|
|
|
KW > The Piper Cub is owned free and clear as well.
G > By the ""CORPORATION"" or the Family Trust?
KW > Asked and answered.
tjab and Atlas, What do YOU make of the way
Kent claims all of his property is owned by
his "corporation"? Is it a tax scam?
Where did you whisper the answer Kent?
If I INVESTIGATE the corporation status,
will you accuse me of "stalking" for doing that?
House
Cars
Plane
Boats
What type of INCORPORATION Kent?
|
| |
| |
On Apr 17, 2:37 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
Greegor wrote:
KW > The Piper Cub is owned free and clear as well.
G > By the ""CORPORATION"" or the Family Trust?
KW > Asked and answered.
tjab and Atlas, What do YOU make of the way
Kent claims all of his property is owned by
his "corporation"? Is it a tax scam?
Where did you whisper the answer Kent?
If I INVESTIGATE the corporation status,
will you accuse me of "stalking" for doing that?
so now you are some sort of detective? what a joke you are greegor.
it is stalking no matter what definition you use,speaking of
definition,why have you not defined stalker yet?
brain dead, useless waste of flesh.
House
Cars
Plane
Boats
What type of INCORPORATION Kent?
|
| |
| |
Greegor wrote:
so now you are some sort of detective? what a joke you are greegor.
So tell me KEVIN - how come the FAA doesn't show your LOVER as owning ANY
planes?????????????
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > The Piper Cub is owned free and clear as well.
G > By the ""CORPORATION"" or the Family Trust?
KW > Asked and answered.
tjab and Atlas, What do YOU make of the way
Kent claims all of his property is owned by
his "corporation"? Is it a tax scam?
As I already told you, we pay more in taxes as a result. If
we're trying to scam the IRS, we're not doing a good job of it.
Where did you whisper the answer Kent?
I didn't whisper. I answered you the first time you asked.
If I INVESTIGATE the corporation status,
will you accuse me of "stalking" for doing that?
Yes, since it would be stalking, by the definition YOU have
posted.
Of course, you'll claim I made you do it as a means to
rationalize your stalking.
House
Cars
Plane
Boats
What type of INCORPORATION Kent?
Asked and answered.
Is there any specific reason you are LYING and implying I didn't
answer?
And why are you stalking (using YOUR definition) and harassing
past and current members of alt.friends?
"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@posting.google.com>
|
| |
| |
"Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:44:09 -0500, TNKev <TNKevtoo@gmail.com> wrote:
Greegor wrote:
so now you are some sort of detective? what a joke you are greegor.
it is stalking no matter what definition you use,speaking of
definition,why have you not defined stalker yet?
But he has.
Well, actually he posted someone else's.
"http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
By that definition, Mr. Probert, I could claim that
you and others are stalking me."
By Greg's own posted definition, he's a stalker.
brain dead, useless waste of flesh.
Yep. That's Greg.
" ... 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 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:15:55 GMT, " krp" <krp2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
So tell me KEVIN - how come the FAA doesn't show your LOVER as owning ANY
planes?????????????
The FFA does. Not the plane you LIE and claim I own, of course.
--
"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife
as an object and NOT a human being.
Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07>
|
| |
| |
krp wrote:
So tell me KEVIN - how come the FAA doesn't show your LOVER as owning ANY
planes?????????????
my wife doesn't own any plane,what the hell is wrong with you?
why are you trying to start some lie that my wife owns a plane?
I never said anything like that!
--
<Greg Hanson>
"http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
|
| |
| |
Kent Wills wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:15:55 GMT, " krp" <krp2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
The FFA does. Not the plane you LIE and claim I own, of course.
the FFA says my wife owns your plane? I will be expecting it to be
delivered to my boss' hanger at the Nashville airport before the weekend
is over sir!!
HAHAHAHA!
--
<Greg Hanson>
"http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:44:05 -0500, TNKev <TNKevtoo@gmail.com> wrote:
So tell me KEVIN - how come the FAA doesn't show your LOVER as owning ANY
planes?????????????
The FFA does. Not the plane you LIE and claim I own, of course.
the FFA says my wife owns your plane? I will be expecting it to be
delivered to my boss' hanger at the Nashville airport before the weekend
is over sir!!
HAHAHAHA!
D'OH!
Clearly I wasn't paying attention. I thought he was writing to
me.
--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George
|
| |
| |
KW > The Piper Cub is owned free and clear as well.
G > By the ""CORPORATION"" or the Family Trust?
KW > Asked and answered.
G > tjab and Atlas, What do YOU make of the way
G > Kent claims all of his property is owned by
G > his "corporation"? =A0 Is it a tax scam?
KW > As I already told you, we pay
KW > more in taxes as a result. =A0If we're
KW > trying to scam the IRS, we're
KW > not doing a good job of it.
Aren't some of your corporate records public?
What does your corporation DO, Kent?
G > Where did you whisper the answer Kent?
KW > I didn't whisper. =A0I answered you the first time you asked.
Instead of answering the question you put a lot
of effort into obfuscation and circumlocution.
Without a LINK to the answer you say you already posted.
G > If I INVESTIGATE the corporation status,
G > will you accuse me of "stalking" for doing that?
KW > Yes, since it would be stalking, by
KW > the definition YOU have posted.
The definition I was mocking as stupid?
I also mentioned the legal definition.
You did that knowingly and deliberately.
I'm starting to think you're DISHONEST.
KW > Of course, you'll claim I made you
KW > do it as a means to rationalize your stalking.
Try that on the auditor!
G > House Cars Plane Boats
G > What type of INCORPORATION Kent?
KW > =A0 =A0 =A0Asked and answered.
Where?
Got a LINK to where you answered that question
about your corporate status?
Should I enquire elsewhere, Kent?
Tell me that checking up on the nature of an incorporation is
stalking.
I know you want to.
KW > Is there any specific reason you
KW > are LYING and implying I didn't answer?
No LINK referring to it?
KW > And why are you stalking (using
KW > YOUR definition) and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
|
| |
| |
On Apr 22, 4:41 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
On Apr 22, 3:41=A0am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > The Piper Cub is owned free and clear as well.
G > By the ""CORPORATION"" or the Family Trust?
KW > Asked and answered.
G > tjab and Atlas, What do YOU make of the way
G > Kent claims all of his property is owned by
G > his "corporation"? =A0 Is it a tax scam?
KW > As I already told you, we pay
KW > more in taxes as a result. =A0If we're
KW > trying to scam the IRS, we're
KW > not doing a good job of it.
Aren't some of your corporate records public?
What does your corporation DO, Kent?
G > Where did you whisper the answer Kent?
KW > I didn't whisper. =A0I answered you the first time you asked.
Instead of answering the question you put a lot
of effort into obfuscation and circumlocution.
Without a LINK to the answer you say you already posted.
G > If I INVESTIGATE the corporation status,
G > will you accuse me of "stalking" for doing that?
KW > Yes, since it would be stalking, by
KW > the definition YOU have posted.
The definition I was mocking as stupid?
I also mentioned the legal definition.
You did that knowingly and deliberately.
I'm starting to think you're DISHONEST.
KW > Of course, you'll claim I made you
KW > do it as a means to rationalize your stalking.
Try that on the auditor!
G > House =A0Cars =A0Plane =A0Boats
G > What type of INCORPORATION Kent?
KW > =A0 =A0 =A0Asked and answered.
Where?
Got a LINK to where you answered that question
about your corporate status?
Should I enquire elsewhere, Kent?
Tell me that checking up on the nature of an incorporation is
stalking.
I know you want to.
KW > Is there any specific reason you
KW > are LYING and implying I didn't answer?
No LINK referring to it?
KW > And why are you stalking (using
KW > YOUR definition) and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
What type of corporation is all of your
property under and why, Kent?
Isn't part of the paperwork on corporations
supposed to be available to the public?
|
| |
| |
On Apr 22, 2:41 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:41:32 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > The Piper Cub is owned free and clear as well.
G > By the ""CORPORATION"" or the Family Trust?
KW > Asked and answered.
G > tjab and Atlas, What do YOU make of the way
G > Kent claims all of his property is owned by
G > his "corporation"? Is it a tax scam?
KW > As I already told you, we pay
KW > more in taxes as a result. If we're
KW > trying to scam the IRS, we're
KW > not doing a good job of it.
Aren't some of your corporate records public?
Some are, I think. I've never had cause to look into it.
What does your corporation DO, Kent?
Corporate stuff.
G > Where did you whisper the answer Kent?
KW > I didn't whisper. I answered you the first time you asked.
Instead of answering the question you put a lot
of effort into obfuscation and circumlocution.
Since I answered over a week ago, I see no gain in repeating
myself.
Without a LINK to the answer you say you already posted.
As soon as you either post the link to the picture of David
dressed as a Nazi, or admit you LIED about its existence, I'll supply
numerous links for you.
G > If I INVESTIGATE the corporation status,
G > will you accuse me of "stalking" for doing that?
KW > Yes, since it would be stalking, by
KW > the definition YOU have posted.
The definition I was mocking as stupid?
Why do you revisit the same topics over and over?
I also mentioned the legal definition.
But refused to post it.
Making a reference to something while actually posting something
else shows which was the more important to you.
You did that knowingly and deliberately.
I'm starting to think you're DISHONEST.
You can think whatever you like.
If it will make your life a bit easier, you may think the tacos
we had tonight had actual hamburger in them rather than the soy
crumbles that were actually put in.
Of course, it will be just as false as your other thoughts.
KW > Of course, you'll claim I made you
KW > do it as a means to rationalize your stalking.
Try that on the auditor!
What auditor?
By now you should have learned that you can't intimidate me. You
are far too pathetic.
G > House Cars Plane Boats
G > What type of INCORPORATION Kent?
KW > Asked and answered.
Where?
On Usenet, stupid.
Got a LINK to where you answered that question
about your corporate status?
Yes.
Should I enquire elsewhere, Kent?
If your need to stalk is that great, then you will do so.
Tell me that checking up on the nature of an incorporation is
stalking.
By your standards, yes.
I know you want to.
You know you're a stalker, by the very definition you posted.
KW > Is there any specific reason you
KW > are LYING and implying I didn't answer?
No LINK referring to it?
A link ex sits.
KW > And why are you stalking (using
KW > YOUR definition) and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
I note you still REFUSE to answer the question.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
By that definition, Mr. Probert, I could claim that
you and others are stalking me.
-- Greg Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.475392.294570@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
KW > And why are you stalking (using
KW > YOUR definition) and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
I note you still REFUSE to answer the question.
What type of corporation is all of your
The same type as the last time you asked.
property under and why, Kent?
For the same reason I posted before.
Isn't part of the paperwork on corporations
supposed to be available to the public?
It might be. I've never had cause to check.
If your hope is to find my home address and phone numbers so that
you can take your harassment to real life, you'll be disappointed.
The Corporate address is a P.O. Box in Des Moines.
And yes, this is 100% legal.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
By that definition, Mr. Probert, I could claim that
you and others are stalking me.
-- Greg Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.475392.294570@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
|
| |
| |
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
KW > The Piper Cub is owned free and clear as well.
G > By the ""CORPORATION"" or the Family Trust?
KW > Asked and answered.
Really? Why is that that the FAA doesn't list anyone by the name WILLS as
owning the Piper Cub?
Not even "THE WILLS CORPORATION."
Is there a reason Kunt?
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:41:32 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
As soon as you either post the link to the picture of David
dressed as a Nazi, or admit you LIED about its existence, I'll supply
numerous links for you.
What prize would I get for our boy in his ARYAN NATIONS garb Kunt?
|
| |
| |
G > What does your corporation DO, Kent?
KW > Corporate stuff.
LOL
|
| |
| |
On Apr 23, 12:04 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, " krp" <krp2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
What prize would I get for our boy in his ARYAN NATIONS garb Kunt?
For starters, you'd get sole possession of a web domain with your name on
it, which is ranked #1 in the search engines: aboutkenpangborn.com. The
same offer holds true if you produce a picture of Terri Madison and I
together (although you're now backpedaling on that lie.) Or, if you
provide proof that I've ever been accused, charged or convicted of any
offense against a 3 year old girl, in Indiana or anywhere.
Of course, as none of these things exist, it's a moot point, and
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com will continue its present task of running
your business into the ground.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
- --Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
"...my aunt wouldnt come over to our house anymore because of how he would
talk to her and come on to her....and he had over 180 pictures of her on
his computer"
- --Ken Pangborn's former stepdaughter Megan, on growing up in the Pangborn
household
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBSA/D/qbdsu4taRc6EQJLPACdEDkumBC4i3wGYg/tXPfFJtW1J38AoMqt
BaIz06brS21WMF2UR5rqC/nC
=K36E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| |
| |
On Apr 23, 7:39 pm, freedom <aboutKRP...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com>
wrote:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:22:34 GMT, " krp" <krp2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
KW > The Piper Cub is owned free and clear as well.
G > By the ""CORPORATION"" or the Family Trust?
KW > Asked and answered.
Really?
Yes.
Why is that that the FAA doesn't list anyone by the name WILLS as
owning the Piper Cub?
You don't have access to such records.
But then, you did LIE and claim it's a J-3, so that you'll LIE
and claim access to such records is to be expected.
Not even "THE WILLS CORPORATION."
Since there is, to the best of my knowledge, no corporation with
such a name, this is to be expected.
Why are you LYING and claiming there is a corporation with that
name?
Is there a reason Kunt?
Yes. Because you are lying. Again.
"And you RULE OUT that it could be MOORE my biggest
fan and GAY lover."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn LYING and claiming David Moore is his gay
lover. Message-ID: <_MlOj.598$pH4.7@trnddc06>
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:24:12 GMT, " krp" <krp2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
What prize would I get for our boy in his ARYAN NATIONS garb Kunt?
Now he's dressed NOT as a Nazi, as GregWhore has claimed, but an
Aryan Nation outfit?
You and GregWhore should get together and decide just what lies
you're going to present.
"And you RULE OUT that it could be MOORE my biggest
fan and GAY lover."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn LYING and claiming David Moore is his gay
lover. Message-ID: <_MlOj.598$pH4.7@trnddc06>
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:04:30 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
G > What does your corporation DO, Kent?
KW > Corporate stuff.
LOL
Meh... I've had better jokes.
At least you were able to see the humor in it, weak as that humor
was and is.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
By that definition, Mr. Probert, I could claim that
you and others are stalking me.
-- Greg Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.475392.294570@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
|
| |
| |
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
G > What does your corporation DO, Kent?
KW > Corporate stuff.
G > LOL
KW > Meh... I've had better jokes.
KW > At least you were able to see the humor in it,
KW > weak as that humor was and is.
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
What does your corporation Do, Kent?
|
| |
| |
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:33:48 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
G > What does your corporation DO, Kent?
KW > Corporate stuff.
G > LOL
KW > Meh... I've had better jokes.
KW > At least you were able to see the humor in it,
KW > weak as that humor was and is.
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
What does your corporation Do, Kent?
How many times do you want to read the same joke? Do you think
it will improve if I post it a few more times?
It won't. It will be as lame as it was the first time I posted
it.
"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."
-- GregWhore Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825febd@posting.google.com>
|
| |
| |
On Apr 24, 8:48 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
In article <9bvs04d5utfdnvd00c5vil058e1a1s0j09@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
KW > And why are you stalking (using
KW > YOUR definition) and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
I note you still REFUSE to answer the question.
The same type as the last time you asked.
For the same reason I posted before.
It might be. I've never had cause to check.
If your hope is to find my home address and phone numbers so that
you can take your harassment to real life, you'll be disappointed.
The Corporate address is a P.O. Box in Des Moines.
And yes, this is 100% legal.
That's what they told Wesley Snipes.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 25, 1:27 pm, t...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
KW > And why are you stalking (using
KW > YOUR definition) and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
G > I note you still REFUSE to answer the question.
G > What type of corporation is all of your
G > property under and why, Kent?
KW > The same type as the last time you asked.
KW > For the same reason I posted before.
Which you didn't answer then either. Cute.
This "corporation" of yours sounds fishy.
Since you can't even say what this corporation
does, I would wonder if it's a scam or tax fraud.
G > Isn't part of the paperwork on corporations
G > supposed to be available to the public?
KW > It might be. I've never had cause to check.
KW > If your hope is to find my home address and
KW > phone numbers
Well, the address might help with a formal
request regarding corporate records.
But don't I have it already?
KW > so that you can take your harassment to
KW > real life, you'll be disappointed.
KW > The Corporate address is a P.O. Box in
KW > Des Moines. And yes, this is 100% legal.
tjab > That's what they told Wesley Snipes.
LOL
|
| |
| |
On Apr 25, 8:33 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
KW > And why are you stalking (using
KW > YOUR definition) and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
G > I note you still REFUSE to answer the question.
You didn't write that. I did.
What is your motivation for LYING about that?
G > What type of corporation is all of your
G > property under and why, Kent?
KW > The same type as the last time you asked.
KW > For the same reason I posted before.
Which you didn't answer then either. Cute.
Yes I did. And no amount of your dishonestly claiming I didn't
will alter this truth.
This "corporation" of yours sounds fishy.
You should have already come to the realization that your opinion
means very little to me. Outside of Usenet entertainment, you m | | |
