can actually fake the origin IP address. At one point she accused me of pinging her from my address but was not aware that my dynamic IP address had CHANGED due to a big lightning strike and 6 hour power outage. Whoever was putting out the fake pings (if anybody!) failed to take that into account. Firemonkey posted my address and phone number publicly in the newsgroups and incited people to "visit me" or call me up to complain. Shortly an "anonymous poster" with a familiar style made other threats involving my address and phone number. Isn't it just a little bit obvious that your ""real world friend Mike"" was just another tactic in your little fishing expedition? This new discovery of yours about Best Buy is more like old fish! I wish I hadn't gotten fired from Best Buy. I could have bought more Christmas presents. > Your ""mutual real world friend named Mike"" is pulling your leg. > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > This new discovery of yours about Best Buy is more like old fish! All that and you're still a twice convicted wife abuser who's served serious jail time... AND a registered child abuser in the State of Iowa. If you must cross-post to alt.a, which really has no dog in this fight, please shorten yr headers so it doesn't clutter the ng. Many thanks. I have it on good authority that on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:47:35 -0800 >Your ""mutual real world friend named Mike"" is pulling your leg. It's possible. He could be flat out lying too. Your employment status isn't something I worry about. You could be the CEO of a Fortune 500 Company, or bankrupt, living in your parent's den, or something in between. It's really none of my business. >Long ago somebody in the hyena pack came up >with some kind of record about a guy with the >same first and last name as mine who worked at >Best Buy in this area and had a liquor problem. I wasn't told of any drinking problems. Only that you work for Best Buy. >But it wasn't me. >I have never worked at Best Buy in my life. >I never liked liquor and never had a drinking problem. Since no mention was made of alcohol, I didn't presume you did. >Last year Firemonkey falsely accused me of >infecting her computer with two different virus's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >set up to report to a Canadian cable internet >address. I didn't know a virus included an IP. >One of the two virii she claimed I had >"arranged" was supposedly transmitted by >way of a JPEG file I had linked to at an >address something like photobucket. That would be a good trick. Getting an JPG file to transmit a virus. >Both of the virii mentioned were old and >well documented. One of them is only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >withOUT a valid updated and active antivirus >program, and withOUT any Firewall program. ACK! Note to EVERYONE: Get a firewall (hardware preferred, but even Zone Alarm is better than nothing) and a virus scanner. There are many free ones that work as well as the commercial programs. And update your OS patches! >Despite abyssmally poor technical knowledge, >Firemonkey strongly asserted my guilt. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >basically EVERY program would >recognize old ones like those. Every scanner would. If she wasn't using one, then she would be vulnerable. >I ridiculed Firemonkey for being so stupid >as to surf the internet without the most [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >her using a virus that reports to a CANADIAN >cable internet address! The virus may have originated from a programmer in Canada, but I know of no virus that contains the originating IP. >Then as she was new to Firewall's and watching >closely, she had the usual amazement about all >of the background pings that any internet user receives. Every computer on-line gets a lot of background stuff sent to them. The first time I got Zone Alarm with my Win Me machine, I was a bit curious and nervous. I thought everyone on-line must be trying to get into my computer. That was the nervous part. Why would anyone care enough about me to want access to my machine? That was the curious part. >She complained that I was pinging her a lot. > >It took her MONTHS to accept that pings can >actually fake the origin IP address. If the IPs always traced to you, it would be far more probable that it was you. You aren't important enough to clone. >At one point she accused me of pinging her >from my address but was not aware that my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Shortly an "anonymous poster" with a familiar style made >other threats involving my address and phone number. A very stupid thing to do. Unless it's being done to prove something specific that requires posting it, there is NO reason to do it. Ever. >Isn't it just a little bit obvious that your >""real world friend Mike"" was just another >tactic in your little fishing expedition? What fishing expedition? I pointed out it's none of my business. I also stated I wanted you to feel perfectly comfortable NOT telling me either way, as was your right. I was curious, as I also pointed out, but that's all. >This new discovery of yours about Best Buy is more like old fish! It's not my discovery. It's something I was told by someone we both know. And his real life name is Mike. Actually Michael, but you get the idea.  Signature"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty." Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife as an object and NOT a human being. Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >I have it on good authority that on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:47:35 -0800 > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I wasn't told of any drinking problems. Only that you work >for Best Buy. I checked with a few Best Buy stores in his known area, and he doesn't seem to work there. http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com "...beating [some kids] into a bloody pulp is the ONLY thing that would get through to them." -Ken Pangborn > I have it on good authority that on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:47:35 -0800 > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >set up to report to a Canadian cable internet > >address. KW > I didn't know a virus included an IP. Yep. It was one that was to pass information to somewhere. > >One of the two virii she claimed I had > >"arranged" was supposedly transmitted by [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Every scanner would. If she wasn't using one, then she would > be vulnerable. Sometimes newbies get a free sample of a commercial program and the free updates expire but they still think they have virus protection. Some people just never update. > >I ridiculed Firemonkey for being so stupid > >as to surf the internet without the most [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The virus may have originated from a programmer in Canada, but > I know of no virus that contains the originating IP. What you don't know could fill volumes! I would suspect the IP may be encoded but easily determined by monitoring with a firewall or other tools. It "calls home" and of course the creator is long gone from that address. It's documented. > >Then as she was new to Firewall's and watching > >closely, she had the usual amazement about all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why would anyone care enough about me to want access to my > machine? That was the curious part. People like Moore look for machines he can turn into zombies with 'bot programs. They are handy for truly anonymous access and SPAMMERS do this a lot. (Google hipcrime and notice the reference to "pump and dump" SPAMMERS. ) > >She complained that I was pinging her a lot. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If the IPs always traced to you, it would be far more probable > that it was you. You aren't important enough to clone. Probability says that Firemonkey LIED in the first place. The presence of somebody well versed with bots and the operation of hipcrime does tend to skew probabilities though. > >At one point she accused me of pinging her > >from my address but was not aware that my [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > we both know. And his real life name is Mike. Actually Michael, but > you get the idea. What happened to the "real world" part from before? Did you just word it poorly, Kent? What happened to Ken Pangborn's daughter? Did Ken just raise her poorly? I have it on good authority that on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:38:07 -0800 [snip of items for which I have no comment] >> >This new discovery of yours about Best Buy is more like old fish! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >What happened to the "real world" part from before? Real world, real life. You need to argue semantics? The fact is, you and I both know the same guy. BTW, he claimed you asked about me and that he told you he didn't know anyone by the name Kent Wills. That probably isn't what he told you verbatim, but I'm sure it's close. >Did you just word it poorly, Kent? No. Real world or real life. They mean the same thing in the context given. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > I have it on good authority that on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:38:07 -0800 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Real world, real life. You need to argue semantics? > The fact is, you and I both know the same guy. It is a fact, is it? Your mutual friend doesn't even know where Greg is or was employed? > BTW, he claimed you asked about me and that he told you he > didn't know anyone by the name Kent Wills. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No. Real world or real life. They mean the same thing in the > context given. SignatureIn solidarity, Michael© > I have it on good authority that on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:38:07 -0800 > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That probably isn't what he told you verbatim, but I'm sure > it's close. Why would I think that this nonexistant "Mike" knows you? Where does this alleged person allegedly know me from? I can't ask a nonexistant person about you. Did they communicate this by way of e-mail Kent? > >Did you just word it poorly, Kent? > > No. Real world or real life. They mean the same thing in the > context given. I have it on good authority that on Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:28:17 -0800 >> I have it on good authority that on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:38:07 -0800 >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Why would I think that this nonexistant "Mike" knows you? Please offer proof that he is fictional. >Where does this alleged person allegedly know me from? So now he is real? >I can't ask a nonexistant person about you. Please prove he is fictional. >Did they communicate this by way of e-mail Kent? So now he is real? >> >Did you just word it poorly, Kent? >> >> No. Real world or real life. They mean the same thing in the >> context given. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > I have it on good authority that on Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:28:17 -0800 > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> Real world, real life. You need to argue semantics? > >> The fact is, you and I both know the same guy. You assert this as fact, with no proof. In fact, your assertions indicate it's fiction. > >> BTW, he claimed you asked about me and that he told you he > >> didn't know anyone by the name Kent Wills. > >> That probably isn't what he told you verbatim, but I'm sure > >> it's close. Verbatim as in outside of internet? > >Why would I think that this nonexistant "Mike" knows you? > > Please offer proof that he is fictional. Your non-answer is just that. > >Where does this alleged person allegedly know me from? > > So now he is real? I don't think so. I think it's a fiction. > >I can't ask a nonexistant person about you. > > Please prove he is fictional. Yet you can't even say how this person supposedly knows me. > >Did they communicate this by way of e-mail Kent? > > So now he is real? It's YOUR ASSERTION you have failed to prove. > >> >Did you just word it poorly, Kent? > > >> No. Real world or real life. They mean the same thing in the > >> context given. Meaningless if it's a deception on your part, a fiction. It's unlikely that we have any friends in common, especially outside of cyber space. From what you've alleged, the person makes false claims about my employment situation. How is it that this supposed person supposedly came in contact with ME, supposedly? How is it that this supposed person supposedly came in contact with YOU, supposedly? Do you hunt pheasant together or what? I have it on good authority that on Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:13:46 -0800 >> I have it on good authority that on Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:28:17 -0800 >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You assert this as fact, with no proof. Ah, the theme of ascps. Supported with great vigor by you. >In fact, your assertions indicate it's fiction. Not so. But if it makes you feel better to believe that, it does me no harm. >> >> BTW, he claimed you asked about me and that he told you he >> >> didn't know anyone by the name Kent Wills. >> >> That probably isn't what he told you verbatim, but I'm sure >> >> it's close. > >Verbatim as in outside of internet? Verbatim as in that's probably not word for word what he told you. I wasn't there, so I can't know what he said, verbatim. >> >Why would I think that this nonexistant "Mike" knows you? >> >> Please offer proof that he is fictional. > >Your non-answer is just that. You state Mike is nonexistent. If this is so, prove it. I'm waiting. >> >Where does this alleged person allegedly know me from? >> >> So now he is real? > >I don't think so. I think it's a fiction. What you think doesn't effect the reality that Mike is real. And if he's fictional, why did you ask him about me? Or will you claim that was made up as well? >> >I can't ask a nonexistant person about you. >> >> Please prove he is fictional. > >Yet you can't even say how this person supposedly knows me. I can. That I elect not to should not be interpreted as an inability. >> >Did they communicate this by way of e-mail Kent? >> >> So now he is real? > >It's YOUR ASSERTION you have failed to prove. I've made assertion as to his being real or fictional? YOU made the implication that Mike is fictional. >> >> >Did you just word it poorly, Kent? >> >> >> No. Real world or real life. They mean the same thing in the >> >> context given. > >Meaningless if it's a deception on your part, a fiction. Since it's not a deception on my part, you are accepting Mike is real. Whew. You made that far more difficult than needed. >It's unlikely that we have any friends in common, >especially outside of cyber space. As I pointed out, calling Mike a friend is over stating it a bit. As such, your claim is valid, though not in the way you present. We both know him. He and I don't hang out together (the distance makes that quite impossible), but we do communicate. >From what you've alleged, the person makes >false claims about my employment situation. Then you should take it up with Mike. On the other hand you could admit that you're unemployed and have been for years. That you're still cadging off Lisa with the promise of a big win against the state of Iowa. How's that going, BTW? Simple curiosity on my part. >How is it that this supposed person supposedly >came in contact with ME, supposedly? I didn't think to ask. But how many Mikes do you know in real life? How did you meet them? One of them will be the Mike in question, so you should already know the answer. >How is it that this supposed person supposedly >came in contact with YOU, supposedly? We met. >Do you hunt pheasant together or what? If you want to believe that, it's fine with me. If you want to believe we go white water rafting, that's fine as well. You can think we're working together on a screen play, if you so desire. The possibilities are really endless. Whatever you want imagine we will have NO effect on my life, so I'm not going to worry about it. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > I have it on good authority that on Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:13:46 -0800 > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > You state Mike is nonexistent. If this is so, prove it. > I'm waiting. Wouldn't it be kind of mean to prove that your invisible friend doesn't exist? > >> >Where does this alleged person allegedly know me from? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What you think doesn't effect the reality that Mike is real. > And if he's fictional, why did you ask him about me? How did I encounter your imaginary friend to ask this question? Were we both riding pink elephants at the time Kent? > Or will you claim that was made up as well? Hey, it's YOUR imaginary friend! Should I humor you or not? > >> >I can't ask a nonexistant person about you. > > >> Please prove he is fictional. Why would the burden of proof be on me? > >Yet you can't even say how this person supposedly knows me. > > I can. That I elect not to should not be interpreted as an > inability. I don't take "should not" advice from somebody whom I do not trust. I don't trust you, so of course I DO interpret it as an inability. You have several inabilities. > >> >Did they communicate this by way of e-mail Kent? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've made assertion as to his being real or fictional? YOU > made the implication that Mike is fictional. Why would it have to be an "implication"? Your evasiveness would make it a logical presumption even if you were not a liar. > >> >> >Did you just word it poorly, Kent? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Since it's not a deception on my part, you are accepting Mike > is real. Since it IS a deception on your part, your story is BS. > Whew. You made that far more difficult than needed. Are you claiming victorious retreat? > >It's unlikely that we have any friends in common, > >especially outside of cyber space. > > As I pointed out, calling Mike a friend is over stating it a > bit. It would be YOUR "overstatement". Akin to "worded poorly" isn't it? > As such, your claim is valid, though not in the way you present. You decide what is valid and what isn't? How convenient for you! > We both know him. He and I don't hang out together (the > distance makes that quite impossible), but we do communicate. Most would call what you do bull sh.t. > >From what you've alleged, the person makes > >false claims about my employment situation. > > Then you should take it up with Mike. He was out riding pink elephants when I called. > On the other hand you could admit that you're unemployed and > have been for years. Why would I say that? > That you're still cadging off Lisa with the > promise of a big win against the state of Iowa. You mean like Deuce Bigelow? (grin) > How's that going, > BTW? Simple curiosity on my part. Of course. > >How is it that this supposed person supposedly > >came in contact with ME, supposedly? > > I didn't think to ask. But how many Mikes do you know in real > life? How did you meet them? One of them will be the Mike in > question, so you should already know the answer. Ergo this is all just mental masturbation you foisted. > >How is it that this supposed person supposedly > >came in contact with YOU, supposedly? > > We met. Earlier you said you two couldn't hang out because of distance. Trouble keeping your masturbatory story straight? > >Do you hunt pheasant together or what? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Whatever you want imagine we will have NO effect on my life, > so I'm not going to worry about it. Generally this sort of protestation indicates the opposite of what it says on the face of it. Another indication that this "real world friend Mike" story is pure Kent Wills masturbatory fiction. I have it on good authority that on Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:11:26 -0800 [...] >> >Verbatim as in outside of internet? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Wouldn't it be kind of mean to prove that your invisible friend >doesn't exist? If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. I'm still waiting. >> >> >Where does this alleged person allegedly know me from? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >How did I encounter your imaginary friend to ask this question? You tell me. I wasn't there, so I can't know. And I didn't think to ask him what was going on at the time. Why don't you tell me, and when I ask, I'll see if the storys match? >Were we both riding pink elephants at the time Kent? That you are a Log Cabin Republican is none of my business. >> Or will you claim that was made up as well? > >Hey, it's YOUR imaginary friend! Should I humor you or not? If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. I'm still waiting... >> >> >I can't ask a nonexistant person about you. >> >> >> Please prove he is fictional. > >Why would the burden of proof be on me? You made the claim that he's fictional. As such, it befalls you to prove your claim. Avoiding the question may work for you, but it's failing to impress anyone with cognitive reasoning skills. >> >Yet you can't even say how this person supposedly knows me. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You have several inabilities. Your interpretations rarely match reality. >> >> >Did they communicate this by way of e-mail Kent? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Why would it have to be an "implication"? It was an implication. >Your evasiveness would make it a >logical presumption even if you were not a liar. I'm waiting for you to prove he's fictional. You've taken to claiming he is. Prove it. You seem bound and determined to convince yourself I made him up. The reason for this could be nearly anything, but I think it's because you know he's real and fear what else he may tell. He might have some valid dirt on you that you'd rather keep quiet. I don't KNOW this is the reason, of course, but it would make a lot of sense. >> >> >> >Did you just word it poorly, Kent? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Since it IS a deception on your part, your story is BS. If so, you'll be able to prove it. Let the readers see the proof. >> Whew. You made that far more difficult than needed. > >Are you claiming victorious retreat? You accepted that he was real. Now you're waffling. >> >It's unlikely that we have any friends in common, >> >especially outside of cyber space. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It would be YOUR "overstatement". Akin to "worded poorly" isn't it? I stated that calling his a friend would be over stating it. Only you could see that as meaning anything more. >> As such, your claim is valid, though not in the way you present. > >You decide what is valid and what isn't? How convenient for you! How accurate, you mean. >> We both know him. He and I don't hang out together (the >> distance makes that quite impossible), but we do communicate. > >Most would call what you do bull sh.t. Call it what you want. The truth remains the truth. >> >From what you've alleged, the person makes >> >false claims about my employment situation. >> >> Then you should take it up with Mike. > >He was out riding pink elephants when I called. How delusional, exactly, are you? >> On the other hand you could admit that you're unemployed and >> have been for years. > >Why would I say that? You were for a very long time. Promising to repay Lisa once your k00k s00t against the State of Iowa came through. Odd that you've yet to file. And after so many years. The SOL will expire soon, if it hasn't already, so you best get on the ball. >> That you're still cadging off Lisa with the >> promise of a big win against the state of Iowa. > >You mean like Deuce Bigelow? (grin) Don't know of any suit with anyone named Deuce Bigelow. It didn't make the local news. I can't find anything on-line about such a suit. >> How's that going, >> BTW? Simple curiosity on my part. > >Of course. So, how's that law suit going? You'd think by now you would have done something. Like file. >> >How is it that this supposed person supposedly >> >came in contact with ME, supposedly? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ergo this is all just mental masturbation you foisted. If it makes your life a little easier to pretend someone you know in real life is actually fictional, so be it. >> >How is it that this supposed person supposedly >> >came in contact with YOU, supposedly? >> >> We met. > >Earlier you said you two couldn't hang out because of distance. You presume we've always lived so far apart. Is English a fourth or fifth language for you? >Trouble keeping your masturbatory story straight? That you fantasize about me masturbating is something best kept to yourself. >> >Do you hunt pheasant together or what? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Generally this sort of protestation indicates the opposite >of what it says on the face of it. Only in your mind. >Another indication that this "real world friend Mike" story >is pure Kent Wills masturbatory fiction. If believing such makes your life a little more comfortable, that's fine. It does me no harm. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. KW > If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. KW > I'm still waiting. You make up a BS story loaded with vaguaries and then pretend that the burden of proof is on me? I have it on good authority that on Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:47:58 -0800 >KW > If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. >KW > I'm still waiting. > >You make up a BS story loaded with vaguaries >and then pretend that the burden of proof is on me? You made the claim. It befalls you to prove it. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. KW > If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. KW > I'm still waiting. G > You make up a BS story loaded with vaguaries G > and then pretend that the burden of proof is on me? KW > You made the claim. It befalls you to prove it. You made the claim that we had a friend named Mike in common in the real world. The only information you obtained from this supposed contact was WRONG and had been raised before in the ascps newsgroup. You have never substantiated the dubious story. You have been evasive. It really looks like you flat out lied. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof indicates deception as well. On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:36:19 GMT, Greegor <Greegor47@gmail.com> etched news:851be1db-4237-47aa-8c78-9d41fed95fc3@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com into the walls of alt.support.child-protective-services: > KW > If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. > KW > I'm still waiting. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Your attempt to shift the burden > of proof indicates deception as well. Christ, goddamn Greg, can you be any more polite! LOL He's a liar and a f.cking sloppy c.nt. SignatureIn solidarity, Michael© M > Christ, [gd] Greg, can you be any more polite! LOL Sometimes I try. M > He's a liar and a [f] sloppy [c]. Yep. I have it on good authority that on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:53:15 -0600, >On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:36:19 GMT, Greegor <Greegor47@gmail.com> etched >news:851be1db-4237-47aa-8c78-9d41fed95fc3@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >He's a liar and a f.cking sloppy c.nt. Rather a lot of misogynist rhetoric in your posts. Give that we are to presume, according to you, that you do not mean what you post, then you are posting for effect. But what is the effect you're after? Therein lies the real question. Am I to compare myself to a vagina? I am honored, to say the least. Women's bodies and their reproductive parts are somewhat fascinating to most, if not all, heterosexual males. And it's quite impossible, unless one happens to be a homosexual, to be turn off by them, or be insulted by the use them by evolutionary throwbacks who use them as a means of insult. "Have a nice night with your blow-up spic wife." "Michael©" <no@spam.com> showing that he HATES me because my wife is Hispanic in alt.support.child-protective-services. I have it on good authority that on Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:36:19 -0800 >KW > If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. >KW > I'm still waiting. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >obtained from this supposed contact was WRONG >and had been raised before in the ascps newsgroup. The only information I *mentioned* in the group was in regards to your employment. And when you mentioned he was pulling my leg, I pointed out that he may well be lying to me. >You have never substantiated the dubious story. >You have been evasive. >It really looks like you flat out lied. If I tell you that which you already know, I would "out" him. Since he's a male, you'll not try to abuse him in any fashion (you ONLY prey upon weaker females), but you might try to make his life difficult in some manner. >Your attempt to shift the burden >of proof indicates deception as well. No shift. It does NOT befall me to prove he is fictional. YOU alone made that claim. As such, the burden befalls you to prove it. Either do so or admit you can't. Dragon's teeth! SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > I have it on good authority that on Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:36:19 -0800 > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > If I tell you that which you already know, I would "out" him. I have already "outed" your imaginary friend. > Since he's a male, you'll not try to abuse him in any fashion (you > ONLY prey upon weaker females), but you might try to make his life > difficult in some manner. I am amused that you pretend to know something sinister about your imaginary friend, but won't reveal it. What was he in prison for, Kent? Does he work at Best Buy? LOL > >Your attempt to shift the burden > >of proof indicates deception as well. > > No shift. It does NOT befall me to prove he is fictional. YOU > alone made that claim. As such, the burden befalls you to prove it. > Either do so or admit you can't. The only piece of information you got from this supposed person turned out to be WRONG. Shouldn't you prove the person is real? I have it on good authority that on Sun, 9 Dec 2007 07:47:03 -0800 [...] >> >You have never substantiated the dubious story. >> >You have been evasive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I have already "outed" your imaginary friend. Either offer the evidence that he is fiction or admit you've been lying about it. I'm still waiting... >> Since he's a male, you'll not try to abuse him in any fashion (you >> ONLY prey upon weaker females), but you might try to make his life >> difficult in some manner. > >I am amused that you pretend to know something >sinister about your imaginary friend, but won't reveal it. I know nothing sinister about him, and have never made any indication that I do. Why do you love to post deceptive implications like that? >What was he in prison for, Kent? He was in prison? News to me. >Does he work at Best Buy? LOL Not as far as I know. I'll ask him about it then next time I communicate with him. >> >Your attempt to shift the burden >> >of proof indicates deception as well. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The only piece of information you got from this >supposed person turned out to be WRONG. Who claimed it was the only piece of information I got from him? The only piece of information I brought to the group was and is wrong, which casts a shadow of doubt on the rest. >Shouldn't you prove the person is real? That you're so adamant in your insistence that he's fictional, while offering NOTHING to support the claim, indicates that you've already accepted that he's real, that he knows you, and that he might reveal information you would find very embarrassing. Of course, anything else he may have told me could be just as inaccurate as your employment status. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > I have it on good authority that on Sun, 9 Dec 2007 07:47:03 -0800 > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > been lying about it. > I'm still waiting... How could I lie about your imaginary friend? Hold your breath while you're at it Kent! > >> Since he's a male, you'll not try to abuse him in any fashion (you > >> ONLY prey upon weaker females), but you might try to make his life [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > indication that I do. Why do you love to post deceptive implications > like that? Then why are you so concerned your imaginary friend might be "outed"? > >What was he in prison for, Kent? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not as far as I know. I'll ask him about it then next time I > communicate with him. How long does it take to communicate from your left hand to your right hand? > >> >Your attempt to shift the burden > >> >of proof indicates deception as well. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > him? The only piece of information I brought to the group was and is > wrong, which casts a shadow of doubt on the rest. No sh.t, Sherlock! > >Shouldn't you prove the person is real? > > That you're so adamant in your insistence that he's fictional, > while offering NOTHING to support the claim, I don't feel an obligation to disprove any of your delusions. > indicates that you've > already accepted that he's real, Nice try! > that he knows you, and that he might > reveal information you would find very embarrassing. Or that you have tried to breath life into a fairy tale. Ventrification - manufactured by wind > Of course, anything else he may have told me could be just as > inaccurate as your employment status. Is your left hand as stupid as your right hand? Does AUK have an award for beating a dead horse? Or just plain beating off? This was really over days ago. I won the bet. > KW > If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. > KW > I'm still waiting. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > obtained from this supposed contact was WRONG > and had been raised before in the ascps newsgroup. Haven't you noticed Kent's imaginary friends yet? Like the imaginary CANADIAN DUDE that used MILLIONS and MILLIONS of internet sites in Holguin. ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Bwahahahahahahaha! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!! I have it on good authority that on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:06:00 GMT, " >> KW > If he's fictional, you should be able to prove this. >> KW > I'm still waiting. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >CANADIAN DUDE that used MILLIONS and MILLIONS of internet sites in Holguin. >ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Bwahahahahahahaha! What is the root cause of your pathological lying? >PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!! He's nothing more than the guy Ken hired for the Child Sex Tours in Cuba, of which Ken is an expert. Signature"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty." Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife as an object and NOT a human being. Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07> December 9th KW > Of course, anything else he may KW > have told me could be just as KW > inaccurate as your employment status. December 9th G > Is your left hand as stupid as your right hand? G > Does AUK have an award for beating a dead horse? G > Or just plain beating off? G > This was really over days ago. G > I won the bet. December 12th ROFL! > December 9th > KW > Of course, anything else he may [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > December 12th > ROFL! What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? Want to guess Betty? >> December 9th >> KW > Of course, anything else he may [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Want to guess Betty? *I* wouldn't guess Betty at all. why would Betty have anything to do with Kent not being here? G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? G > Want to guess Betty? TNKev > *I* wouldn't guess Betty at all. Of course not! You're his butt kisser! TNKev > why would Betty have anything to do with Kent not being here? If she did, would she need to GUESS? LOL >G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >G > Want to guess Betty? > >TNKev > *I* wouldn't guess Betty at all. > >Of course not! You're his butt kisser! Betty is male? News to me. >TNKev > why would Betty have anything to do with Kent not being here? > >If she did, would she need to GUESS? LOL Uh, no. If she didn't she would NOT need to guess as she would know. As it stands, she does know, as dose David, Dan and Kev. I sent out an E-mail letting them, and others, know that I would be spending more time with my family than on Usenet. It's a concept that will escape you, I expect. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. >> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >> G > Want to guess Betty? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > spending more time with my family than on Usenet. It's a concept that > will escape you, I expect. he wouldn't have believed me no matter what I said.It isn't any of his business anyway. G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? G > Want to guess Betty? TNKev > *I* wouldn't guess Betty at all. You're his butt kisser so you probably KNOW! TNKev > why would Betty have anything to do with Kent not being here? Who said she did? > G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Who said she did? Betty? >> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> You're his butt kisser so you probably KNOW! why would I know I am just a butt kisser.even if I knew you wouldn't believe a word I say. >> TNKev > why would Betty have anything to do with Kent not being here? >> >> Who said she did? you did. "what ever happened to Kent Wills? want to guess Betty?" why would anyone guess Betty? Betty is on your mind a lot isn't she? you got a little crush on her don't you? > >> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > you got a little crush on her don't you? Clearly you haven't seen her picture online. >> >> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Clearly you haven't seen her picture online. Says the greaser LOL You are obsessed with me Greg, and Dan, and Ron, and Kane, and Mehita, and a whole lot of other people. [...] >> you did. "what ever happened to Kent Wills? want to guess Betty?" >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Clearly you haven't seen her picture online. Do you attribute Kevin's NOT having a crush on her to the fact that he may not have seen her picture? SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. >>>> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >>>> G > Want to guess Betty? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Clearly you haven't seen her picture online. what does her picture have to with the crush you have on her?? you might have a 400lb midget fetish for all I know! >>> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >you got a little crush on her don't you? He does. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. >>>> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > He does. yep,that is why he is trying to pick on her,he needs her attention no matter how he gets it. > >>>> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > her,he needs her attention no > matter how he gets it. If you see her photo the question is who gets crushed. >> >>>> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > If you see her photo the question is who gets crushed. Come on Greg. You don't live that far away. You could make things a whole lot easier on yourself by just coming on down to the house here, ringing the door bell, pinching me when I answer, and running away giggling. >> G > What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Betty? Greg? [...] >>> December 12th >>> ROFL! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >*I* wouldn't guess Betty at all. She wasn't involved in the decision in any way. >why would Betty have anything to do with Kent not being here? She wouldn't, of course. But Greg has a "thing" for Betty, so any excuse to mention her name is one that can't be allowed to escape. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > She wouldn't, of course. But Greg has a "thing" for Betty, so > any excuse to mention her name is one that can't be allowed to escape. I don't know why he wants her,I guess it is a want for something he can't have.Greg needs a more submissive woman,he and Betty would never work out. >> December 9th >> KW > Of course, anything else he may [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Want to guess Betty? I don't have to guess. I know. Funny that he's not posted for what? Four days? Maybe five, and suddenly you're all concerned about it, isn't it? [...] >>> December 12th >>> ROFL! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I don't have to guess. >I know. I wish it were for some clandestine reason, but the simple truth is that while I have many on-line friends who are important to me, none of them compare to the importance of spending time with my family. Yes, Lin can take care of herself, and Number One Son is at that age where hanging out with dad isn't cool, but The Princess wants to spend time with Dada. >Funny that he's not posted for what? Four days? Maybe five, and suddenly >you're all concerned about it, isn't it? It is. I've gone weeks without posting and no one has expressed any concern. A few days and Greg starts to worry. I should be honored, really. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. >> December 9th >> KW > Of course, anything else he may [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >What ever happened to Kent Wills anyway? I find my family far more important than anything on Usenet. You probably can't relate. During the week I'll not be posting. I'll be spending my time with my family. Some weekends will pass with no posts from me. >Want to guess Betty? She doesn't need to guess. She was among those who got the E-mail from me explaining that I won't be posting much. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. Kent, Did you spend any time with your imaginary friend Mike? Dan the puppet bear man has some real estate to show you! He wants to explain housing in NYC! Really he does! He doesn't live anywhere NEAR Queens, because he lives IN it. You'd be proud of his logic Kent! Didn't you say that an attached garage is not part of a residence for the purposes of burglary conviction? Why is is a 5 day process to spend time with your family? Since when is newsgroup posting vs. family time an either/or proposition Kent? Betty is so twitchy that she even jumps in to discussions to try to save Dave Moore's Bacon while she explains she is not connected to him in any way! And like in "Minority Report" she has precognition and posts in anticipation of her OWN involvement in a thread where she wasn't, until she "jumped in". I think she likes "jumping in", it reminds her of the good old days when she got "jumped in" to the gang. > Kent, Did you spend any time with your imaginary friend Mike? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the good old days when she got "jumped in" > to the gang. I was never 'in' a gang, you idiot. Of course, I was never accused of molesting my paramour's child either. I guess there are a lot of things I've never been part of. Got a problem with that? >Kent, Did you spend any time with your imaginary friend Mike? You already acknowledged that he's real. You asked what he was in prison for. He states he's never been in prison, but since you asked about it, you accept that he's real. A fictional person can not be sentenced to a real prison. >Dan the puppet bear man has some real estate to show you! >He wants to explain housing in NYC! >Really he does! I have no interest in NYC real estate. >He doesn't live anywhere NEAR Queens, because he lives IN it. And this matters why, exactly? What possible relevance would the location of his domicile have to my life? What relevance does it have to yours? Why are you so obsessed with where Dan lives? >You'd be proud of his logic Kent! > >Didn't you say that an attached garage is not part of >a residence for the purposes of burglary conviction? As I've explained, at least three times now, I've never made such a claim. How many times do you need to be told the same thing before you actually understand it? >Why is is a 5 day process to spend time with your family? It's more than that. It's a concept a person capable of abusing his ex-wife and girlfriend's daughter wouldn't understand, so I'll not try and dumb it down for you. >Since when is newsgroup posting vs. family time >an either/or proposition Kent? If abusing those you see as weaker than you weren't so important to you, you'd understand. That it's a mystery to you, sadly, doesn't come as a surprise to me. >Betty is so twitchy that she even jumps in to >discussions to try to save Dave Moore's Bacon >while she explains she is not connected to him in any way! I don't think any of us are truly connected to anyone else on this group. >And like in "Minority Report" she has precognition >and posts in anticipation of her OWN involvement [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the good old days when she got "jumped in" >to the gang. What gang? Let's say she was once a member of a gang as you appear to be using the term. Is she currently a member? Has she left that life and been leading an upstanding life since then? Have you made amends for abusing your wife when you were married? Have you made amends for abusing your girlfriend's daughter? SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. >>Kent, Did you spend any time with your imaginary friend Mike? > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Have you made amends for abusing your wife when you were > married? Have you made amends for abusing your girlfriend's daughter? I admitted to hanging out with some kids in gangs when I was fourteen. I'm 39. So, do the math on how long ago that was. Geeze, it's not like I beat my wife or forced a little kid to take cold showers. G > I think she likes "jumping in", it reminds her of G > the good old days when she got "jumped in" G > to the gang. BW > I admitted to hanging out with some BW > kids in gangs when I was fourteen. BW > I'm 39. So, do the math on how long ago that was. Hence your fond memories of "jumping in". You have a predisposition to cult membership. >G > I think she likes "jumping in", it reminds her of > G > the good old days when she got "jumped in" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You have a predisposition to cult membership. It's hard to get 'jumped in' to a gang when you are NEVER A MEMBER. And you, my little usenet 'friend', have a predisposition to abusing others. It's apparent by your criminal and DFS history. > >G > I think she likes "jumping in", it reminds her of > > G > the good old days when she got "jumped in" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's hard to get 'jumped in' to a gang when you are NEVER A MEMBER. BW > I admitted to hanging out with some BW > kids in gangs when I was fourteen. > And you, my little usenet 'friend', have a predisposition to abusing others. > It's apparent by your criminal and DFS history. Poor innocent little Betty! http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee252/ascps/danno.jpg http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee252/ascps/danno-sat-wide.jpg http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee252/ascps/danno-sat.jpg >> >G > I think she likes "jumping in", it reminds her of >> > G > the good old days when she got "jumped in" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Poor innocent little Betty! LOL I'm far from innocent. But I'm no third rate thug who's done time either. > http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee252/ascps/danno.jpg > http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee252/ascps/danno-sat-wide.jpg > http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee252/ascps/danno-sat.jpg G > Poor innocent little Betty! BW > LOL I'm far from innocent. BW > But I'm no third rate thug who's done time either. Haven't you rubbed it in about Kent's Felony record enough? > G > Poor innocent little Betty! > > BW > LOL I'm far from innocent. > BW > But I'm no third rate thug who's done time either. > > Haven't you rubbed it in about Kent's Felony record enough? LOL > G > Poor innocent little Betty! > > BW > LOL I'm far from innocent. > BW > But I'm no third rate thug who's done time either. > > Haven't you rubbed it in about Kent's Felony record enough? LOL Get your hand off your 'tool' Greg. You aren't quite as witty as you think. LOL >> G > Poor innocent little Betty! >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Get your hand off your 'tool' Greg. You aren't quite as witty as you think. >LOL Especially given that, to the best of my knowledge, Greg is the only one in this discussion to have been convicted of any crime. Spousal abuse, wasn't it? He abused, in some way, his ex-wife. He was even incarcerated for it. His being locked up for abusing his ex-wife is important. He would have you, and everyone else, believe I committed a burglary (a felony in Iowa). However, the cite he uses states the person was only placed on probation. Clearly Greg's crime was far more serious, since it involved his being locked up for a while. Then he got himself placed on Iowa's child abuse registry for abusing his girlfriend's daughter. The exact nature of the abuse is unknown to me. SignatureKent Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.