🚀 go-pugleaf

karcher*XXV*@hushmail.com ("Terri Madison") wrote in message news:<fcc8056a57543315e8bd9f8437bd387c@remailer.frell.eu.org>...
> 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


 Kato Pangborn is still waiting for the spotlight.