🚀 go-pugleaf

frankpoole@sympatico.ca wrote:

: Is it these men or is it Barbara Amero?

: 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! 

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

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. 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. 

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??

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. Christie did not have his Internet Service at NSAC taken away,
just warned not to communicate with me, attack/libel me and fool around
with my account again. And if I should find out that he does so using
another alias, as he did with his alias "alien@fetid.cunt.cow", I will
report him again to Mr. State. 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. Men count on women's silence, which has always
protected men.

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

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. 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. IOW what you're saying is that you want to be able to
harass/attack/libel/break the law without having to be accountable,
without any consequences, want to be able to get away with it. AND you
call it "freedom of speech or expression". AND you say that if you can't
do what you do, that if you're censored, you're being denied your "freedom
of speech or expression". Well, you're wrong. "Freedom of speech or
expression" is not licence to say whatever you want. Anyone who attacks
the reputation of another person is taking considerable risk. The law
protects the individual (and her/his property) from untruthful and harmful
public criticism and will allow damages in proven cases. IOW anyone who is
censored for doing that has not had her/his "freedom of speech or
expression" taken away because s/he never had that "freedom of speech or
expression" in the first place.