🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.