🚀 go-pugleaf

John Karras wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:19:43 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Looking at *this* picture, can you advise when the format changed so
>> that no photograph is now included? http://i41.tinypic.com/1z14etx.jpg
>>
>> That's just an example. I'm referring to Linkedin in general terms.
>
> No, it is not "just an example." It is a continuation of your slimy and
> hinky attempt to damage the reputation of the person whose account you
> have pictured. The fact that you had *retained a screenshot* of the
> earlier version of *his* profile proves this. You've been stalking him
> for a long time, posting both his LinkedIn and Aumha pages.
>
> Any rebuttal from you to the contrary will be another lie.

Sycho is a bit brighter than you, John.

He spotted that the picture on the left hand side is a fraud.

Why would Graham have done that, do you think?

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:16:32 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> John Karras wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:19:43 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at *this* picture, can you advise when the format changed so
>>> that no photograph is now included? http://i41.tinypic.com/1z14etx.jpg
>>>
>>> That's just an example. I'm referring to Linkedin in general terms.
>>
>> No, it is not "just an example." It is a continuation of your slimy and
>> hinky attempt to damage the reputation of the person whose account you
>> have pictured. The fact that you had *retained a screenshot* of the
>> earlier version of *his* profile proves this. You've been stalking him
>> for a long time, posting both his LinkedIn and Aumha pages.
>>
>> Any rebuttal from you to the contrary will be another lie.
> 
> Sycho is a bit brighter than you, John.
> 
> He spotted that the picture on the left hand side is a fraud.

Where is this alleged comment by Sycho?  

It is the identical picture Randy had on his former Aumha VSOP page.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061010022701/http://aumha.org/vsop.php

You also rebutted "to the contrary" thus assuring everyone that you have 
been stalking Randy, posting links with slimy comments about his web 
pages for a long time.

> Why would Graham have done that, do you think?

What in hell would Graham have to do with Randy Knobloch's LinkedIn page? 
You can't weasel out of this; you're a stalker.

John Karras wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:16:32 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> John Karras wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:19:43 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking at *this* picture, can you advise when the format changed so
>>>> that no photograph is now included? http://i41.tinypic.com/1z14etx.jpg
>>>>
>>>> That's just an example. I'm referring to Linkedin in general terms.
>>>
>>> No, it is not "just an example." It is a continuation of your slimy and
>>> hinky attempt to damage the reputation of the person whose account you
>>> have pictured. The fact that you had *retained a screenshot* of the
>>> earlier version of *his* profile proves this. You've been stalking him
>>> for a long time, posting both his LinkedIn and Aumha pages.
>>>
>>> Any rebuttal from you to the contrary will be another lie.
>>
>> Sycho is a bit brighter than you, John.
>>
>> He spotted that the picture on the left hand side is a fraud.
>
> Where is this alleged comment by Sycho?

I never do 'alleged' - it is *always* the truth! Here:-

  http://3wd.no-ip.org/exposed/BD/1z14etx.jpg

> It is the identical picture Randy had on his former Aumha VSOP page.
> http://web.archive.org/web/20061010022701/http://aumha.org/vsop.php

It is.

Who removed it from there - and why?

> You also rebutted "to the contrary" thus assuring everyone that you have
> been stalking Randy, posting links with slimy comments about his web
> pages for a long time.

He is NOT straight and true.

>> Why would Graham have done that, do you think?
>
> What in hell would Graham have to do with Randy Knobloch's LinkedIn page?
> You can't weasel out of this; you're a stalker.

Graham 'produced it' as evidence! I posted the thread.

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:43:58 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> John Karras wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:16:32 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:19:43 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking at *this* picture, can you advise when the format changed so
>>>>> that no photograph is now included?
>>>>> http://i41.tinypic.com/1z14etx.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just an example. I'm referring to Linkedin in general terms.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not "just an example." It is a continuation of your slimy
>>>> and hinky attempt to damage the reputation of the person whose
>>>> account you have pictured. The fact that you had *retained a
>>>> screenshot* of the earlier version of *his* profile proves this.
>>>> You've been stalking him for a long time, posting both his LinkedIn
>>>> and Aumha pages.
>>>>
>>>> Any rebuttal from you to the contrary will be another lie.
>>>
>>> Sycho is a bit brighter than you, John.
>>>
>>> He spotted that the picture on the left hand side is a fraud.
>>
>> Where is this alleged comment by Sycho?
> 
> I never do 'alleged' - it is *always* the truth!

You rarely tell the full truth. You speak in slime.

> Here:-
> 
>   http://3wd.no-ip.org/exposed/BD/1z14etx.jpg

That's a copy of the picture you posted. With a LOL.

>> It is the identical picture Randy had on his former Aumha VSOP page.
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20061010022701/http://aumha.org/vsop.php
> 
> It is.
> 
> Who removed it from there - and why?

Perhaps if you hadn't alienated yourself from Aumha and Randy in 
particular, they/he might even have told you why. What it looks like is 
Randy retired from being a Aumha VSOP. Others have come and gone as well. 
But your slimy, hinky, paranoiac mind sees that as something nefarious.

>> You also rebutted "to the contrary" thus assuring everyone that you
>> have been stalking Randy, posting links with slimy comments about his
>> web pages for a long time.
> 
> He is NOT straight and true.

More Slime. You have no evidence, just your own lies and innuendo.

>>> Why would Graham have done that, do you think?
>>
>> What in hell would Graham have to do with Randy Knobloch's LinkedIn
>> page? You can't weasel out of this; you're a stalker.
> 
> Graham 'produced it' as evidence! I posted the thread.

Why would Graham want to do dirty work for you?  I've removed pictures of 
myself from the web as well so you can't find them.

John Karras wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:43:58 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> John Karras wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:16:32 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:19:43 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at *this* picture, can you advise when the format changed so
>>>>>> that no photograph is now included?
>>>>>> http://i41.tinypic.com/1z14etx.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just an example. I'm referring to Linkedin in general terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not "just an example." It is a continuation of your slimy
>>>>> and hinky attempt to damage the reputation of the person whose
>>>>> account you have pictured. The fact that you had *retained a
>>>>> screenshot* of the earlier version of *his* profile proves this.
>>>>> You've been stalking him for a long time, posting both his LinkedIn
>>>>> and Aumha pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any rebuttal from you to the contrary will be another lie.
>>>>
>>>> Sycho is a bit brighter than you, John.
>>>>
>>>> He spotted that the picture on the left hand side is a fraud.
>>>
>>> Where is this alleged comment by Sycho?
>>
>> I never do 'alleged' - it is *always* the truth!
>
> You rarely tell the full truth. You speak in slime.
>
>> Here:-
>>
>>    http://3wd.no-ip.org/exposed/BD/1z14etx.jpg
>
> That's a copy of the picture you posted. With a LOL.

*Exactly*!

Sycho was emphasising that *my* Linkedin page was being used at that 
time, not Randy's. Doh!

>>> It is the identical picture Randy had on his former Aumha VSOP page.
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20061010022701/http://aumha.org/vsop.php
>>
>> It is.
>>
>> Who removed it from there - and why?
>
> Perhaps if you hadn't alienated yourself from Aumha and Randy in
> particular, they/he might even have told you why. What it looks like is
> Randy retired from being a Aumha VSOP. Others have come and gone as well.
> But your slimy, hinky, paranoiac mind sees that as something nefarious.

I never had *any* contact with him there.

>>> You also rebutted "to the contrary" thus assuring everyone that you
>>> have been stalking Randy, posting links with slimy comments about his
>>> web pages for a long time.
>>
>> He is NOT straight and true.
>
> More Slime. You have no evidence, just your own lies and innuendo.
>
>>>> Why would Graham have done that, do you think?
>>>
>>> What in hell would Graham have to do with Randy Knobloch's LinkedIn
>>> page? You can't weasel out of this; you're a stalker.
>>
>> Graham 'produced it' as evidence! I posted the thread.
>
> Why would Graham want to do dirty work for you?  I've removed pictures of
> myself from the web as well so you can't find them.

It's a shame this has all gone over your head. Oh, well. <shrug>

You are entitled to your own views.

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:10:58 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> It's a shame this has all gone over your head. Oh, well. <shrug>
> 
> You are entitled to your own views.

Nothing went over my head, slimer. Your post was just another in your 
periodic sliming of Mr Knobloch.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:10:58 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> John Karras wrote:
>> Perhaps if you hadn't alienated yourself from Aumha and Randy in
>> particular, they/he might even have told you why. What it looks like is
>> Randy retired from being a Aumha VSOP. Others have come and gone as
>> well. But your slimy, hinky, paranoiac mind sees that as something
>> nefarious.
> 
> I never had *any* contact with him there.

Then why do you periodically post your slime and innuendo about him here 
in Usenet, including posting the link to that VSOP page?

~BD~ wrote:
> John Karras wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:43:58 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:16:32 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:19:43 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at *this* picture, can you advise when the format changed so
>>>>>>> that no photograph is now included?
>>>>>>> http://i41.tinypic.com/1z14etx.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just an example. I'm referring to Linkedin in general terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not "just an example." It is a continuation of your slimy
>>>>>> and hinky attempt to damage the reputation of the person whose
>>>>>> account you have pictured. The fact that you had *retained a
>>>>>> screenshot* of the earlier version of *his* profile proves this.
>>>>>> You've been stalking him for a long time, posting both his LinkedIn
>>>>>> and Aumha pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any rebuttal from you to the contrary will be another lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sycho is a bit brighter than you, John.
>>>>>
>>>>> He spotted that the picture on the left hand side is a fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Where is this alleged comment by Sycho?
>>>
>>> I never do 'alleged' - it is *always* the truth!
>>
>> You rarely tell the full truth. You speak in slime.
>>
>>> Here:-
>>>
>>> http://3wd.no-ip.org/exposed/BD/1z14etx.jpg
>>
>> That's a copy of the picture you posted. With a LOL.
>
> *Exactly*!
>
> Sycho was emphasising that *my* Linkedin page was being used at that
> time, not Randy's. Doh!
>
That's not the way I see it.

He didn't know that your particulars had already been fully disclosed. 
He "found" your name because you were logged in to LinkedIn to see 
Randy's details. He just did a little netkopping after that to get more 
details. Reconnaissance as it were.

He's better at this than you are.

John Karras wrote:

> Why would Graham want to do dirty work for you?  I've removed pictures of
> myself from the web as well so you can't find them.

Best you ask G. Morgan that question.

Here is his post (*I* didn't write it!)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy.spyware/msg/32159aef616842aa?hl=en

Message-ID: <bnukt65cfmv0tb3frv6e8pm99li7knoq6g@Osama-is-dead.net>

You'll note there's no photograph at the relevant link now.

Why's that, do you think?

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

FromTheRafters wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> John Karras wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:43:58 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:16:32 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:19:43 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking at *this* picture, can you advise when the format
>>>>>>>> changed so
>>>>>>>> that no photograph is now included?
>>>>>>>> http://i41.tinypic.com/1z14etx.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's just an example. I'm referring to Linkedin in general terms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not "just an example." It is a continuation of your slimy
>>>>>>> and hinky attempt to damage the reputation of the person whose
>>>>>>> account you have pictured. The fact that you had *retained a
>>>>>>> screenshot* of the earlier version of *his* profile proves this.
>>>>>>> You've been stalking him for a long time, posting both his LinkedIn
>>>>>>> and Aumha pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any rebuttal from you to the contrary will be another lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sycho is a bit brighter than you, John.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He spotted that the picture on the left hand side is a fraud.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is this alleged comment by Sycho?
>>>>
>>>> I never do 'alleged' - it is *always* the truth!
>>>
>>> You rarely tell the full truth. You speak in slime.
>>>
>>>> Here:-
>>>>
>>>> http://3wd.no-ip.org/exposed/BD/1z14etx.jpg
>>>
>>> That's a copy of the picture you posted. With a LOL.
>>
>> *Exactly*!
>>
>> Sycho was emphasising that *my* Linkedin page was being used at that
>> time, not Randy's. Doh!
>>
> That's not the way I see it.
>
> He didn't know that your particulars had already been fully disclosed.
> He "found" your name because you were logged in to LinkedIn to see
> Randy's details. He just did a little netkopping after that to get more
> details. Reconnaissance as it were.
>
> He's better at this than you are.

He has my respect, but I found *him* first! ;-)

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:20:59 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> John Karras wrote:
>> Why would Graham want to do dirty work for you?  I've removed pictures
>> of myself from the web as well so you can't find them.
> 
> Best you ask G. Morgan that question.
> 
> Here is his post (*I* didn't write it!)
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy.spyware/msg/32159aef616842aa?
hl=en
> 
> Message-ID: <bnukt65cfmv0tb3frv6e8pm99li7knoq6g@Osama-is-dead.net>

Just one post in another thread, a year ago, where you were again 
stalking Randy Knobloch. You're the instigator, as always. To single out 
that one reply by Graham is just more of your slime. 

> You'll note there's no photograph at the relevant link now.
> 
> Why's that, do you think?

Randy knows you are stalking him so he removed it.

~BD~ wrote: 

>Best you ask G. Morgan that question.

That you suckered me into doing your dirty work?  Yeah, guilty. That
was before I knew what you were up to.  And that's also why you'll
get no more then contempt when you try to involve me in your
witch-hunt again.

-- 
I wish my name was Brian because maybe sometimes people would 
misspell my name and call me Brain. That's like a free 
compliment and you don't even gotta be smart to notice it. -Mitch Hedberg

G. Morgan wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> When your worrying yourself about total disasters, it's no real surprise
>> that you have little interest in the escalation in Cybercrime!
>
> Either are you.

I don't understand that. :-(

>> All I have ever sought is the truth, Graham. Period.
>
> Bullshit, you are a master manipulator.

I'm just a dad with a son your age.

> Example - using my full name in the subject of this thread, intent
> to make search results show up next to your slime.
>
> Later you even slime me with a year old post about your witch-hunt.
>
> -----------
> "Best you ask G. Morgan that question.  Here is his post (*I* didn't
> write it!)"  Message-ID:<udWdnbMImNdGjfTSnZ2dnUVZ7t6dnZ2d@bt.com>
> -----------
>
> Why are you involving me in this bullshit after repeated requests,
> then demands to stop?  Keep it up, and I'll have a surprise for you
> guaranteed to make everyone plonk you if necessary.

This is where I'm tempted to say "bring it on", Graham.

Why have you become so aggressive and unfriendly?

Were you just pretending to be a friend?

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

G. Morgan <sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net> wrote in 
news:8mqjm7ptd4ua00iol8q28sjc4j8iejj97l@Osama-is-dead.net:

> ~BD~ wrote: 
> 
>>When your worrying yourself about total disasters, it's no real surprise 
>>that you have little interest in the escalation in Cybercrime!
> 
> Either are you.
> 
>>All I have ever sought is the truth, Graham. Period.
> 
> Bullshit, you are a master manipulator.
> 
> Example - using my full name in the subject of this thread, intent
> to make search results show up next to your slime.  
> 
> Later you even slime me with a year old post about your witch-hunt.
> 
> -----------
> "Best you ask G. Morgan that question.  Here is his post (*I* didn't
> write it!)"  Message-ID: <udWdnbMImNdGjfTSnZ2dnUVZ7t6dnZ2d@bt.com>
> -----------
> 
> Why are you involving me in this bullshit after repeated requests,
> then demands to stop?  Keep it up, and I'll have a surprise for you
> guaranteed to make everyone plonk you if necessary.

Are you saying you're being fitted up?

-- 
Bear
http://bearware.info
Must Do: System image and automatic real-time off-site data backup
Recommended tools: EaseUS Todo Backup and SugarSync

LMAO!  There you go again, trying to bully with empty threats.


"G. Morgan" <sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net> wrote in message 
news:8mqjm7ptd4ua00iol8q28sjc4j8iejj97l@Osama-is-dead.net...
Why are you involving me in this bullshit after repeated requests,
then demands to stop?  Keep it up, and I'll have a surprise for you
guaranteed to make everyone plonk you if necessary.

~BD~ wrote: 

>This is where I'm tempted to say "bring it on", Graham.

Say the word.  Jenn can confirm I can do it.  She does NOT have my
permission to distribute the software to you, I have my own scripts
in there I'm claiming copyright to.  

>Why have you become so aggressive and unfriendly?

Oh I dunno, you throwing my name out there covered in hinky sauce
for one.  There was no reason to PING: with my full name, about a
subject you know I don't want to talk about and have nothing to do
with.

>Were you just pretending to be a friend?

I should be the one asking that.  How dare you.
-- 
I drank some boiling water because I wanted to whistle. -Mitch Hedberg

Bear wrote:
> G. Morgan<sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net>  wrote in
> news:8mqjm7ptd4ua00iol8q28sjc4j8iejj97l@Osama-is-dead.net:
>
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> When your worrying yourself about total disasters, it's no real surprise
>>> that you have little interest in the escalation in Cybercrime!
>>
>> Either are you.
>>
>>> All I have ever sought is the truth, Graham. Period.
>>
>> Bullshit, you are a master manipulator.
>>
>> Example - using my full name in the subject of this thread, intent
>> to make search results show up next to your slime.
>>
>> Later you even slime me with a year old post about your witch-hunt.
>>
>> -----------
>> "Best you ask G. Morgan that question.  Here is his post (*I* didn't
>> write it!)"  Message-ID:<udWdnbMImNdGjfTSnZ2dnUVZ7t6dnZ2d@bt.com>
>> -----------
>>
>> Why are you involving me in this bullshit after repeated requests,
>> then demands to stop?  Keep it up, and I'll have a surprise for you
>> guaranteed to make everyone plonk you if necessary.
>
> Are you saying you're being fitted up?


I'm curious about that too. I wonder if he will tell you.

I think he's cross with himself in reality - he didn't realise that I'm 
a master baiter! ;-)

It's amazing what little snippets of information one can glean over 
time. I've been looking for anything /unusual/ in the hope of ruffling a 
few feathers of the bad guys. Although one cannot be absolutely certain 
of *anything* one reads on one's screen, I'm pretty sure Graham is an OK 
guy. I mean him no harm but I think his pride has been dented.

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

Only in your video chats with jenn

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message 
news:F-KdnczkeeP4ZvfSnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
I think he's cross with himself in reality - he didn't realise that I'm
a master baiter! ;-)

  Bullwinkle was just *bound* to chip in with this pearl!

> Only in your video chats with jenn

Are you my Guardian Angel, Bully Boi?

You hang on my every word!

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

You keep tripping the alarm.

Tyrone is waiting...
Ditto the Squirrel.

The boi from run-corn and or the land of fruits and nuts will service you.


"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message 
news:xqydndwQ0fRYjfbSnZ2dnUVZ7vWdnZ2d@bt.com...
  Bullwinkle was just *bound* to chip in with this pearl!

> Only in your video chats with jenn

Are you my Guardian Angel, Bully Boi?

You hang on my every word!

  Bullwinkle claimed ....

> Tyrone is waiting

He's the spitting image of Lewis, the cat we had on board for 10 years!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/breathlessconni/6753193191/

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

G. Morgan wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> This is where I'm tempted to say "bring it on", Graham.
>
> Say the word.  Jenn can confirm I can do it.

OK  *WORD* ......   oh wait .. you didn't want me to say the word "WORD"
<smile>

> She does NOT have my
> permission to distribute the software to you, I have my own scripts
> in there I'm claiming copyright to.

ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! no one's supposed to know I have it!!!
{hands duct tape to G. to put it over his mouth...... um ... to tape his 
fingers quiet..}

{{mumbles something about .. sEcret ... kicks the dirt}}
-- 
Jenn

~BD~ wrote:
>  I'm
> pretty sure Graham is an OK guy. <snip>

ME TOO!!   :D


-- 
Jenn

~BD~ wrote: 

>I'm pretty sure Graham is an OK 
>guy. I mean him no harm but I think his pride has been dented.

For what, you for swindling me?

I don't have your script ready, but I'm counting still.


-- 
I wish I could play little league now. I'd be way better than 
before. -Mitch Hedberg

Jenn wrote: 

>~BD~ wrote:
>>  I'm
>> pretty sure Graham is an OK guy. <snip>
>
>ME TOO!!   :D

I am, but I won't be punked by Davey.  We can do another TeamViewer
session and you can watch me destroy him using your computer (or
mine).  Have popcorn on hand, and take notes!  I'll screen capture
the movie, so it can be a "how-to".



-- 
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be messed-up. -Mitch Hedberg

G. Morgan wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>  I'm
>>> pretty sure Graham is an OK guy. <snip>
>>
>> ME TOO!!   :D
>
> I am, but I won't be punked by Davey.  We can do another TeamViewer
> session and you can watch me destroy him using your computer (or
> mine).  Have popcorn on hand, and take notes!  I'll screen capture
> the movie, so it can be a "how-to".

You know I like you both ...

-- 
Jenn

Jenn wrote:
> G. Morgan wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>   I'm
>>>> pretty sure Graham is an OK guy.<snip>
>>>
>>> ME TOO!!   :D
>>
>> I am, but I won't be punked by Davey.  We can do another TeamViewer
>> session and you can watch me destroy him using your computer (or
>> mine).  Have popcorn on hand, and take notes!  I'll screen capture
>> the movie, so it can be a "how-to".
>
> You know I like you both ...

You really have to make a choice, Jenn.

Your friend is *threatening me* (also you friend) with harm.

Good guys simply do not do such things.

Especially relevant when the threat is recorded forever on Usenet.

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On 3/23/2012 6:00 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> G. Morgan wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>
>>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> pretty sure Graham is an OK guy.<snip>
>>>>
>>>> ME TOO!! :D
>>>
>>> I am, but I won't be punked by Davey. We can do another TeamViewer
>>> session and you can watch me destroy him using your computer (or
>>> mine). Have popcorn on hand, and take notes! I'll screen capture
>>> the movie, so it can be a "how-to".
>>
>> You know I like you both ...
>
> You really have to make a choice, Jenn.
>
> Your friend is *threatening me* (also you friend) with harm.
>
> Good guys simply do not do such things.
>
> Especially relevant when the threat is recorded forever on Usenet.
>

You're both fighting and neither of you will back down because you're 
men and men don't back down because they have to rattle their swords at 
each other to see who will flinch first.

I can't make it stop since neither of you are willing to back down, 
shake hands, and be different men.

And I can't deny either of you because to do so would require that I 
betray the other.

You two work it out because I'm not his or your problem solver. Stop 
putting me in the middle... both of you.

-- 
Jenn

~BD~ wrote:


> You really have to make a choice, Jenn.

Why?

> Your friend is *threatening me* (also you friend) with harm.

It is a wonder half of USENET hasn't threatened you with harm.

You're one of the biggest fucking idiots on the interwebz, you
have some kind of perverted Don Quixote dream of chasing 'bad
guys' and you lie constantly by manipulating the truth. No one gives
a single flying fuck about your auhme experience or your battles with
Dustin or Peter Foldes, yet it is ALWAYS about you. Get the
hell over yourself, Dustin, Peter and all this other ignorant shit you
endlessly go on about. You are a nothing and a nobody regarding
any cyber crimes or criminals. You're not fucking CSI, you're not
doing the world a favor. If you want to do the world a favor, get off
the internet or get off the planet. You want a compliment? stick to your
boat -- because your petty and childish infatuation with the other shit
just makes you out to be a fucking retard.

> Good guys simply do not do such things.

"good guys" and "bad guys" --> The world should be so
easy to define. Fact is, you cannot tell such a thing by
looking at someone and you sure as hell can't tell such a
thing from cyber conversations. Anyone in this group
could come in here with a female nym and have you eating
out of their hand with just a few simple compliments. You
don't know shit about what is real and what isn't in the
cyber world.

> Especially relevant when the threat is recorded forever on Usenet.

Get over yourfuckingself and give it up, you ain't Dick Tracy.
You worry over keeping your computer clean and let the rest
do the same. Go outside, make a friend, take your boat out and
when you get home -- smash your computer. 

John Karras wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>
> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch others
> who don't deserve it.
>
>> All I seek is the truth.
>
> If only you would tell the truth yourself...


I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people 
sometimes! ;-)

Here's an example:-   (http://goo.gl/swGkN refers)

On this page http://aumha.net/memberlist.php?sk=d&s...&start=3200

Member 3249 GC Jones has a web site

http://ordoaa.org/

3248 folk have registered with Aumha beforehand - yet *none* have made a
single post.

Is there someting special about GC Jones?

Mr. Eshelman is presently Chancellor of the College of Thelema. He 
serves as
Prolocutor-General of the Temple of Thelema, which he co-founded in 1987 
with
Anna Kria King and Phyllis Seckler. He is a former Grand Chief of 
Fraternitas
L.V.X. Occulta (Fraternity of Hidden Light).

He is the author of the acclaimed book "The Mystical & Magical System of 
the
A.'.A.'."

It says so here: http://www.aiwass.org/lecture/

Intrigue (for me!)


-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:32:07 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> John Karras wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>>
>> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch
>> others who don't deserve it.
>>
>>> All I seek is the truth.
>>
>> If only you would tell the truth yourself...
> 
> I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people
> sometimes! ;-)

No you don't. You're still a stalker and you just proved it once again.

<snip your irrelevant hinky innuendo>

On 3/24/2012 7:07 AM, John Karras wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:32:07 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> John Karras wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>>>
>>> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch
>>> others who don't deserve it.
>>>
>>>> All I seek is the truth.
>>>
>>> If only you would tell the truth yourself...
>>
>> I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people
>> sometimes! ;-)
>
> No you don't. You're still a stalker and you just proved it once again.
>
> <snip your irrelevant hinky innuendo>

Actually, Oldus Fartus is a real life stalker.. he's even admitted to 
stalking Dave until he found out all of his real life details.

-- 
Jenn

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:19 -0500, Jenn wrote:

> On 3/24/2012 7:07 AM, John Karras wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:32:07 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>>>>
>>>> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch
>>>> others who don't deserve it.
>>>>
>>>>> All I seek is the truth.
>>>>
>>>> If only you would tell the truth yourself...
>>>
>>> I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people
>>> sometimes! ;-)
>>
>> No you don't. You're still a stalker and you just proved it once again.
>>
>> <snip your irrelevant hinky innuendo>
> 
> Actually, Oldus Fartus is a real life stalker.. he's even admitted to
> stalking Dave until he found out all of his real life details.

Actually, "stalking" isn't necessary to find BD's details. It only takes 
about five seconds to do a "whois" on his domain name, and lo, there are 
all his details. You do know what a "whois" is, don't you?

And yes, the "86" door is BD's door.

On 3/24/2012 12:17 PM, John Karras wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:19 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2012 7:07 AM, John Karras wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:32:07 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch
>>>>> others who don't deserve it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> All I seek is the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> If only you would tell the truth yourself...
>>>>
>>>> I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people
>>>> sometimes! ;-)
>>>
>>> No you don't. You're still a stalker and you just proved it once again.
>>>
>>> <snip your irrelevant hinky innuendo>
>>
>> Actually, Oldus Fartus is a real life stalker.. he's even admitted to
>> stalking Dave until he found out all of his real life details.


> Actually, "stalking" isn't necessary to find BD's details. It only takes
> about five seconds to do a "whois" on his domain name, and lo, there are
> all his details. You do know what a "whois" is, don't you?
>
> And yes, the "86" door is BD's door.

OF didn't do that ...


-- 
Jenn

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:21:42 -0500, Jenn wrote:

> On 3/24/2012 12:17 PM, John Karras wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:19 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/24/2012 7:07 AM, John Karras wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:32:07 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch
>>>>>> others who don't deserve it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All I seek is the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If only you would tell the truth yourself...
>>>>>
>>>>> I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people
>>>>> sometimes! ;-)
>>>>
>>>> No you don't. You're still a stalker and you just proved it once
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>> <snip your irrelevant hinky innuendo>
>>>
>>> Actually, Oldus Fartus is a real life stalker.. he's even admitted to
>>> stalking Dave until he found out all of his real life details.
> 
>> Actually, "stalking" isn't necessary to find BD's details. It only
>> takes about five seconds to do a "whois" on his domain name, and lo,
>> there are all his details. You do know what a "whois" is, don't you?
>>
>> And yes, the "86" door is BD's door.
> 
> OF didn't do that ...

I did not say he posted the picture of the 86 door, I just made a 
reference to some of BD's info. Doesn't matter to me who did, except it 
is the exact door that is shown if you type BD's address into Google 
Street View. Whoever did post it, simply went to Google and took a screen 
shot.

You did not answer the question: "You do know what a "whois" is, don't 
you?"

On 3/24/2012 3:53 PM, John Karras wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:21:42 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2012 12:17 PM, John Karras wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:19 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2012 7:07 AM, John Karras wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:32:07 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch
>>>>>>> others who don't deserve it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All I seek is the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If only you would tell the truth yourself...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people
>>>>>> sometimes! ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> No you don't. You're still a stalker and you just proved it once
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip your irrelevant hinky innuendo>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, Oldus Fartus is a real life stalker.. he's even admitted to
>>>> stalking Dave until he found out all of his real life details.
>>
>>> Actually, "stalking" isn't necessary to find BD's details. It only
>>> takes about five seconds to do a "whois" on his domain name, and lo,
>>> there are all his details. You do know what a "whois" is, don't you?
>>>
>>> And yes, the "86" door is BD's door.
>>
>> OF didn't do that ...
>
> I did not say he posted the picture of the 86 door, I just made a
> reference to some of BD's info. Doesn't matter to me who did, except it
> is the exact door that is shown if you type BD's address into Google
> Street View. Whoever did post it, simply went to Google and took a screen
> shot.
>
> You did not answer the question: "You do know what a "whois" is, don't
> you?"

uh huh ...  why?  Kind of a silly question.

-- 
Jenn

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 18:08:53 -0500, Jenn wrote:

> On 3/24/2012 3:53 PM, John Karras wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:21:42 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2012 12:17 PM, John Karras wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:19 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>>>>> On 3/24/2012 7:07 AM, John Karras wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:32:07 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>>>>>>>> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch
>>>>>>>> others who don't deserve it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All I seek is the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If only you would tell the truth yourself...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people
>>>>>>> sometimes! ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you don't. You're still a stalker and you just proved it once
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip your irrelevant hinky innuendo>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, Oldus Fartus is a real life stalker.. he's even admitted
>>>>> to stalking Dave until he found out all of his real life details.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, "stalking" isn't necessary to find BD's details. It only
>>>> takes about five seconds to do a "whois" on his domain name, and lo,
>>>> there are all his details. You do know what a "whois" is, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> And yes, the "86" door is BD's door.
>>>
>>> OF didn't do that ...
>>
>> I did not say he posted the picture of the 86 door, I just made a
>> reference to some of BD's info. Doesn't matter to me who did, except it
>> is the exact door that is shown if you type BD's address into Google
>> Street View. Whoever did post it, simply went to Google and took a
>> screen shot.
>>
>> You did not answer the question: "You do know what a "whois" is, don't
>> you?"
> 
> uh huh ...  why?  Kind of a silly question.

Because if you do, you'd know that BD outed himself. There's no point in 
this game of trying to blame anyone else.

On 3/24/2012 8:45 PM, John Karras wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 18:08:53 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2012 3:53 PM, John Karras wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:21:42 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/2012 12:17 PM, John Karras wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:19 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/24/2012 7:07 AM, John Karras wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:32:07 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Out of interest, why does what I do bother you?
>>>>>>>>> You're a low-life stalker. You use slime and innuendo to besmirch
>>>>>>>>> others who don't deserve it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All I seek is the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If only you would tell the truth yourself...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always tell the truth John. I know that frustrates some people
>>>>>>>> sometimes! ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No you don't. You're still a stalker and you just proved it once
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip your irrelevant hinky innuendo>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, Oldus Fartus is a real life stalker.. he's even admitted
>>>>>> to stalking Dave until he found out all of his real life details.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, "stalking" isn't necessary to find BD's details. It only
>>>>> takes about five seconds to do a "whois" on his domain name, and lo,
>>>>> there are all his details. You do know what a "whois" is, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> And yes, the "86" door is BD's door.
>>>>
>>>> OF didn't do that ...
>>>
>>> I did not say he posted the picture of the 86 door, I just made a
>>> reference to some of BD's info. Doesn't matter to me who did, except it
>>> is the exact door that is shown if you type BD's address into Google
>>> Street View. Whoever did post it, simply went to Google and took a
>>> screen shot.
>>>
>>> You did not answer the question: "You do know what a "whois" is, don't
>>> you?"
>>
>> uh huh ...  why?  Kind of a silly question.
>
> Because if you do, you'd know that BD outed himself. There's no point in
> this game of trying to blame anyone else.
>

There was a time when domains automatically hid the owners personal 
information, and then suddenly that no longer was the case. You now have 
to purchase that privacy for every domain you own.

-- 
Jenn

Jenn wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 6:00 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> G. Morgan wrote:
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>> pretty sure Graham is an OK guy.<snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> ME TOO!! :D
>>>>
>>>> I am, but I won't be punked by Davey. We can do another TeamViewer
>>>> session and you can watch me destroy him using your computer (or
>>>> mine). Have popcorn on hand, and take notes! I'll screen capture
>>>> the movie, so it can be a "how-to".
>>>
>>> You know I like you both ...
>>
>> You really have to make a choice, Jenn.
>>
>> Your friend is *threatening me* (also you friend) with harm.
>>
>> Good guys simply do not do such things.
>>
>> Especially relevant when the threat is recorded forever on Usenet.
>>
>
> You're both fighting and neither of you will back down because you're
> men and men don't back down because they have to rattle their swords at
> each other to see who will flinch first.
>
> I can't make it stop since neither of you are willing to back down,
> shake hands, and be different men.
>
> And I can't deny either of you because to do so would require that I
> betray the other.
>
> You two work it out because I'm not his or your problem solver. Stop
> putting me in the middle... both of you.

Maybe you can get him to explain just what his problem is.

Until that happens, there's no way to correct matters.

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

~BD~ wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 6:00 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> G. Morgan wrote:
>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> pretty sure Graham is an OK guy.<snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ME TOO!! :D
>>>>>
>>>>> I am, but I won't be punked by Davey. We can do another TeamViewer
>>>>> session and you can watch me destroy him using your computer (or
>>>>> mine). Have popcorn on hand, and take notes! I'll screen capture
>>>>> the movie, so it can be a "how-to".
>>>>
>>>> You know I like you both ...
>>>
>>> You really have to make a choice, Jenn.
>>>
>>> Your friend is *threatening me* (also you friend) with harm.
>>>
>>> Good guys simply do not do such things.
>>>
>>> Especially relevant when the threat is recorded forever on Usenet.
>>>
>>
>> You're both fighting and neither of you will back down because you're
>> men and men don't back down because they have to rattle their swords at
>> each other to see who will flinch first.
>>
>> I can't make it stop since neither of you are willing to back down,
>> shake hands, and be different men.
>>
>> And I can't deny either of you because to do so would require that I
>> betray the other.
>>
>> You two work it out because I'm not his or your problem solver. Stop
>> putting me in the middle... both of you.
>
> Maybe you can get him to explain just what his problem is.
>
> Until that happens, there's no way to correct matters.
>
Why put Jenn on the spot over something that GM said? She's not 
responsible for him. I think you're being unfair to Jenn.

How's your website coming along?

FromTheRafters wrote:

> Why put Jenn on the spot over something that GM said? She's not
> responsible for him. I think you're being unfair to Jenn.

Jenn *works* for him!!!!

She'll be impressed that you are standing up for right v. wrong

> How's your website coming along?

You are well aware that I do not have a web site, so why ask such a 
question, FTR?

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

~BD~ wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Why put Jenn on the spot over something that GM said? She's not
>> responsible for him. I think you're being unfair to Jenn.
>
> Jenn *works* for him!!!!
>
> She'll be impressed that you are standing up for right v. wrong
>
>> How's your website coming along?
>
> You are well aware that I do not have a web site, so why ask such a
> question, FTR?
>
Your registered domain has been acting up, seems that security is lacking.

Your ibuoy.co.uk index page redirects to the www version which then 
redirects to various other places including porn sites.

FromTheRafters wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Why put Jenn on the spot over something that GM said? She's not
>>> responsible for him. I think you're being unfair to Jenn.
>>
>> Jenn *works* for him!!!!
>>
>> She'll be impressed that you are standing up for right v. wrong
>>
>>> How's your website coming along?
>>
>> You are well aware that I do not have a web site, so why ask such a
>> question, FTR?
>>
> Your registered domain has been acting up, seems that security is lacking.
>
> Your ibuoy.co.uk index page redirects to the www version which then
> redirects to various other places including porn sites.

How interesting.

Nothing like that observed here. Perhaps you'd care to provide a link?

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On 3/25/2012 5:32 AM, ~BD~ wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 6:00 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> G. Morgan wrote:
>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> pretty sure Graham is an OK guy.<snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ME TOO!! :D
>>>>>
>>>>> I am, but I won't be punked by Davey. We can do another TeamViewer
>>>>> session and you can watch me destroy him using your computer (or
>>>>> mine). Have popcorn on hand, and take notes! I'll screen capture
>>>>> the movie, so it can be a "how-to".
>>>>
>>>> You know I like you both ...
>>>
>>> You really have to make a choice, Jenn.
>>>
>>> Your friend is *threatening me* (also you friend) with harm.
>>>
>>> Good guys simply do not do such things.
>>>
>>> Especially relevant when the threat is recorded forever on Usenet.
>>>
>>
>> You're both fighting and neither of you will back down because you're
>> men and men don't back down because they have to rattle their swords at
>> each other to see who will flinch first.
>>
>> I can't make it stop since neither of you are willing to back down,
>> shake hands, and be different men.
>>
>> And I can't deny either of you because to do so would require that I
>> betray the other.
>>
>> You two work it out because I'm not his or your problem solver. Stop
>> putting me in the middle... both of you.
>
> Maybe you can get him to explain just what his problem is.
>
> Until that happens, there's no way to correct matters.
>

I can't get either of you to talk to each other as I believe you should. 
  Besides, it's not my job to monitor either of you so you both can 
behave and get along.  My kids are already grown up. I'm hanging out 
with adults these days.  :)
-- 
Jenn

Jenn wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 5:32 AM, ~BD~ wrote:

>> Maybe you can get him to explain just what his problem is.
>>
>> Until that happens, there's no way to correct matters.
>>
>
> I can't get either of you to talk to each other as I believe you should.
> Besides, it's not my job to monitor either of you so you both can behave
> and get along. My kids are already grown up. I'm hanging out with adults
> these days. :)

Have a great time there, Jenn.

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On 3/25/2012 4:07 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> On 3/25/2012 5:32 AM, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>>> Maybe you can get him to explain just what his problem is.
>>>
>>> Until that happens, there's no way to correct matters.
>>>
>>
>> I can't get either of you to talk to each other as I believe you should.
>> Besides, it's not my job to monitor either of you so you both can behave
>> and get along. My kids are already grown up. I'm hanging out with adults
>> these days. :)
>
> Have a great time there, Jenn.
>

You're one of the adults I'm hanging out with!

-- 
Jenn

Jenn wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 4:07 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2012 5:32 AM, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe you can get him to explain just what his problem is.
>>>>
>>>> Until that happens, there's no way to correct matters.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't get either of you to talk to each other as I believe you should.
>>> Besides, it's not my job to monitor either of you so you both can behave
>>> and get along. My kids are already grown up. I'm hanging out with adults
>>> these days. :)
>>
>> Have a great time there, Jenn.
>>
>
> You're one of the adults I'm hanging out with!

In which secret group now?

-- 
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."

On 3/25/2012 4:48 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> On 3/25/2012 4:07 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2012 5:32 AM, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can get him to explain just what his problem is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until that happens, there's no way to correct matters.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't get either of you to talk to each other as I believe you
>>>> should.
>>>> Besides, it's not my job to monitor either of you so you both can
>>>> behave
>>>> and get along. My kids are already grown up. I'm hanging out with
>>>> adults
>>>> these days. :)
>>>
>>> Have a great time there, Jenn.
>>>
>>
>> You're one of the adults I'm hanging out with!
>
> In which secret group now?
>


Why this one, of course.

-- 
Jenn

Do you own or just get a fee for each click
when you post hot links to those Phising sites?


"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message 
news:wuWdnbBGeI6SivLSnZ2dnUVZ7vmdnZ2d@bt.com... 

and......???

"Jenn" <no@em.ail> wrote in message news:jko40c$4ic$1@dont-email.me...

Why this one, of course.