🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello William--

wvh@webave.com (William Haverly) wrote:
>"Terri Madison" <karcher*XXV*@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<ff42f998f2e16a7184938fd1e94e5e0d@remailer.frell.eu.org>...
>> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> gregariousvic@aol.com (GregariousVic) wrote:
>> ><< Subject: Re: Greggy says "POST THEM"!
>> >From: "Terri Madison" karcher*TWENTYFIVE*@hushmail.com 
>> >Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2003 11:45 AM
>> >
>> >Hello, Kenny--
>> >
>> >kenpangborn@aol.com (Kenpangborn) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  No I make NO such claim. In fact I have said the opposite. I have
>> >>  said the
>> >>asswipe who claims that posts have been "nuked" is a pathological
>> >>liar.  When
>> >>Google bought the Dejanews archives they bought the RAW data. Their promise
>>  was
>> >>that "EVERY post that had been made on Usenet would be in their new archive
>> >>INCLUDING the "nuked ones". To that end they PURCHASED copies from the
>> >>OTHER
>> >>TWO services that also archived usenet posts THEIR libraries. One of which
>> >>never recognized the high bit NO ARCHIVE command of Dejanews. 
>> >
>> >*laugh*  Do you mean to tell me that you are *still* in here trying to pass
>> >off  this ridiculous fairy tale?
>> >
>> >No--Google did *not* bring anything back, nor did they ever make any
>> >statement
>> >to this effect.  I used the "nuke" feature to remove posts in 1998, and
>> >those
>> >posts are permanently gone from the archive to this day.  I also have used
>> >Deja/Google as a reference tool in my job, at least on a weekly basis since
>> >1999, and never observed any "promise" to this effect. You're simply lying,
>> >just as you were when you pretended not to be "John Gault."
>> >
>> >Note that I've composed a letter to Google support to get the
>> >definitive word
>> >on this, once and for all.  But you and I already know what that word will
>> >ultimately be, don't we?
>> >
>> >*snicker*  Get a life, Kenny.  You're an absolutely awful liar and you do
>> >nothing but embarrass yourself over and over.  Perhaps it's time to find
>> >another hobby?
>> >
>> >Terri
>> >
>> >Do you need more proof than this from the official Google help site?
>> >
>> >http://www.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#prevent
>> >
>> >"# 12   I do not want you to archive my article(s)! How can I prevent
>> >messages
>> >that I post from being archived on Google Groups?
>> >
>> >Google supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, and we will not archive any
>> >articles that contain this text either in the header or in the first line of
>> >the message body. 
>> >
>> >#13  How can I remove articles from Google's archive?
>> >
>> >Google will honor requests to remove messages that you have posted yourself
>> >(known as nuking a post). You may even be able to do this yourself using our
>> >Automatic Removal Tool. Please find the circumstance below that applies
>> >to you
>> >and follow the instructions there."
>> >
>> 
>> Hello GV--
>> 
>> Makes you wonder why they would be so accommodating and helpful with
>> removing posts, yet would make some form of "promise"--which nobody but
>> Kenny ever saw--to "bring back" previously removed posts.  An endeavor
>> which would not only take countless hours and cost of retrieving the
>> "nuked" material from offline backups--but would also violate the privacy
>> wishes of numerous users.
>> 
>> >
>> >ROFL!  ROFL!  Gault !  
>> >
>> 
>> His name isn't even "Gault."  He couldn't even keep that
>> straight--sometimes he was "John" and other times he was calling himself
>> "Tom."  I hope he doesn't lie that badly in court--of course, the only
>> times he's ever been in a courtroom, were the times he was dressed in one
>> of those cute orange jumpsuits.
>> 
>> T
>
>
>  His anonymous remailer flooding of APAS doesn't help his credibility
>much either.

Nor does his repeated remailer flooding of *my* mailbox (followed
immediately by his showing up five minutes later, usually from the same
remailer service, insisting that it's "Moore.")

LOL--I did notice that although he's done a lot of ranting in here today,
he somehow skipped my post.  I s'pose he still has a bitter taste in his
mouth from the thrashing I gave him last time.  :)

I'm still awaiting the official word from Google support, regarding the
matter of posts being "brought back."  It should be interesting to see
whether or not they ever said that--but will anyone *really* be surprised
if Kenny is exposed as a liar again?

Terri