wrote in message
...

There is a big difference between feelings hurt, and trying to crush
one's source of income with an anonymous puppet.

That is why Mr Neal shifted to a puppet to torment poor Jon. He
created an on-line sockpuppet to do his dirty work, work he felt was
to risky to do as himself.

Good theory, can you prove it? And you still didn't answer my question, "Do
you have standing?"

--
Gregory Hall

Fred

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:00:52 -0700 (PDT), said:

That is why Mr Neal shifted to a puppet to torment poor Jon. He
created an on-line sockpuppet to do his dirty work, work he felt was
to risky to do as himself.

Nah. As I've pointed out, there really are no such risks if he limits
himself to the truth. He's just a natural asshole, and he thinks socks get
him a larger audience for his nonsense. But they're really pretty easy to
spot and killfile.

Consider him the group's court fool.

No, consider him doing that which was forced upon him. Due to continued
harassment of various past NSPs and ISPs having to deal with continued and
numerous bogus abuse complaints from various netKKKops like Jon and his ilk
who take offense at just about every written word, there comes a time when
taking steps to nullify said harassment is called for. Among these might be
NSP's who don't show an IP address and who reply to and ****can all
complaints after the first proven bogus attempt from any individual. (One,
after ascertaining very first bogus complaint, will forward said complaint
to user.) The standard reply goes something like this. "We don't release
any personal information about our customers regardless of your threats. If
you're serious send us a subpoena." In other words, put up or shut up!

Another reason might be using two or three different NSPs in case one
provider decides they're sick and tired of dealing with multiple abuse
complaints whether valid or not and closes the account. (This abuse
complaint flooding is a trick employed in the past by Katysails and Jon Boy
and a couple others.)

Another might be to have several NSP accounts to enable one to exercise
one's brain debating subjects of all sorts in groups abuse complaint
stalkers such as Jon Boy have no way to learn the whereabouts of. One must
adapt to stay one step ahead of any and all petty minds who make censorship
their life's work.

As Wilbur would say, "I hope this helps."

--
Gregory Hall

Bozo the Clown wrote in message
...
On 19 May 2008 12:45:07 -0500, Dave wrote:


1. "He did it first" is not a defense to libel.

2. Truth is a complete defense to libel or slander. So the principal
issue is whether Neal's claims are true.



" He did it first and continues to do it" certainly would throw cold
water upon any claims of bullying, victimhood or stalking.

Anyone can search the internet and find evidence of the drug posts.
Anyone can check the dates, names, phone numbers and employers. It
seems the evidence favors the accused.

I don't see many other business owners going on Usenet and repeatedly
making a spectacle of themselves. Maybe they have sense enough to know
it's bad for business. What kind of judgement was used to post to
alt.drugs from the workplace using the workplace signature lines and
headers about illegal and irresponsible behavior? The substance abuse
was one thing, but to boast about it 20 years later in a work setting
is not professional. Some may see a severe self destructive streak in
there.

Bozo


Oh, Bozo, you've got to understand these poor liberal *******s a little
better.

You've probably done gone and hurt their itty bitty feelings. After all, it
seems logical that those who so wholeheartedly support illegal drug use and
don't see any harm in somebody doing drugs and bragging about doing them on
Usenet and even encouraging and instructing others how to use them have
probably done and/or dealt illegal drugs themselves and are attempting to
justify their own illegal behavior by downplaying similar activities of
others. Failing to take a strong stand against all illegal drug use makes
these people part of the problem. I intend to be part of the solution. I
will never condone the use of illegal drugs. I will never support
lawbreakers who use or have used illegal drugs. I will never like those who
abide illegal drug use.

The sad thing is these giant liberal hypocrites who balk at speaking out
against illegal drugs will probably be among the first to cry foul when they
happen to stumble across their children using drugs. Oh, they will turn over
every stone trying to uncover the dastardly monster who sold their kids
drugs. And they will certainly be among the first to queue up to file suit
should some drug-impaired driver (or boat captain) cause to be injured or
killed one of their loved ones. They are colossal hypocrites. They
facilitate illegal drugs on the one hand by their not speaking out against
braggadocios drug users while on the other hand they moan and grown and cry
and whine should they or their loved ones become a victim of drug abuse.

But, that is today's liberal in action. Don't take any responsibility for
anything. Berate those who are taking responsibility and action. Yet blame
everybody but themselves when they are bitten in the ass by what they ignore
or even sanction.

I doubt this helps because you liberals will just deny the logic and reality
of what I've written. A good part of your liberal philosophy involves
denial.

Wilbur Hubbard
(just had to get in on THIS great discussion)

On Mon, 19 May 2008 13:39:17 -0400, "Gregory Hall"
wrote:

What is a sock puppet? What you call a sock puppet just might turn out to
be a legitimate user ID at a particular NSP. You need to examine your
definition. Show me the law that states an individual may only use one NSP
at a time, please.

I am bemused. My tens of thousands USENET post have all been under my
own name, and if there is a downside, I haven't seen it.

Let's pray sanity reigns and the person held responsible for the suicide is
the girl who killed herself.

Well, yes.

Casady

On Mon, 19 May 2008 13:17:51 -0400, "Gregory Hall"
wrote:

He claims he's
got Wilbur killfiled yet he manages to continue to plonk him time after time
and Wilbur doesn't change his headers so Jon must have very ineffective kill
files. Or curiosity gets the better of him??

It is true that some software has the option of the thirty day kill.
Wilburs stuff isn't always the gospel, but so what?

Casady

"Gregory Hall" wrote:
.... It's about time parents stop raising children who are
so soft and weak - so self-centered.

So, you blame your parents for raising you to be a cowardly
sockpuppet?



.....The strong will survive and that's what counts.


It's surprising to me that anybody could define "strength" as using
multiple identities and forged cyber-ID (and usually poorly done, at
that) in order to say things they don't have the courage to say in
person.

DSK

wrote in message
...
"Gregory Hall" wrote:
.... It's about time parents stop raising children who are
so soft and weak - so self-centered.

So, you blame your parents for raising you to be a cowardly
sockpuppet?



.....The strong will survive and that's what counts.


It's surprising to me that anybody could define "strength" as using
multiple identities and forged cyber-ID (and usually poorly done, at
that) in order to say things they don't have the courage to say in
person.

DSK


How can one claim the sockpuppet is a coward for hiding their identity, yet
claim that it is universally known who the sockpuppet is?

What is a forged cyber-id? If someone is forging they can get into a lot of
trouble and it is easy to report them.

A reasonable person would use a killfile and ignore any such nuisances. It
is only the unreasonable that find sockpuppets as attractive nuisances. So
the question is: what is the attraction?

On May 20, 9:37*am, wrote:
*"Gregory Hall" wrote:

.... It's about time parents stop raising children who are
so soft and weak - so self-centered.

So, you blame your parents for raising you to be a cowardly
sockpuppet?

.....The strong will survive and that's what counts.

It's surprising to me that anybody could define "strength" as using
multiple identities and forged cyber-ID (and usually poorly done, at
that) in order to say things they don't have the courage to say in
person.

DSK

I do not think anyone defines the sockpuppet Wilbur, nor any of his
top right hand dresser drawer cast of baffoons as strong on anything.
Me thinks he's a barco lounger, page flipping, want-A-be at best. I
found this group because of a friends boat he was saying belonged to
him. Having crewed Chippawa I often google the name. I was astounded,
the owner would never let such an assole step aboard. The mans a waste
of space and would never be considered as crew. I bet he's a hermit.

Fred

.. How many times have you crewed Chippewa? (note the spelling)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Pk1UYkB3I

Fred

wrote in message
...
I do not think anyone defines the sockpuppet Wilbur, nor any of his
top right hand dresser drawer cast of baffoons as strong on anything.
Me thinks he's a barco lounger, page flipping, want-A-be at best. I
found this group because of a friends boat he was saying belonged to
him. Having crewed Chippawa I often google the name. I was astounded,
the owner would never let such an assole step aboard. The mans a waste
of space and would never be considered as crew. I bet he's a hermit.


It is rather pathetic that you cannot even spell "Chippewa.". Sad that you
often Google a misspelled name and have not noticed your mistake? Sad that
you are an obvious fraud and a liar. Sad that you claim to know me when you
don't. Here's a photo that should prove you're a liar.

http://www.newportshipyard.com/image...rizegiving.jpg

You say you know me, Clayton, so you should recognize me in the photo. Tell
me which man is your friend, Clayton.


Wilbur "Clayton" Hubbard