🚀 go-pugleaf

On 22 Dec 1997 17:51:52 GMT, ak955@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero)
wrote:

>: As usual Barbara you evade the issue and run off like a rabbit on
>: another subject once confronted.  Would you like to tell me and other
>: interested parties in this ng who you called?  
>
>I told you who I called. 

Must have missed it. Can you re-run the post. You appear to keep them
all. If you can't produce the post, drop the subject.

>I'm not evading the issue Buzz. At least 1 1/2
>years ago, you started attacking/libeling me and my ex-husband.

Hmmmmm, you said this before. Care to re-run that post as well?

> In your
>2nd or 3rd reply to my posts, you suggested that I committed a crime
>punishable by imprisonment.

Please re-run this one to.

>And you called it opinion. Such false
>accusations is a type of libel that is actionable per se, i.e. one does
>not have to show proof of damage. 

"An opinion" is not an "accusation" in the eye's of the law whether
your contes mentes or not. And one does have to show damage of
something.

>You have made slurs on my sexuality.
>That is a type of libel that is actionable per se. 

Unless invited.

<< snipped repetition>>

> At least, I had a smiley
>beside what I wrote. You write what you do as tho' you are serious.

A "smiley" is supposed to make the difference?  Are you saying that
when you get on your profanity kicks *your not serious*?

> And
>I suggest that you stop doing it. If you disagree with my views, present
>an argument against them. 

First, there has to be arguable points. But I do disagree with most
(not all) of what you say. I definitely abhor your actions against
people. And I don't have to repeat myself on that.

>If you don't like me, if you think I am
>disgusting, that my views are disgusting, I couldn't care less. 

I dislike the way you attack men. You are the creator of a problem
much deeper then you can even imagine. I dislike the way you attack
other women that do not agree with your biased opinions. That is the
part of Barbara Amero I detest. As stated before you do have good
points I'm sure, but you keep beating the hell out of yourself.

>But I do
>care when you post bogus analyses of me and my ex-husband, keep posting
>false information about me, keep posting that you know more about me than
>what I think, posting that you know what I look like, etc. Stop it!

I have already explained this, so put it to rest.
>[snip]
>
>> You posted personal information about me and also about
>>George Johnston, some that would have been accesssible thru' Mr. State's
>>records, after noting in other posts that you worked for Mr.State.
>
>: If your so knowledgeable you should know that once your a public
>: person, information is easily obtained for verification of facts.
>: Again who is Mr State?
>
>The information you posted was private, confidential information that
>is not obtainable for verification of facts - except for those who
>are privy to such information and such information is not to be made
>public.

Please re-run my post that I posted this "private, confidential
information " in. Many things are accessible via the freedom of
information act. I could ask you how you gathered enough information
on Mr Christie to impinge on his privacy? That is what your action was
and you know full well of that. 

> Last year you made some comments about me, information that
>Mr. State has and you made those comments after letting us know that
>you work/worked for Mr. State, i.e. the government. So what do you
>want me to think Buzz????

For or with the Government? That is important in this case you know.
You are free to think what you wish.

>>After you posted the personal information about George Johnston, you told
>>him to figure out how you got it and further *taunted* him about it.
>
>: What personal information? Please clarify. Besides that is between
>: George and I and has nothing to do with you.
>
>Unless you have a memory problem, you know what I am talking about.

No I really don't and why are you including George Johnston in this?
Does he want to be included? I think not. Especially after what you
said to him. Remember that? It is not fair to include him unless he
wants to be and I am sure that he can speak for himself.

>What is between you and George has something to do with me, if he
>chooses to tell me about it. He did. And I told him who to call, if
>he was concerned about the issue. Aside from that, I objected to you
>*taunting* him about where you got the information.

So leave him out of this. 

> I objected to your
>ridicule of his low salary relative to what you and Ken Chaddock say
>your salaries are or were.

You stuck your bloody nose in is more like it.  So how much did Ken
and I say we made?

> It is inappropriate to ridicule posters
>salaries. Just as it is inappropriate to ridicule posters for being
>on welfare. And it is inappropriate to use welfare to ridicule posters
>who are not on welfare. You have done all of that and more.

Put the prove in the puddin'. Your talking through your hat again. The
only time I may ridicule someone on welfare is if they shouldn't be on
it.

>>As I recall, George Johnston figured it out or should I say figured out
>>two possibilites and confronted you publicly and privately about how,
>>where you got the information. You, of course, denied it.
>
>: Did he?  So again how does this relate to you?
>
>See above. I, also, want to add that such relates to anyone who objects
>to what you did.

Please answer the question. BTW, what did I do again?

>>Were you stalking me and also George Johnston?
>
>: What's your interpretation? Are you trying to turn this around. If
>: this is interpreted as "stalking" you were aware of it. My wife didn't
>: even know you existed. That is the worst kind of stalker. Stalking the
>: innocent.

>Yes I turned it around. I made a comment similar to the comments you've
>been posting for a long time about/to me. And are you saying it's ok to
>stalk me because I am guilty?? If so, what am I guilty of?

Am/was I stalking you? My information about your person came directly
from you. The statement you made about the "red-headed Avon Lady" came
from you as well. Now you decide who would be seen as a *stalker*. I
know how the law would view it. Especially after reading all those
posts you have made in the past 1 and 1/2 years. Remember also that
there were 7 months of no contact between us. Do you know which seven?

>>Since last year you have been posting that you know more about me than I
>>think you do, (as I recall, you also said the same about George Johnston),
>>you have been posting about what you say my "welfare situation" is,

>: That's because you spilled your guts to all in here. It's public
>: knowledge.
>
>Spilled my guts? If that's what you think, then clearly you don't know
>very much about me. If I did spill my guts there'd be a fuklot of men
>across Canada right some upset.

Changing the subject again? The guts you spilled where about yourself.
No one would be interested in your other escapades, whatever they may
be. Leastways, I don't.

>For e.g, if I told the story about the man
>in the community I grew up in exposing himself to me and my friend in my
>own home when I was a kid and published his name, he'd be a liddle upset.

Not interested. Going by the hatred you spew constantly about men in
here, I would be the last to believe that story. 

>What he did is a crime today; I don't think it was a crime then - at least
>legally. No, Buzz, I've not spilled my guts, but there's likely some men
>who are afraid I might.

Go ahead. Maybe it will get you a free vacation. And I repeat I am not
interested in your charges. If there true, take them to a proper
authority

>I discuss issues in here that I think are important, such as divorce
>and what happens to women, especially middle-class women and use examples
>from my life.

A better place would be in one of the alt.feminist groups. Again your
indicating to all that you were miligned by your husband in some way.

>Many men in here bash divorced women who are punished by
>our society for the job our society expects women to do. I've discussed
>having been sexually assaulted.

Listen. As far as I can tell, everything that could possibly happen to
a person has happened to you. Don't you find that a bit ironic? Do you
wonder why men in this group can respond easily to Marilyn and
Michelle? Without profanity?

>The legal eagle for Dal, a man, said that
>I shouldn't be making posts about having been sexually assaulted.

I'm sure there is more to it then that. These posts are like
accusations (those are your words). Maybe that is what he meant.

>I'll bet
>a lot of men think so and don't want names mentioned! Ditto for being
>physically assaulted. I can see that women on the 'net have got men right
>some worried! I've been in other newsgroups where women use their real 
>names and talk about their ex-husbands and other men having abused them,
>etc.

I'm not interested in unsubstaniated crap. It is easy to point a
finger, hauling it back before it gets slapped is the greater feat. In
this case, your lumping men together again. What did you think of your
father? Was he a cad to? 

>What is public knowledge is that men have been posting that I am on
>welfare and I have been posting that I am not on welfare.

I think if you check the posts. You started that thread and indicated
that you were (past tense) on assistance.

>I am not
>on welfare and would not meet the criteria to be on welfare. 

Who really cares at thios point?

>Gary
>Stewart (DukeNuken, whatever his real name is) after saying that he'd
>talked to his father's lawyer posted a public apology to me for
>persistently posting that I am on welfare. You know that and yet you
>keep posting the same. Why?

I didn't know that and you know what? I think he was putting you on.
If you indicated (and you did) that you *were* on welfare then he was
just repeating your words. BTW, there is a great difference in the
word "welfare" and "welfare state". Check the post again.

>:>that I have a certain certificate,

>: In WS? You said that.
>
>That is a lie. I have never said that. I don't even know what a WS
>certificate is. You posted that I have a WS certificate. What is it?

Womens Studies. Geez, and you accuse me of memory lapses!

>:>you made comments about me being a single mother etc.,

>: Again, right back at you. You spilled the beans.
>
>Spilled what beans? I have never been a single mother. Why are you
>posting false information about me????

Depends on how you define a "single mother"? You started the thread
and regurgitated it time and time again. Built yourself up as an
expert in the field "from experience". Now which foot do you want to
put the shoe on?
>
>:> you have been posting that you say you know what I look like,
>:>where I walk. Why are you mentioning the names of streets I walk on?
>
>: Ask Quinn? You told it all to him in several posts. Again you sounds
>: like your stalking yourself.
>
>Produce such posts. I've never made posts telling Quinn what I look like.

I release nothing at this point in time. You can find it yourself or
wait for the other shoe to drop.

>I recall making posts after he was verbally attacked (with obscene
>physical gestures made) by a man on the street who'd been reading the
>posts in here. I posted that if I see that man (or anyone) attacking him
>on the street that I would defend him and if they physically attack him
>that they won't walk away.

An idle threat I presume. Anyway I don't wish to involve Quinn in
this. But I'm sure you will recall once you see the posts.

>Again not only are you lying, you are avoiding the issue. The issue is why
>are *you* posting it??? And why did you post it in the way you did???

If it's not true, why are you concerned about the post? When you yank
my chain you will get a roar. Look back at your posts and see where
you drug me back into your web, once I said I wouldn't respond to you.
I'm sure others can attest to the fact that you "mentioned me in
dispatches" a few times before I got sucked in again. 
>
>:>And where are you getting the above information about me that you've
>:>been posting???
>
>: See above. Open your life like a book and it gets read.
>
>You must be reading the wrong book. I am not on welfare and I have
>never been a single mother.

Best you go back and rewrite your posts. The impressions you give
satisfy both points whether someone believes them or not.

>:>Frank Poole aka Buzz, how do you know all that you say you know?

>: I understand what I read, I don't see the owrld through dark glasses,
>
>Then why are you posting lies about me?

Lies? Be specific now, and get used to it.

>: I don't try to twist or ruin people's lives, like that Christie guy
>: you attacked through his employment. There was also Glen Hart. I have
>: a feeling you may have dug a hole for yourself this time and your
>: trying to climb out on the "rungs" of your own verbal garbage.
>
>I don't try to twist or ruin people's lives. Don Christie fooled around
>with my account using Mr.State's equipment/time/money to do so. And he 
>attacked/libeled me for more than 6 months often at the tax payers
>expense.

I don't want to hear this again. I know by the posts in here what you
did. Your motive is immaterial. If you were anywhere near the
humanitarian of good will that you think you are, you would never try
to ruin a person's career or their family. That's why people call you
"sick", disturbed", "vindictive" and what have you. Did you prove he
did this at work? Was there no doubt? Am I/did I do the same at work?
Does Michelle, Pete, Karen, Ken, George, and all those others you have
accused do the same?


>nd you, Buzz, support that while bashing the poor who you say
>don't want to work.

Many do not. I am one of them.

>lenn Hart used Halifax Regional School Board in
>his sig. when making posts about me and another poster. 

Again who cares?


 >that is
>inappropriate, as was his public attack on me, until Mr.State put a
>stop to it. Why are you supporting Don Christie who used the tax payers
>money to fool around with my account??? I posted the headers of some
>of his email that landed in my mailbox.

Did you prove he used "tax-payers"  money? I would have you in a court
of law so fast over that  your head would spin. I suggest to you that
"Mr State" in this case was a coward. Sure it wasn't a "Mrs State"? If
"Mr State" valued his/her employee, they would have questioned your
accusations.

>>Have you been stalking me?? Perhaps not, since most of what you post
>>about me is false information. Why are you posting false information
>>about me? To libel me???
>
>: These are conflicting statements. 
>
>No they aren't. I said most, not all, of what you posted. Read it!

I did. Did you answer your own question there? After all I am a "male"
who never "understands" a woman's view. ;-) (smily)

>: The information posted (if false) is of your own doing. 

>I didn't post the information you posted that I am concerned about.
>There's *many* posts made by me stating that I am not on welfare. I know
>you have seen these posts because you've made follow-up posts and you keep
>making posts about my welfare situation. I just posted that I've never
>been a single mother and you reply indicating that I've posted such. Why?

Why do you continually repeat yourself? Are you a  lonely person? Like
I said before it makes no never mind to me.  *And* I do not keep
making reference to it, you do. I think there's a hidden message here.

>: Do you understand the ramifications of libel? Do you know what it is to
>: libel someone? If you do, read your own posts and take a reasonable look
>: at whether the shoe fits you.
>
>Yes I do. I have some hard copy info and info on my hard drive that
>I downloaded from the 'net. And I've talked to lawyers about it --
>one who is knowledgeable of Internet 'stuff'. 

""Stuff". Would you like to give their names? I'm sure they would
appreciate the free publicity. Your not talking to hear yourself again
are you?


>ut I don't think you know
>what it is or the ramifications. You noted some time ago that a libelous
>statement about me was opinion. Well, Buzz, your opinions can be slander
>if spoken and libel if published. And only one other person need hear
>it or see it.

Is that right? Interesting!!

>>Perhaps you've not actually been stalking me, just making me think you are?
>
>: What do you think? Do you think I would stalk you? Do I think you
>: would stalk, or have someone stalk my wife? To the latter, Yes. All due
>: to the way you attack people like Christie, Hart and Michelle and even
>: George Johnston. The "Hell's Angel" threat, employer threats, the RCMP
>: etc. etc.
>
>Why didn't you answer my question? I wouldn't stalk your wife. But I
>don't know if you would stalk me or not. You keep posting that you know
>more about me than what I think. You've been attacking me for about
>1 1/2 years. So what should I think??

Whatever you want to. It's a free country and yes I do believe you
would stalk my wife, you believe your capable of many things. This
fact alone can be proven by your own words. If you have consulted a
"legal Beagle" as you say, then you know full well who could be at the
dirty end of the stick in this dialogue. Would you like to talk to my
lawyer? He is well known and probably the best civil suit lawyer in
the Province.

>Again, Christie attacked/libeled me for more than 6 months, often at
>the tax payers expense and fooled with my internet account at the
>tax payers expense. And Mr.State did not approve of what Hart was doing.

Not interested. If I was Mr. Christie or Mr Hart I would handle that
situation myself. None of my business, but it is fodder for a
judgement ot be made.

>Michelle's first post to me was an attack, as are all her posts. I don't
>turn the other cheek. 

Maybe that's your problem. But I would suggest again to you, you might
be biting off more then you can chew. I don't think Michelle is as
forgiving as some others in this group.

George has attacked me privately and I don't agree
>with him calling women on the 'net bimbos or with the other derogatory
>remarks he's made about women, etc. You, Christie, George, and the list of
>men goes on, lie like cheap rugs. I didn't make a Hell's Angel threat. 

I seen your attacks on these people. The attack on George, a person
who defended you, was proof of your deceptive nature. Do you think
that only men lie? I saw the Hell's Angel threat and it difinitely was
a threat. Want to see it again in print? I don't think so.

>I did not threaten to go to anyone's house with a member of the Hell's
>Angels as men keep posting. I don't make employer or RCMP threats. If 
>I have reason to call someone's employer or the RCMP, I will do so. 
>And I have had reason to do so. 

Pleae make up your mind. You keep saying you do, then you don't. What
are we to believe? I think your lying (in either or both situations).

>>You recently posted that I have Red hair. Why did you post
>>that I have Red hair?
>
>: Wild guess? A pun? You said so? Whatever you want to think.

>Why are you guessing??? No, I didn't say so. What difference does it
>make what colour my hair is?? So what do you want me to think Buzz? That
>you are spying on me, have someone spying on me? Why would you want me to
>think that you know what I look like?? Why do you want me to think that
>you know more about me than I think you do? Stop evading the questions Buzz.

We hashed this before. I retract your hair isn't red! It's blue or
something, I really don't care. I am not "spying" on you, nor do I
have "someone" spying on you. I know all I waht to know about you
(believe me). I do believe though that (by your own admission) that
you created that situation with my wife. And unless you apologize and
deny it in no uncertain terms, then I will be forced to pursue the
matter. Stalking is a dangerous and criminal offence.

>:> How would you know I have Red hair?
>
>: Do you? If you do not, then you are answering your own question.
>
>Buzz, the issue is why are you posting what I look like?? And why is
>what I look like important, an issue?

It isn't really. I just don't picture you as a "sweet old or young
woman". I am not discussing your physical appearance here, just your
demeanour. Want to exchange pictures? I have a scanner. Oh, shoot, one
can't scan one's personality can one?

>> Have you been stalking me or getting someone else to? Perhaps not. I
>> don't have Red hair.  You have made many posts about my appearance, what
>> I look like. Why?
>
>: Can I reverse that question as it relates to appearance *and*
>: intelligence? Anyway, remarks about your appearance were made more to
>: describe your written word. Does that make you feel better?
>
>My appearance does not relate to my intelligence. You are a disgusting,
>despicable, repulsive, repugnant, ignorant man.

Thank you.

 You have used the
>physcial characteristics of women to ridicule me. In doing that you
>are ridiculing all women with such characteristics. You are disgusting.

Nope. Nope. Yup. or negative, negative and affirmative to those three
remarks in that order.

>>: What do you people think?
>
>>I think I'd like to have a chat about all of this F2F with you. I'd
>>be willing to meet you at the following address (inside, of course):
>>
>>1975 Gottingen Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
>
>: When? But you will have to make it soon. I will check the place out
>: before of course, as it could be HQ for Hell's Angels.
>
>>Feel free to bring other people along with you.
>
>:i.e. Legal Counsel. My lawyer is in a wheel-chair and it has to be
>:wheel-chair assessible. I'm not being facetious on this fact either.
>:I suggest you do the same (bring a lawyer). That way there will be no
>:twisting of facts and words said.
>
>>Barbara A. Amero
>
>Buzz
>
>I don't need or want your suggestions. And you are the one who twists
>fact and words and posts lies about me being on welfare, being a single
>mother, about my appearance, about my education, etc. You do the same
>about researhers I quote, i.e. saying they are all the "strongest"
>of feminists (whatever that means).

That should be pretty clear. Just everyday language. I'm speaking on
the latter, as I already spoke on the former.


 You don't know enough to know when
>I'm quoting men or women and you've never heard of most of the feminists
>I quote. You wouldn't know a feminist theory if it, to use George's 
>expression, bit you on the ass.

That's what they like to do is it!! Got to hand it to George, he
know's his women.


 A recent post suggests that you don't even
>know that the research paper I did on female complicity in sexual
>victimization was in favour of men.

That research paper for WS? (Women's Studies). Kind of biased wouldn't
you think. Ya gotta like that!!!


 IOW you are a dullard, as another
>poster called you. Go read a book instead of making posts about what I
>look like!

So does this mean you are calling off our meeting? We could really
solve this "looks" thing that way. I can even scan you a picture if
you like. Or do you already know what I look like? You did say you
noticed that I still had my "toad". So you musta' been peeking.

Have a good one!!

Buzz aka Frank