🚀 go-pugleaf

On 23 Dec 1997 22:58:45 GMT, ak955@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero)
wrote:

>: What you did to Christie was a cowardly, vindictive action to satisfy
>: your own ego. In a court of law a Judge would see you as a
>: non-credible whiner to say to the least. 
>
>You're wrong. The issue is what Christie did! In a court of law, a Judge
>would see that it was Christie who was cowardly and took vindictive action
>when he harassed/attacked/libeled me for more than 6 months using his
>real name and the alias "alien@fetid.cunt.cow" and fooled around with my
>'net account, often at the TAX PAYERS EXPENSE! 

And you have concrete proof of all this. If you are on the stand and I
ask you (under oath) "can you provide this court with proof that this
man "harassed/attacked/libeled" you at TAX PAYER'S EXPENSE", how would
you respond?  You have proof of all this, concrete proof? Just because
you say it doesn't make it so. You must prove it. You must also use
the legal interpretaion of the laws on the words you accuse him of. I
for one do not believe you have the proof, nor do you have the guts to
take it to a court. You know damn well you would lose.

>I sent Christie's email which originated from the Nova Scotia Agricultural
>College that bounced to my mailbox (due to his stupidity using his hotmail
>address) back to the Nova Scotia Agricultural College.

And you can prove this was all intentional? Please define "bounced"for
the court Mz Amero? Explain how it would went "back" to his employers
address. Please be explicit.

>Mr. State was not
>impressed with Christie's use of government equipment and time, nor was I.

Maybe they were not aware of the facts. Mayb they were being gutless.
Maybe a lot of things..... I would have made you prove a few things
before I approached an employee of mine so accused. On hindsight, if
they have followed your posts, they probably would have just scratched
their heads and wondered.

>(The time of day was in the header, a work day.) And I don't think Christie 
>immediately owning up to what he did as being brave. He thought that he
>was going to get away with it -- "but she's posting..." Well, the issue
>for Mr. State was not what Barbara Amero was posting. 

It certainly should of been an issue for "Mr State". You will learn
that in the courts, both sides will be heard, equally, facts being
proven, with the burden of proof on you to back up your accusations.
It will not be like some gutless supervisor taking the easy way out.


>he issue for 
>Mr. State was what a government employee, using government equipment and
>time, was posting about Barbara Amero and fooling around with her account
>at the TAX PAYERS EXPENSE!

Prove that statment beyond a shadow of doubt and I will personally buy
you a dinner in a retaurant of your choice. (Anything except turkey).

>And I suggest that you, Frank Poole aka Buzz, would have done exactly the
>same thing if a gov't employee was using gov't equipment and time to fool
>around with your account via a U.S. Military web site.

Nope, your wrong. I can be called many things, but you can't call me a
coward. The first step is obvious, talk sensibly to the party
concerned. I wish also that you would explain your constant use of the
word "account", as I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can
"fool around with your account". Your "account" is with the ISP. Do
you mean your posts? Your not very clear in your onslaughts on people.

>So what do you
>think Christie was trying to do? Have a chat with the U.S. Military posing
>as Barbara Amero? The address in the From field was "ak955@chebucto.ns.ca", 
>that is my email address, not his. My email address is NOT supposed to be
>used by Christie to send others email, including me as an "other", or in
>any way! Another's email address is not supposed to be used by someone,
>without the permission of the owner's email address, to send me derogatory
>email. 

This makes things a bit clearer to me. If he had mistakenly put your
"ak955........etc" in his "from" box, it would go nowhere but to the
owner of that e-mail address. So it was in fact an error. But then I
guess you never make errors.  You have made one and that is indicating
that you or someone you have "as a friend" stalk my wife. Now that was
a big mistake, and not very hard to prove, which I will if this goes
to court. 

>What should I have done? Let Christie fool around with my 'net account
>and get me into a fuklot of trouble, which I suggest was his intent??

Did you ever consider asking him before you took the action you did?
That is a legal procedure you know and I noticed that Michelle has
already given you "legal" notice on your accusations toward her.

>If I fooled around with your 'net account or any of the other posters 
>accounts, you and they would make sure that I had my CCN account taken
>away.

Your repetitious reposting is considered by many to be "fooling
around". That can also be considered as hate mongering, ever think of
that. What would separate your actions from those of Eric Zundel?

Repost of a repost of a repost snipped>>

>I will do the same to anyone else. If
>you fellas wanna play that game with me and get caught, don't expect to 
>do it without impunity.

If you fool around with me make sure you have positive proof,
otherwise your action (of the past) are going to eat you up.

>Men count on women's silence, which has always
>protected men.

Again you refer to Men vs Women. You are truly sad. 

>Don't expect me to be silent! I won't be silent or silenced!

You have the right to free speech. We on this Usenet have a right to
free speech as well, unimpeded by your feminist views.

>Barbara A. Amero

>P.S. When you fellas talk about cowardice, vindictiveness, hate, I suggest 
>you go look in the mirror at yourselves and think about what Christie did,
>what you do - especially the fellas who hide behind an alias to harass me
>(and others) while protecting their identity, professions, occupations,
>families - as you did Buzz "bvalient" until you screwed up and posted
>your real name Frank Poole in a "bvalient" post.

Had you ever come out of that stupor your in, you would have noticed
that I used both to gether for some time. Until I switched to
Sympatico I had no way to "filter" out spam and Barbara Amero. Your
letter to George and interference with my ad "for sale" was a direct
infringement on my right to advertise. That will also be addressed
when the you are asked to explain many, many posts. But then, I
suppose that you think that couldn't possibly be "fooling around" with
an "account" or encroachment on someone else's rights as Barbara Amero
is allowed to do that, but not those "fellas".

>AND then they say they
>need to hide behind an alias because I'll report them to their employers
>or ISP's. Well, fellas, if you didn't do anything wrong, there would be
>nothing to report.

And "if you ain't got nothing, ya got nothing to lose". right?

<<rest of PS snipped to save band-width  and besides you can't call
that a PS, geeeez!>>


Buzz