Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Then it all boils down to one question: Did you or did you not turn him
in to his ISP? And I suppose your answer to that will be "I neither admit
or deny..." I admit freely I turned Neal in...and you know the exterior
reasons why I had to do that. Gilly does not hack, infest others with
malware or viruses. So he retaliated on group with information about your
past that might hurt you. Many people ahve thigs in their pasts that they
are not proud of or that they look back on ad think "Why the heck did I do
that?" Problem is, once it's done you have to live with it forever. And
things do tend to come back and haignt a person, whether they think
they've lived through them or not. Yur alternative to all this is to
either defend yourself, which you don't have to do...I caould care less
what anyone did back in the 60's...or you can ignore it. Fighting it,
though, without defending yourself i some way, just drives the nails
deeper.



Yes, it all boils down to one question and one sentence in your post.

If I say I didn't, then inevitably someone will call me a liar. I've denied
similar things, such as being the one responsible for getting someone
tossed, but in every instance, the person in question called me a liar over
and over, and will probably do so forever to whomever will listen.

And, the one sentence is "So he retaliated on group with information about
your past that might hurt you." The word retaliated implies that he is 1) is
absolutely certain that I reported him, 2) he did nothing wrong, 3) it's ok
to retaliate. I certainly dispute 2 and 3. I can't say if he's certain or
not. I can say that his intention (and Neal's) was/is to "hurt" me. Gill
just threatened me physically in another post. FYI, I did nothing in the 60s
that I'm ashamed of, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to fight or defend.

Yes, for some people, I agree that they will look back and wonder why they
did something or said something. Most mature adults do that from time to
time. I don't count Gill or Neal or the others I mentioned in that category,
as I've not seen that demonstrated by them. If you happen to recall, I
stopped (mostly) using foul language and arguing with the likes of Neal
quite a while ago. I regret doing it, but finally realized that it was just
making things worse. I wonder when/if Gill will ever come to that
conclusion.

There is a difference, though, that you're overlooking. Neal does
physical damage to people's computers. Gilly does not. WOrds are words,
I've learened, and some words should just be ignored. If what Gilly
published about you is not true, you have elgal recourse to sue him. If
it is true, then it truly is a matter of public record and he did
nothing bit point the arrow to the evidence. What other people do with
it isn't in his control. As far as retaliation goes, you retaliate when
you turn someone in because they don't fit your sescription of what
should and should not be said here. I only tirned someone in when a
physical possesion of mine was invaded and destroyed. Big difference
there. Get over it Jon. There's way too much life to live.