🚀 go-pugleaf

"ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1143907949.397310.228610@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Patrick Keenan wrote:
>> "ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143874552.992750.5750@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> > Patrick Keenan wrote:
>> >> "ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1143841989.809315.95040@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Patrick Keenan wrote:
>> >> >> "ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1143817003.201500.138700@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > Roger wrote:
>> >> >> >> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> >> >> >>    (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> >> >> >>       someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
>> >> >> >>          in message
>> >> >> >> <1143772744.649871.133480@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Roger wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dare say, this looks a whole lot like defamation of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> character.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> And I don't
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> even agree with McVay on the core issues of Nizkor.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >It is a shame that people resort to garbage like this and 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >it
>> >> >> >> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >even a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >bigger shame that it goes on on both sides.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> No, the shame is that I don't think you even realize that
>> >> >> >> >> >> your
>> >> >> >> >> >> lie
>> >> >> >> >> >> that "it goes on on both sides" is exactly that.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >I know for a fact that your side does call people from pay
>> >> >> >> >> >phones
>> >> >> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> >> >harass the families of those your side does not agree with.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> And your proof that anyone here has done this is ... ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >"Nazihunter" was recently exposed for doing exactly that.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And by that act, demonstrated that zie was *not* on "my side."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He was harassing those who disagreed with the propaganda put out 
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> > your side.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And the identity of "nazihunter" has never been determined.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He was recently exposed. He is making his obscene and threatening
>> >> >> > calls
>> >> >> > from Canada.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Was he, now.   By whom was he exposed?    If you're thinking it was
>> >> >> Mr.
>> >> >> Bradbury, Mr. Bradbury has insisted that "nazihunter" was one 
>> >> >> person,
>> >> >> then
>> >> >> when shown to be wrong,  insisted it was another person.   So which
>> >> >> one,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> why dou think your idenfiication is reliable?
>> >> >
>> >> > Far too many people were victimized by the slime that goes by the 
>> >> > name
>> >> > "nazihunter".
>> >>
>> >> And do you have any real idea who that person is?    You claim that 
>> >> the
>> >> person was exposed recently.   By whom, and as whom?   And what makes 
>> >> you
>> >> sure that the identification is correct?
>> >>
>> >> I notice that you have carefully gone around the point that Mr. 
>> >> Bradbury,
>> >> who I suspect you think "exposed" Nazihunter,  is also known to have 
>> >> been
>> >> wrong about it.   He's wrong about a lot of other things too, but 
>> >> we'll
>> >> set
>> >> those aside for just now.
>> >>
>> >> So since Mr. Bradbury does *not* know who "Nazihunter" is or was, how 
>> >> can
>> >> you, or he, be sure of what "side" he (or she) is on, if any?
>> >>
>> >> > The calls came from pay phones in Canada.
>> >>
>> >> You know, Canada's a very big place and there are lots of people here.
>> >> "The guy who called from a pay phone in Canada"  is *not* enough
>> >> information
>> >> for an identification.
>> >>
>> >> We have lots of phones here, too.   In fact, the very first telephones
>> >> were
>> >> made here.
>> >>
>> >> Similarly, "you know the guy, he wears jeans a lot" is not sufficient
>> >> information to identify an adult male.
>> >>
>> >> And, we have a fairly open border.   It's very easy for American 
>> >> citizens
>> >> to
>> >> simply walk across the border and pick up a phone.  Visitors from 
>> >> other
>> >> countries can do this, too.    All that's required is local currency.
>> >>
>> >> Many major Canadian cities are well within a couple of hours drive of 
>> >> the
>> >> border.   Some are within a few minutes walk.
>> >>
>> >> > Do you approve or disapprove of making obscene and threatening calls 
>> >> > to
>> >> > the families of people
>> >>
>> >> I absolutely disapprove.   There is no question of this: it's wrong.
>> >> We
>> >> have police to deal with such things, and the matter should be 
>> >> referred
>> >> to
>> >> them, and to the courts.
>> >>
>> >> Now, let's get back to my  point:   Do you approve or disapprove of
>> >> publicly
>> >> *and wrongly* making claims that a specific, named person is doing 
>> >> such
>> >> things?
>> >>
>> >> Certainly, the person "Nazihunter" was incorrectly identified by Mr.
>> >> Bradbury, who for some time threw around  the name of the person he
>> >> thought
>> >> it was.    Do you think that was honorable?
>> >>
>> >> So, on what, exactly,  do you base your claim that the person
>> >> "nazihunter"
>> >> was ever *correctly* identified?
>> >
>> > I will not go into details because the reason why (and many others) I
>> > do not use my real name is because I was also victimized by your
>> > "nazihunter".
>>
>> I'm not remotely interested in your real name.
>>
>> If you have received such calls, contact the police.    That's why we pay
>> them.
>>
>> Now, I asked you on what you base your idea  that the person "nazihunter"
>> was ever *correctly* identified.
>>
>> Your source is Mr. Bradbury, isn't it?   And you should be aware that he 
>> was
>> wrong and published the name and personal details of the wrong person.
>>
>> Do you think that was honorable for him to do?
>>
>> > The calls came from the general area that was recently
>> > identified.
>>
>> Guess what.   There are *millions* of people in "the general area that 
>> was
>> recently identified".    A significant number of people pass through that
>> area every day, so just how have you narrowed the field down to one?
>>
>> And yet, you insist that you have and that the identity has been posted
>> recently.    The problem is, at least one, possibly all,  of the 
>> identities
>> that were posted are known to be *wrong*.
>>
>> How do you think these mis-identified people will feel?    Do you suppose
>> they might feel wronged - by you?    How will that make your position 
>> more
>> honorable?
>>
>> >You can dance around this all you want
>>
>> I'm not dancing around it.   The practice is wrong.
>>
>> What *you* are "dancing around" is the question of false identification 
>> and
>> the effects of it on the people falsely identified.
>>
>> And since you are a person who is claiming that identifications have been
>> made, that question is quite legitimately posed *to you*.
>>
>> Will you now answer it?    Or continue to avoid it?
>>
>> > and pose all the
>> > clever little questions you like
>>
>> I'm sorry you find these questions clever.   They aren't.
>>
>> The questions are simple and clearly targeted:   You are inferring that
>> identifications are correct.   We know that what was probably your source
>> for this is known to have been wrong.
>>
>> You're providing plenty of clues that will lead to re-publication of 
>> names
>> and personal information *of the wrong persons*.
>>
>> Will that not place you in exactly the position you are condemning?
>>
>> How, exactly, is that honorable?
>>
>> > but there is nothing that compares to
>> > personal experience.
>>
>> Regarding your personal experience, in no way do I approve of it, and I
>> recommend you contact legal authorities.
>>
>> And for your information, I, too, have been the target of such 
>> activities,
>> so you have little to tell me of personal experience.
>>
>> The question remains, and continues to be avoided by you:   On what basis 
>> do
>> you claim that this person was "exposed"?
>>
>> If there is the remotest possibility the "exposure" was of the wrong 
>> person,
>> and that possibility is rather more than remote,  you do not know if the
>> "exposure" is of the correct person, or of their point of view.
>>
>> But you do claim that the "exposure" was of the correct person, and in 
>> doing
>> so you place yourself in line with the people who post lists of what they
>> think is people's personal contact information.       And regarding 
>> personal
>> experience,  my information - which is incorrect, btw - is on some of 
>> those
>> lists.
>>
>> Please explain to me how this puts you in any kind of honorable position.
>>
>>
>> > These calls helped me decide that there is little
>> > (or no) difference between Nazis and Zionazis.
>>
>> Well, you appear to be making a rather large leap here.    There are
>> *millions* of potential callers,  and you say you have identified one 
>> person
>> and know their point of view.    I'm suggesting that you do *not* know 
>> with
>> any certainty the identity or the point of view.
>>
>> I'm suggesting that it's just as likely that your caller was the same as 
>> any
>> of mine, and that their ideological bent may not be related to Nazism or
>> Zionism or any other ism.
>>
>> > It is a disgusting and
>> > cowardly thing to harass people and their families because of their
>> > opinions
>>
>> I have no disagreement with this statement whatsoever.
>>
>> What I do disagree with is your endorsement of false identifications.
>>
>> > and both sides should stop it.
>>
>> I certainly agree that such things should not start, and if they did, 
>> should
>> stop.
>>
>> But if you think that referring to public identifications *of the wrong
>> person* is helpful or honorable, aren't you contributing to the same
>> problem?
>>
>> That is the issue you continue to dance around.    Will you now address 
>> it?
>
> I am convinced that the right person was exposed and already gave you
> my reasons for my belief. It is the Internet and not one post goes
> without getting challenged by the "other side". I believe little of
> what is posted by either side but in this case I believe the post that
> exposed the identity of "nazihunter".  You are welcome to believe
> whatever you like.
>>
>> -pk
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> -pk
>> >>
>> >> > who express an opinion contrary to Zionist
>> >> > propaganda from pay phones in a cowardly and disgusting manner?
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -pk
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> When those posts were being made, "my side" routinely condemned
>> >> >> >> them
>> >> >> >> -- can you point to any such from deniers about these "lisa"
>> >> >> >> forgeries?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think that these "lisa" posts are disgusting and so is
>> >> >> > "nazihunter".
>> >> >> > There are only a handful of people on these lists who are able to
>> >> >> > handle differences of opinions without name calling. The only one
>> >> >> > who
>> >> >> > comes to mind is Al Smith. There could be one or two others.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >It is a
>> >> >> >> >> >disgusting and cowardly thing to do and is the main cause of
>> >> >> >> >> >people
>> >> >> >> >> >no
>> >> >> >> >> >longer posting under their real names. You should be ashamed
>> >> >> >> >> >for
>> >> >> >> >> >shameful conduct of your side just as the other side should 
>> >> >> >> >> >be
>> >> >> >> >> >ashamed
>> >> >> >> >> >for the shameful conduct of their side.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >


Change your nym to "ataphony".  It's a better fit.