Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin (Parkside) wrote:
miguel said:
Kali wrote:
Sean Monaghan said:
miguel wrote:
Sean Monaghan wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk":

That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is
overreacting to words on the screen, and I don't mean
Mike.

See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27

"27. Can I really be thrown in jail for posting threatening
messages?

Yes. People have been tried and convicted for sending
threatening or harassing Email or Usenet posts. We do NOT
support censorship of the Internet; however, posting a
message stating you are going to cause virtual or unvirtual
harm to someone will probably gain you a visit from your
Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent."

"Probably" gain you a visit from your Friendly Neighborhood
FBI Agent?

That's plain stupid.

If Chaney wants to call the FBI and complain, more power to
him.

That would be one of the most hilarious things to happen 'round
these parts in a while. It would be quite entertaining.

That's the bit that you and your public defender are missing -
AUK is *all* about entertainment. Always. No exceptions.
Period.

That would be almost as entertaining as [name] filing a civil
suit over having had his name and "dog****er" listed together in
the Google archives.

You are now participating in the google stacking effort yourself?
That seems odd, as you acknowledged you've been a victim of it too.

Hardly, clown.

Yet you know it has that effect, and you did it again in another post. Why?

You see, Sean, on Usenet it's not ok to call [name] a
"dog****er", but it is ok for him to make kooky death threats.
Get it? lol

Charlotte was right about me. I'm sorry you weren't more resilient.

All I see is kook. You're not as kooky as some, but still, you are a
kook. It's amusing how you invoke the favor of Charlotte and Rhonda
whenever you're called out.

That's not true, Kimberly K. Barnard. I've invoked Charlotte precisely
once, I believe, and only in connection with Sean's claim about my
threat to put Chaney in the hospital. I don't believe I've ever invoked
the favor of Rhonda. What they offer is their own affair.

One of these days you'll use up all your free passes. Oh, wait, it
would appear that you already have.

If I had to choose between a friendship with Rhonda or a friendship with
****stain, I know who I'd chose. How about you?

miguel

miguel wrote in news-
:

Ki[*BIG *SNIP*]

You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you admit
to in another thread), yet it falls within your code of ethics to post the
(alleged) institution and precise location of someone else.

Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.

The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to be
acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your behalf?


--
Official FAQ for Alt.Usenet.Kooks: http://www.caballista.org/auk

COOSN-266-06-58907

Hammer of Thor - August 2005

Pierre Salinger Memorial "Hook, Line & Sinker" awards -
March 2005, July 2005, August 2005, August 2006, February 2007

[Co]Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler

Dumbarse Git wrote:
miguel:

Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside:

You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you admit
to in another thread), yet it falls within your code of ethics to post the
(alleged) institution and precise location of someone else.

I'm reading a lecture on ethics from Sean Monaghan, who moments ago said
that it's all about the entertainment. Will somebody please nominate you
for some steaming pile of hypocrisy award? I'm beginning to think that
your intellectual prowess is about the equivalent of ****stain's, which
would be your only defense to said award.

If Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of
Psychology is going to associate my name and occupation with the word
"dog****er," given that she stated she has no trouble with somebody's
name being associated with their posts on usenet, then where's the
problem? Of course, all she needs to do to avoid this is cease her
participation in the google stacking. If you are her friend, you might
think about stopping yourself.

Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.

You are a dolt. In part, though, she has you to thank for this, what
with the fanboi page you did for me. ****stain, too. If you all want to
stop the RL stuff, I'm happy to stop too. Your choice.

The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to be
acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your behalf?

It's sad that you dismiss it as rationalization.

miguel

In , miguel mjc101
@gmail.com said:
: Dumbarse Git wrote:
: miguel:
:
: Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside:
:
: You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you admit
: to in another thread), yet it falls within your code of ethics to post the
: (alleged) institution and precise location of someone else.
:
: I'm reading a lecture on ethics from Sean Monaghan, who moments ago said
: that it's all about the entertainment. Will somebody please nominate you
: for some steaming pile of hypocrisy award? I'm beginning to think that
: your intellectual prowess is about the equivalent of ****stain's, which
: would be your only defense to said award.
:
: If Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of
: Psychology is going to associate my name and occupation with the word
: "dog****er," given that she stated she has no trouble with somebody's
: name being associated with their posts on usenet, then where's the
: problem? Of course, all she needs to do to avoid this is cease her
: participation in the google stacking. If you are her friend, you might
: think about stopping yourself.
:
: Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.
:
: You are a dolt. In part, though, she has you to thank for this, what
: with the fanboi page you did for me. ****stain, too. If you all want to
: stop the RL stuff, I'm happy to stop too. Your choice.
:
: The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to be
: acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your behalf?
:
: It's sad that you dismiss it as rationalization.
:
: miguel

I didn't mention your full name or your occupation (let alone
your work location), you filthy kook.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. I've explained
my position on this very well, and I maintain that position. I
merely cited an example to make a point. You, being the kooky
bully you are, saw a threat in it and decided you were going to
do the same thing, only turn it up a notch. That's what
narcissistic kooks do.

The more you write, the kookier you seem. You're so bent on your
kooky mission that you're willing to drag Rhonda through hell
for it. Say what you want, and have Rhonda try to defend you,
but kooky is as kooky does. This post is just another example.

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

miguel wrote in news-
:

Ki[*BIG *SNIP*]

You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you
admit to in another thread), yet it falls within your code of ethics
to post the (alleged) institution and precise location of someone
else.

Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.

If that was his campaign speech, then repeatedly posting "dog****er"
with his name and profession--along with the creation of that offensive
web site and the revenge froup--can be yours.

The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to be
acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your
behalf?

I don't find *either* acceptable, but (and it's a big "but") I will not
be critical of him for following the standard of behavior you've set as
acceptable.

What part of "you started it" escapes your attention? shakes head

Personally identifiable information is personally identifiable
information. You want to say that what you're doing to him doesn't
identify him as clearly as what he's doing to Kali. I say you can't
split that hair, because it does.

I have no doubt that if you stop, he'll stop. But your apparent idea
that he should stop while you continue is, at best, egocentric.

(The use of the word "you" in this post should be construed
collectively, and not as directed at you, specifically, Sean, except to
the extent that you, specifically, have engaged in the named behavior.)

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay

In , miguel mjc101
@gmail.com said:
: Dumbarse Git wrote:
: miguel:
:
: Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside:
:
: You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you admit
: to in another thread),

You're a liar. I've never bitched about KM repeating my
occupation.

: yet it falls within your code of ethics to post the
: (alleged) institution and precise location of someone else.
:
: I'm reading a lecture on ethics from Sean Monaghan, who moments ago said
: that it's all about the entertainment. Will somebody please nominate you
: for some steaming pile of hypocrisy award? I'm beginning to think that
: your intellectual prowess is about the equivalent of ****stain's, which
: would be your only defense to said award.
:
: If Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of
: Psychology is going to associate my name and occupation with the word
: "dog****er," given that she stated she has no trouble with somebody's
: name being associated with their posts on usenet, then where's the
: problem? Of course, all she needs to do to avoid this is cease her
: participation in the google stacking. If you are her friend, you might
: think about stopping yourself.
:
: Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.
:
: You are a dolt. In part, though, she has you to thank for this, what
: with the fanboi page you did for me. ****stain, too. If you all want to
: stop the RL stuff, I'm happy to stop too. Your choice.
:
: The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to be
: acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your behalf?
:
: It's sad that you dismiss it as rationalization.
:
: miguel

Please do continue to defend this nasty, filthy creature, and
let him drag you into the pits of hell as you become his
unwitting proxy in his kooky mission against AUK. I'm sorry,
I've tried to be reasonable for your sake. But it's way past
pillory time for him - he's been at this a lot longer than I had
realized. Intelligent, non-kooky people don't parade their
kookiness in AUK, or take baseball bats to wasp's nests.

Now feel free to call me a hypocrite and any nominating or
voting I do for him "revenge" motivated. I call it making
entertainment out of a bully.

And really, I am sorry about all this, as it probably does
affect our friendship (miguel has no respect for it, in case you
hadn't noticed). All I can do today is shake my head at your
defense of him and wish you'd stop.

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

In , Sean Monaghan
said:
: miguel wrote in news-
: :
:
: Ki[*BIG *SNIP*]
:
: You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you admit
: to in another thread), yet it falls within your code of ethics to post the
: (alleged) institution and precise location of someone else.

Oh, you wrote this. I thought it was a misattribution in another
post. Oh, well.

: Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.
:
: The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to be
: acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your behalf?

She's been manipulated into it. I saw that train coming.

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

"Kali" wrote in message

In , miguel mjc101
@gmail.com said:
Dumbarse Git wrote:
miguel:

Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside:

You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you
admit to in another thread), yet it falls within your code of
ethics to post the (alleged) institution and precise location of
someone else.

I'm reading a lecture on ethics from Sean Monaghan, who moments ago
said that it's all about the entertainment. Will somebody please
nominate you for some steaming pile of hypocrisy award? I'm
beginning to think that your intellectual prowess is about the
equivalent of ****stain's, which would be your only defense to said
award.

If Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department
of Psychology is going to associate my name and occupation with the
word "dog****er," given that she stated she has no trouble with
somebody's name being associated with their posts on usenet, then
where's the problem? Of course, all she needs to do to avoid this is
cease her participation in the google stacking. If you are her
friend, you might think about stopping yourself.

Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.

You are a dolt. In part, though, she has you to thank for this, what
with the fanboi page you did for me. ****stain, too. If you all want
to stop the RL stuff, I'm happy to stop too. Your choice.

The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to
be acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your
behalf?

It's sad that you dismiss it as rationalization.

miguel

I didn't mention your full name or your occupation (let alone
your work location), you filthy kook.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. I've explained
my position on this very well, and I maintain that position. I
merely cited an example to make a point. You, being the kooky
bully you are, saw a threat in it and decided you were going to
do the same thing, only turn it up a notch. That's what
narcissistic kooks do.

The more you write, the kookier you seem. You're so bent on your
kooky mission that you're willing to drag Rhonda through hell
for it. Say what you want, and have Rhonda try to defend you,
but kooky is as kooky does. This post is just another example.

He's not responsible for my choices.

You can be sure that I have given careful consideration to all the
consequences of the position I've taken. More important to me than any
single person or group of people in this dogfight is whether I will be
able to look myself in the mirror when I'm done.

Dustin (remember him?) had too little faith in my ability to keep his
confidence when I refused to choose between him and KMonster. In the
face of his direct attack on me, I defended myself, but up to that
point, most of what I said was in Dustin's favor, because in my opinion,
the tactics being used on him weren't fair or right.

It's not like I'm not consistent, Kali.

If I had to bend myself like a pretzel over this, I wouldn't do it.
Loyalty to a friend is keeping confidences and offering support in hard
times, not defending the indefensible.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay

Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of
Psychology (http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/psych...culty/barnard/)
wrote:
miguel said:
Dumbarse Git wrote:
miguel:

Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside:

You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you admit
to in another thread),

You're a liar. I've never bitched about KM repeating my
occupation.

I see you caught your attribution error in your post to Dumbarse Git. If
I may make a suggestion, perhaps you should wipe the froth and spittle
from your screen before hitting the "send" key.

yet it falls within your code of ethics to post the
(alleged) institution and precise location of someone else.

I'm reading a lecture on ethics from Sean Monaghan, who moments ago said
that it's all about the entertainment. Will somebody please nominate you
for some steaming pile of hypocrisy award? I'm beginning to think that
your intellectual prowess is about the equivalent of ****stain's, which
would be your only defense to said award.

If Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of
Psychology is going to associate my name and occupation with the word
"dog****er," given that she stated she has no trouble with somebody's
name being associated with their posts on usenet, then where's the
problem? Of course, all she needs to do to avoid this is cease her
participation in the google stacking. If you are her friend, you might
think about stopping yourself.

Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.

You are a dolt. In part, though, she has you to thank for this, what
with the fanboi page you did for me. ****stain, too. If you all want to
stop the RL stuff, I'm happy to stop too. Your choice.

The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to be
acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your behalf?

It's sad that you dismiss it as rationalization.

Please do continue to defend this nasty, filthy creature, and
let him drag you into the pits of hell as you become his
unwitting proxy in his kooky mission against AUK. I'm sorry,
I've tried to be reasonable for your sake. But it's way past
pillory time for him - he's been at this a lot longer than I had
realized. Intelligent, non-kooky people don't parade their
kookiness in AUK, or take baseball bats to wasp's nests.

Is this your professional opinion, Kimberly K. Barnard, University of
Wisconsin-Parkside,
http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/psych...culty/barnard/

Now feel free to call me a hypocrite and any nominating or
voting I do for him "revenge" motivated. I call it making
entertainment out of a bully.

And really, I am sorry about all this, as it probably does
affect our friendship (miguel has no respect for it, in case you
hadn't noticed). All I can do today is shake my head at your
defense of him and wish you'd stop.

I miss the days when I could anonymously play the dozens with people on
usenet, in soc.singles, on AUK, in AFA-B, without having asshole kooks
like you, Dumbarse Git Sean, K-Bitch and ****stain get all my
identifying information out front and center, and in a way that will
cause reputational and commercial damage to me.

Perhaps soon you may miss those days too.

You didn't care when the rest of them started in on me. In fact you
decided to join in. So solly.

miguel

In , miguel mjc101
@gmail.com said:
: Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of
: Psychology (http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/psych...culty/barnard/)
: wrote:
: miguel said:
: Dumbarse Git wrote:
: miguel:
:
: Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside:
:
: You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you admit
: to in another thread),
:
: You're a liar. I've never bitched about KM repeating my
: occupation.
:
: I see you caught your attribution error in your post to Dumbarse Git. If
: I may make a suggestion, perhaps you should wipe the froth and spittle
: from your screen before hitting the "send" key.
:
: yet it falls within your code of ethics to post the
: (alleged) institution and precise location of someone else.
:
: I'm reading a lecture on ethics from Sean Monaghan, who moments ago said
: that it's all about the entertainment. Will somebody please nominate you
: for some steaming pile of hypocrisy award? I'm beginning to think that
: your intellectual prowess is about the equivalent of ****stain's, which
: would be your only defense to said award.
:
: If Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of
: Psychology is going to associate my name and occupation with the word
: "dog****er," given that she stated she has no trouble with somebody's
: name being associated with their posts on usenet, then where's the
: problem? Of course, all she needs to do to avoid this is cease her
: participation in the google stacking. If you are her friend, you might
: think about stopping yourself.
:
: Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.
:
: You are a dolt. In part, though, she has you to thank for this, what
: with the fanboi page you did for me. ****stain, too. If you all want to
: stop the RL stuff, I'm happy to stop too. Your choice.
:
: The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to be
: acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your behalf?
:
: It's sad that you dismiss it as rationalization.
:
: Please do continue to defend this nasty, filthy creature, and
: let him drag you into the pits of hell as you become his
: unwitting proxy in his kooky mission against AUK. I'm sorry,
: I've tried to be reasonable for your sake. But it's way past
: pillory time for him - he's been at this a lot longer than I had
: realized. Intelligent, non-kooky people don't parade their
: kookiness in AUK, or take baseball bats to wasp's nests.
:
: Is this your professional opinion, Kimberly K. Barnard, University of
: Wisconsin-Parkside,
: http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/psych...culty/barnard/
:
: Now feel free to call me a hypocrite and any nominating or
: voting I do for him "revenge" motivated. I call it making
: entertainment out of a bully.
:
: And really, I am sorry about all this, as it probably does
: affect our friendship (miguel has no respect for it, in case you
: hadn't noticed). All I can do today is shake my head at your
: defense of him and wish you'd stop.
:
: I miss the days when I could anonymously play the dozens with people on
: usenet, in soc.singles, on AUK, in AFA-B, without having asshole kooks
: like you, Dumbarse Git Sean, K-Bitch and ****stain get all my
: identifying information out front and center, and in a way that will
: cause reputational and commercial damage to me.
:
: Perhaps soon you may miss those days too.
:
: You didn't care when the rest of them started in on me. In fact you
: decided to join in. So solly.
:
: miguel

Threat noted.

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein