On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Who started accusing whom of being a stalker?
You accused Mr. Probert of stalking you. Using the same
standards, you are stalking me.
That aside, you provided the PROOF that you were (I suspect you
still are) stalking past and current members of alt.friends.
You still haven't told me, and anyone else reading, why.
>
>For months now the only accusations of "stalker"
Months? Plural?
Is there anything about which you will NOT lie? Serious
question.
>have been an idiotic campaign by Kent Wills
>and stooges (including Betty) to call me a stalker.
If calling the truth a "campaign" makes your life a bit easier,
so be it.
>
>It's been said in reaction to various things that
>Kent and his stooges DO NOT LIKE.
>That is NOT what makes something stalking.
Your stalking is what makes it stalking.
>
>Kent claims to be Polish.
I was born and raised in Poland.
Old news.
>Kent makes a PUBLIC statement about his "romani" ethnicity.
Yes.
>Kent falsely asserts that "gypsy" is a slur by itself.
It is a slur. No amount of whatever it is you use to justify
your bigotry will ever alter this simple truth.
>Kent claims to be Welsh Romani.
>
I am.
>When I asked about this incompatible ping-pong,
How is it incompatible? Be specific. And keep in mind that I
posted links proving Kenny-Bob LIED when he said there is no such
thing as Welsh Romani.
>TNKev asserts I am a stalker.
You are. Old news.
>
>You KNOW that questioning a PUBLIC statement
>is NOT stalking.
But spending hours seeking out a web site and posting the names
and dates of birth of those who are listed IS.
How much time did you spend seeking out the page? That's time
that could have been spent doing something other than stalking.
>
>And to address the message thread title,
>I'd like to again point out that Kent has
>denied his Felony conviction despite
>ample verifiable evidence that it is him.
You have yet to prove my name in real life is Kent Wills.
Care to do that now? Didn't think so.
>
>Kent has no legal right against me posting
>links to his public criminal and court records.
Has anyone, anyone at all, claimed otherwise?
Why do you constantly post lies via innuendo?
>Posting those public records is NOT stalking.
>
Has anyone, anyone at all, claimed otherwise?
Yet another lie via innuendo from Greg Hanson.
>Kent and stooges keep asserting it anyway.
Liar.
No one has claimed that posting public records is stalking.
What is the SPECIFIC reason you are psychologically UNABLE to be
honest? This is a serious question.
>
>Questioning a public statement is NOT stalking.
>Posting criminal records is NOT stalking,
>especially where somebody made PUBLIC denials
>of a Felony conviction.
But your stalking IS stalking. And using YOUR own standards and
definition, you are stalking me and others.
>
>Asking Kent if his "cor****ation" as he has publicly
>termed it, is incor****ated, LLC or "Family Trust"
>is not stalking. Kent BLABBED it up publicly.
I answered your question.
And, contrary to the deceptive innuendo you've presented, no one
has claimed your asking me the question is stalking.
>
>Which form of incor****ation is it Kent?
Asked and answered.
Why are you deceptively implying I didn't answer?
>
>If you make me investigate the "cor****ation"
>status, that ALSO will not be stalking.
Since I lack the ability to make you investigate anything, any
investigation would be done by your own decision, and it would be
stalking. Using the definition YOU posted.
>
>But the Kent Wills and the stooges will
>call it stalking anyway.
>
You're a stalker. You supplied the proof of this.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825febd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
