|
|
|
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52f88405982d3784
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:19:47 -0600 Local: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 7:19
pm
Subject: Re: Polish lifeboat joke?
[...]
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/e7c06e5611024578
On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
LK > Perhaps an email you recieved? Just asking....
KW > Would that be one of the E-mails in
KW > which Lost was the sole recipient?
LK > I don't know. Was it?
G > Ruh Roh!
G >
G > Kent, LK just caught you paraphrasing one of the
G > back channel e-mails from Donald L. Fisher (Kane)
G > that you said you never got! LOL
|
| |
| |
On Mar 18, 11:37=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:19:47 -0600 Local: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 7:19
pm
Subject: Re: Polish lifeboat joke?
[...]
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
LK > Perhaps an email you recieved? =A0 Just asking....
KW > Would that be one of the E-mails in
KW > which Lost was the sole recipient?
LK > I don't know. =A0Was it?
G > Ruh Roh!
G >
G > Kent, LK just caught you paraphrasing one of the
G > back channel e-mails from Donald L. Fisher (Kane)
G > that you said you never got! =A0 =A0LOL
Oops!
|
| |
| |
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52f88405982d3784
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:19:47 -0600 Local: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 7:19
pm
Subject: Re: Polish lifeboat joke?
[...]
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And I'm the one that told him that.
Or, at least I think I am.
He could have heard it from Kane too, but I have my doubts.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/e7c06e5611024578
On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
LK > Perhaps an email you recieved? Just asking....
KW > Would that be one of the E-mails in
KW > which Lost was the sole recipient?
LK > I don't know. Was it?
G > Ruh Roh!
G >
G > Kent, LK just caught you paraphrasing one of the
G > back channel e-mails from Donald L. Fisher (Kane)
G > that you said you never got! LOL
|
| |
| |
On Mar 19, 1:56=A0am, "dragonsgirl" <dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I'm the one that told him that.
Or, at least I think I am.
He could have heard it from Kane too, but I have my doubts.
So Betty, what you're saying is that if you had any personal info
about me you'd spread it around through back-channeling?
Would kind of of put you into the same low life category as Bobbee,
wouldn't you think? Silly me, I had a higher view of you then that.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 19, 1:56 am, "dragonsgirl" <dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I'm the one that told him that.
Or, at least I think I am.
He could have heard it from Kane too, but I have my doubts.
So Betty, what you're saying is that if you had any personal info
about me you'd spread it around through back-channeling?
Would kind of of put you into the same low life category as Bobbee,
wouldn't you think? Silly me, I had a higher view of you then that.
Have all the opinion of me you want.
Doesn't matter really to me.
I make statements like anyone else 'I think they might know each other'.
If I had photos, emails, no, I would not send that info to anyone else.
To write others with what I *think* is completely different than what I
know.
|
| |
| |
Greegor wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52f88405982d3784
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:19:47 -0600 Local: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 7:19
pm
Subject: Re: Polish lifeboat joke?
[...]
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/e7c06e5611024578
On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
LK > Perhaps an email you recieved? Just asking....
KW > Would that be one of the E-mails in
KW > which Lost was the sole recipient?
LK > I don't know. Was it?
G > Ruh Roh!
G >
G > Kent, LK just caught you paraphrasing one of the
G > back channel e-mails from Donald L. Fisher (Kane)
G > that you said you never got! LOL
Stupid *and* paranoid.
|
| |
| |
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
BW > And I'm the one that told him that.
BW > Or, at least I think I am.
BW > He could have heard it from Kane too, but I have my doubts.
Betty, Did YOU acknowledge getting the e-mail from Kane?
And when Kent Wills says "from what I can gather" that
just means he's repeating what you say you THINK, right Betty?
Kent, How different is that from admitting
you just pulled it out of your hindquarters?
|
| |
| |
On Mar 19, 12:43=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
BW > And I'm the one that told him that.
BW > Or, at least I think I am.
BW > He could have heard it from Kane too, but I have my doubts.
Betty, Did YOU acknowledge getting the e-mail from Kane?
And when Kent Wills says "from what I can gather" that
just means he's repeating what you say you THINK, right Betty?
Kent, How different is that from admitting
you just pulled it out of your hindquarters?
Kent's not going to tell the truth anyway.
|
| |
| |
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
BW > And I'm the one that told him that.
BW > Or, at least I think I am.
BW > He could have heard it from Kane too, but I have my doubts.
Betty, Did YOU acknowledge getting the e-mail from Kane?
No. Don't know if I did or didn't.
And when Kent Wills says "from what I can gather" that
just means he's repeating what you say you THINK, right Betty?
Making an assumption I imagine.
Kent, How different is that from admitting
you just pulled it out of your hindquarters?
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:37:27 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52f88405982d3784
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:19:47 -0600 Local: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 7:19
pm
Subject: Re: Polish lifeboat joke?
[...]
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/e7c06e5611024578
On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
LK > Perhaps an email you recieved? Just asking....
KW > Would that be one of the E-mails in
KW > which Lost was the sole recipient?
LK > I don't know. Was it?
G > Ruh Roh!
G >
G > Kent, LK just caught you paraphrasing one of the
G > back channel e-mails from Donald L. Fisher (Kane)
G > that you said you never got! LOL
Not so. It was based on a comment Betty made on ascps.
Next lie, please.
"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."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825febd@posting.google.com>
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:56:19 -0500, "dragonsgirl"
<dragonsgirl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I'm the one that told him that.
Or, at least I think I am.
He could have heard it from Kane too, but I have my doubts.
You had commented about them being friends in the group. Other
comments the two made gave me cause to suspect they work together as
well.
Of course, this won't matter to Greg, since it's the truth.
--
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), LK <Patism66@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:56am, "dragonsgirl" <dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So Betty, what you're saying is that if you had any personal info
about me you'd spread it around through back-channeling?
For the record, I've had no conversation with Betty about
anyone in the groups. Our E-mails have dealt mostly with art and
kids.
Lately they've been about her ISP.
Would kind of of put you into the same low life category as Bobbee,
wouldn't you think? Silly me, I had a higher view of you then that.
I thought you wouldn't be so foolish as to buy into Greg's and
Lost's lies regarding the E-mails. Clearly I over-estimated you.
--
Kent
When the world ends, there'll be no more air. That's why it's
important to pollute the air now. Before it's too late. :)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
LK > Perhaps an email you recieved? Just asking....
KW > Would that be one of the E-mails in
KW > which Lost was the sole recipient?
LK > I don't know. Was it?
G > Ruh Roh!
G >
G > Kent, LK just caught you paraphrasing one of the
G > back channel e-mails from Donald L. Fisher (Kane)
G > that you said you never got! LOL
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:44:30 -0500, TNKev <TNKevtoo@gmail.com> wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Stupid *and* paranoid.
I'm wondering if it's the E-mail Lost claim you got, then
posted an E-mail without your address being included, or one of the
E-mails where she was the only recipient.
I don't hold out hope for Greg to tell us which it is.
"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."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825febd@posting.google.com>
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > Les and Greg are, from what I can gather,
KW > co-workers and friends in real life.
BW > And I'm the one that told him that.
BW > Or, at least I think I am.
BW > He could have heard it from Kane too, but I have my doubts.
Betty, Did YOU acknowledge getting the e-mail from Kane?
The available evidence shows that, if the E-mail was sent,
Lost was the ONLY person to get it.
And when Kent Wills says "from what I can gather" that
just means he's repeating what you say you THINK, right Betty?
Most seventh graders can understand the phrase, "from what I
can gather."
Kent, How different is that from admitting
you just pulled it out of your hindquarters?
As I mentioned to Les, I based it on comments that you and Les
have made. Yes, Betty's comments did have some influence, but not as
much as you are DESPERATELY hoping to be.
--
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:57:37 -0700 (PDT), LK <Patism66@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:43pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kent's not going to tell the truth anyway.
Here's the truth:
Lost posted E-mails that, if they were ever sent, show she was
the sole recipient. The one in which she thought to add other
addresses doesn't help her, since she used it to claim Kevin was a
recipient. As you know, she forgot to include his address.
To depend on anything Lost posts as accurate when her own
evidence shows she's been far less than honest is foolish.
That's the simple truth.
--
Kent
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:56:19 -0500, "dragonsgirl"
<dragonsgirl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You had commented about them being friends in the group. Other
comments the two made gave me cause to suspect they work together as
well.
Of course, this won't matter to Greg, since it's the truth.
Watch the balking begin. It's hard for Greg, et al, to understand that they
aren't as important to us as they think they are.
--
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
|
| |
| |
Ruh Roh! Kent paraphrased one of the e-mails he ""never got""
1 Greegor Mar 18
2 LK Mar 18
3 dragonsgirl Mar 18
4 LK Mar 19
5 dragonsgirl Mar 19
6 Kent Wills Mar 19
7 Kent Wills Mar 19
8 dragonsgirl Mar 19
9 TNKev Mar 19
10 Greegor Mar 19
11 LK Mar 19
12 Kent Wills Mar 19
13 dragonsgirl Mar 19
14 Kent Wills Mar 19
15 Kent Wills Mar 19
16 Kent Wills Mar 19
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tO2J8xIAAAD-FV_7I-6E0McpeoqRe5_P8rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg
Compuelf! LOL
64473 messages
2004 1727 760 370 797
2005 749 1539 1275 872 1374 969 667 1457 1686 954 711
1018
2006 1701 710 685 1239 2124 1543 1268 861 1050 1025 424
968
2007 588 652 954 1252 2592 1597 1635 2448 1848 4412 4193
2411
2008 3456 3528 2384
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:06:57 -0500, "dragonsgirl"
<dragonsgirl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Watch the balking begin. It's hard for Greg, et al, to understand that they
aren't as important to us as they think they are.
I may not see the fun. I'm taking the rest of the week off
from these discussions. Proving Greg, et al., to be lying has gotten
old.
--
Kent
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
On Mar 20, 12:14=A0am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:06:57 -0500, "dragonsgirl"
<dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I may not see the fun. =A0I'm taking the rest of the week =
off
from these discussions. =A0Proving Greg, et al., to be lying has gotten
old.
You haven't proved anything except that you are a liar.
--
Kent
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
|
| |
| |
LK > So Betty, what you're saying is that if
LK > you had any personal info about me
LK > you'd spread it around through
LK > back-channeling?
LK > Would kind of of put you into the
LK > same low life category as Bobbee,
LK > wouldn't you think? Silly me, I
LK > had a higher view of you then that.
BW > Have all the opinion of me you want.
BW > Doesn't matter really to me.
BW > I make statements like anyone else
BW > 'I think they might know each other'.
BW > If I had photos, emails, no, I would
BW > not send that info to anyone else.
BW > To write others with what I *think* is
BW > completely different than what I know.
Betty, later on, and "For the record", Kent
said that you and him hadn't exchanged
e-mails talking about such stuff!
Either he was telling lies when he said that
or you were.
KW > For the record, I've had no conversation
KW > with Betty about anyone in the groups.
KW > Our E-mails have dealt mostly with
KW > art and kids.
KW > Lately they've been about her ISP.
KW > I thought you wouldn't be so foolish
KW > as to buy into Greg's and Lost's lies
KW > regarding the E-mails.
KW > Clearly I over-estimated you.
KW > You had commented about them
KW > being friends in the group. Other
KW >comments the two made gave me
KW > cause to suspect they work
KW > together as well.
KW > Of course, this won't matter to
KW > Greg, since it's the truth.
Notice how Betty's "thought" became
Kent's "suspicion" and then "truth"? LOL
Another time Betty spewed a "thought"
and Kent echoed it as "from what I gather". LOL
BW > Watch the balking begin. It's hard for Greg,
BW > et al, to understand that they aren't as
BW > important to us as they think they are.
KW > I may not see the fun. I'm taking
KW > the rest of the week off from these
KW > discussions. Proving Greg,
KW > et al., to be lying has gotten old.
LK > You haven't proved anything except that you are a liar.
Betty predicted "balking" but I don't think
she was talking about Kent doing it! LOL
Don't go away mad Kent, just go away!
Oh hell, pissed or not, just leave, dumbass!
|
| |
| |
Kent Wills wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:44:30 -0500, TNKev <TNKevtoo@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm wondering if it's the E-mail Lost claim you got, then
posted an E-mail without your address being included, or one of the
E-mails where she was the only recipient.
I don't hold out hope for Greg to tell us which it is.
Lost already proved the "backchannel email" conspiracy was false,greegor
just can't accept the fact that he lacks importance as such.
I am really tired and bored with his stupidity and his cut,snip,funky
attributions in his posts.
"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."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825febd@posting.google.com>
|
| |
| |
On Mar 20, 11:00=A0am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
LK > So Betty, what you're saying is that if
LK > you had any personal info about me
LK > you'd spread it around through
LK > back-channeling?
LK > Would kind of of put you into the
LK > same low life category as Bobbee,
LK > wouldn't you think? =A0Silly me, I
LK > had a higher view of you then that.
BW > Have all the opinion of me you want.
BW > Doesn't matter really to me.
BW > I make statements like anyone else
BW > 'I think they might know each other'.
BW > If I had photos, emails, no, I would
BW > not send that info to anyone else.
BW > To write others with what I *think* is
BW > completely different than what I know.
Betty, later on, and "For the record", Kent
said that you and him hadn't exchanged
e-mails talking about such stuff!
Either he was telling lies when he said that
or you were.
KW > For the record, I've had no conversation
KW > with Betty about anyone in the groups.
KW > Our E-mails have dealt mostly with
KW > art and kids.
KW > Lately they've been about her ISP.
KW > I thought you wouldn't be so foolish
KW > as to buy into Greg's and Lost's lies
KW > regarding the E-mails.
KW > Clearly I over-estimated you.
KW > You had commented about them
KW > being friends in the group. Other
KW >comments the two made gave me
KW > cause to suspect they work
KW > together as well.
KW > Of course, this won't matter to
KW > Greg, since it's the truth.
Notice how Betty's "thought" became
Kent's "suspicion" and then "truth"? =A0 LOL
Another time Betty spewed a "thought"
and Kent echoed it as "from what I gather". =A0LOL
BW > Watch the balking begin. =A0It's hard for Greg,
BW > et al, to understand that they aren't as
BW > important to us as they think they are.
KW > I may not see the fun. =A0I'm taking
KW > the rest of the week off from these
KW > discussions. =A0Proving Greg,
KW > et al., to be lying has gotten old.
LK > You haven't proved anything except that you are a liar.
Betty predicted "balking" but I don't think
she was talking about Kent doing it! =A0 LOL
Don't go away mad Kent, just go away!
Oh hell, pissed or not, just leave, dumbass!
Greg, you forgot something.
KW > "I have no idea if a Cuban jail is a place I would want to be,"
|
| |
| |
Greegor wrote:
Ruh Roh! Kent paraphrased one of the e-mails he ""never got""
1 Greegor Mar 18
2 LK Mar 18
3 dragonsgirl Mar 18
4 LK Mar 19
5 dragonsgirl Mar 19
6 Kent Wills Mar 19
7 Kent Wills Mar 19
8 dragonsgirl Mar 19
9 TNKev Mar 19
10 Greegor Mar 19
11 LK Mar 19
12 Kent Wills Mar 19
13 dragonsgirl Mar 19
14 Kent Wills Mar 19
15 Kent Wills Mar 19
16 Kent Wills Mar 19
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tO2J8xIAAAD-FV_7I-6E0McpeoqRe5_P8rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg
Compuelf! LOL
64473 messages
2004 1727 760 370 797
2005 749 1539 1275 872 1374 969 667 1457 1686 954 711
1018
2006 1701 710 685 1239 2124 1543 1268 861 1050 1025 424
968
2007 588 652 954 1252 2592 1597 1635 2448 1848 4412 4193
2411
2008 3456 3528 2384
4 years of crossposts idiot. is this a lame troll attempt to get Kent to
increase his post count by replying to messages you have crossposted to
5 groups?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
G > Ruh Roh!
G >
G > Kent, LK just caught you paraphrasing one of the
G > back channel e-mails from Donald L. Fisher (Kane)
G > that you said you never got! LOL
KW>Not so. It was based on a comment Betty made on ascps.
KW>Next lie, please.
you get busted in a lie and instead of admitting your defeat you snip
the context of the previous post and insert this stupidity to try to
change the subject.......pitiful Greg...pitiful and cowardly.
|
| |
| |
TN Kev > Lost already proved the "backchannel email"
TN Kev > conspiracy was false,
Oh good idea! Piss off LIT by calling her a liar
about the e-mails.
TN Kev > greegor just can't accept the fact
TN Kev > that he lacks importance as such.
Why would I need "importance" ? LOL
TN Kev > I am really tired and bored with his stupidity
TN Kev > and his cut,snip,funky attributions in his posts.
Yeah Kev, you're TIRED. Take a vacation like Kent!
|
| |
| |
LK > So Betty, what you're saying is that if
LK > you had any personal info about me
LK > you'd spread it around through
LK > back-channeling?
LK > Would kind of of put you into the
LK > same low life category as Bobbee,
LK > wouldn't you think? Silly me, I
LK > had a higher view of you then that.
BW > Have all the opinion of me you want.
BW > Doesn't matter really to me.
BW > I make statements like anyone else
BW > 'I think they might know each other'.
BW > If I had photos, emails, no, I would
BW > not send that info to anyone else.
BW > To write others with what I *think* is
BW > completely different than what I know.
Betty, later on, and "For the record", Kent
said that you and him hadn't exchanged
e-mails talking about such stuff!
I didn't say we had either Greg.
Either he was telling lies when he said that
or you were.
We talk about you right here in front of you, or can't you see that?
KW > For the record, I've had no conversation
KW > with Betty about anyone in the groups.
KW > Our E-mails have dealt mostly with
KW > art and kids.
KW > Lately they've been about her ISP.
KW > I thought you wouldn't be so foolish
KW > as to buy into Greg's and Lost's lies
KW > regarding the E-mails.
KW > Clearly I over-estimated you.
KW > You had commented about them
KW > being friends in the group. Other
KW >comments the two made gave me
KW > cause to suspect they work
KW > together as well.
KW > Of course, this won't matter to
KW > Greg, since it's the truth.
Notice how Betty's "thought" became
Kent's "suspicion" and then "truth"? LOL
Another time Betty spewed a "thought"
and Kent echoed it as "from what I gather". LOL
How convenient of you to leave out the little tidbit about Kent comments
that you two made giving him cause to suspect that you work together?
It all boils down to me huh? Wow. Greg...I didn't realize I made such an
impact on you. I mean, I knew you were stalking me, but I surely didn't
think that you believed the world spins around me.
BW > Watch the balking begin. It's hard for Greg,
BW > et al, to understand that they aren't as
BW > important to us as they think they are.
KW > I may not see the fun. I'm taking
KW > the rest of the week off from these
KW > discussions. Proving Greg,
KW > et al., to be lying has gotten old.
LK > You haven't proved anything except that you are a liar.
Betty predicted "balking" but I don't think
she was talking about Kent doing it! LOL
Don't go away mad Kent, just go away!
Oh hell, pissed or not, just leave, dumbass!
I'm sure he will just as soon as y'all quit cross posting to the groups he
frequents.
Now if we could just do the same with Ken and Moore.
|
| |
| |
LK > So Betty, what you're saying is that if
LK > you had any personal info about me
LK > you'd spread it around through
LK > back-channeling?
LK > Would kind of of put you into the
LK > same low life category as Bobbee,
LK > wouldn't you think? =A0Silly me, I
LK > had a higher view of you then that.
BW > Have all the opinion of me you want.
BW > Doesn't matter really to me.
BW > I make statements like anyone else
BW > 'I think they might know each other'.
BW > If I had photos, emails, no, I would
BW > not send that info to anyone else.
BW > To write others with what I *think* is
BW > completely different than what I know.
G > Betty, later on, and "For the record", Kent
G > said that you and him hadn't exchanged
G > e-mails talking about such stuff!
BW > I didn't say we had either Greg.
G > Either he was telling lies when he said that
G > or you were.
BW > We talk about you right here in
BW > front of you, or can't you see that?
And? Post a link to where you publicly
expressed how you "think" LK and I work together.
KW > For the record, I've had no conversation
KW > with Betty about anyone in the groups.
KW > Our E-mails have dealt mostly with
KW > art and kids.
KW > Lately they've been about her ISP.
KW > I thought you wouldn't be so foolish
KW > as to buy into Greg's and Lost's lies
KW > regarding the E-mails.
KW > Clearly I over-estimated you.
KW > You had commented about them
KW > being friends in the group. Other
KW >comments the two made gave me
KW > cause to suspect they work
KW > together as well.
KW > Of course, this won't matter to
KW > Greg, since it's the truth.
G > Notice how Betty's "thought" became
G > Kent's "suspicion" and then "truth"? =A0 LOL
G >
G > Another time Betty spewed a "thought"
G > and Kent echoed it as "from what I gather". =A0LOL
BW > How convenient of you to leave
BW > out the little tidbit about Kent
BW > comments that you two made
BW > giving him cause to suspect
BW > that you work together?
PLEASE post a link and citation!
This would be very entertaining!
BW > It all boils down to me huh? =A0Wow.
BW >=A0Greg...I didn't realize I made such
BW > an impact on you. =A0I mean, I knew
BW > you were stalking me, but I surely
BW > didn't think that you believed the
BW > world spins around me.
You said you "think" LK and I work together, etc.
Then Kent asserted he "suspects" it, then
he says it's "from what [he] gather[s]".
Then he makes a speach about truth.
There's a lot of "spin" but it's not around you!
BW > Watch the balking begin. =A0It's hard for Greg,
BW > et al, to understand that they aren't as
BW > important to us as they think they are.
KW > I may not see the fun. =A0I'm taking
KW > the rest of the week off from these
KW > discussions. =A0Proving Greg,
KW > et al., to be lying has gotten old.
LK > You haven't proved anything except that you are a liar.
G > Betty predicted "balking" but I don't think
G > she was talking about Kent doing it! =A0 LOL
G >
G > Don't go away mad Kent, just go away!
G >
G > Oh hell, pissed or not, just leave, dumbass!
BW > I'm sure he will just as soon as y'all quit
BW > cross posting to the groups he frequents.
Like you can make promises FOR Kent, Betty?
Think you brokered Kent's "orderly retreat"? LOL
BW > Now if we could just do the same with Ken and Moore.
You didn't "do" anything helpful, Betty.
In fact, you prolonged the problem because
you thought it was good ""for you"".
|
| |
| |
LK > So Betty, what you're saying is that if
LK > you had any personal info about me
LK > you'd spread it around through
LK > back-channeling?
LK > Would kind of of put you into the
LK > same low life category as Bobbee,
LK > wouldn't you think? Silly me, I
LK > had a higher view of you then that.
BW > Have all the opinion of me you want.
BW > Doesn't matter really to me.
BW > I make statements like anyone else
BW > 'I think they might know each other'.
BW > If I had photos, emails, no, I would
BW > not send that info to anyone else.
BW > To write others with what I *think* is
BW > completely different than what I know.
G > Betty, later on, and "For the record", Kent
G > said that you and him hadn't exchanged
G > e-mails talking about such stuff!
BW > I didn't say we had either Greg.
G > Either he was telling lies when he said that
G > or you were.
BW > We talk about you right here in
BW > front of you, or can't you see that?
And? Post a link to where you publicly
expressed how you "think" LK and I work together.
****You have GOT to be kidding?
Totally unreal. You think that I can recall every single time, date, and
full quote of every thing I say in these groups?
KW > For the record, I've had no conversation
KW > with Betty about anyone in the groups.
KW > Our E-mails have dealt mostly with
KW > art and kids.
KW > Lately they'v | | |
