1. Would you not agree that what she has
engaged in is clearly stalking behavior?

2. Is there ever a justification for contacting
a spouse who is not a Usenet participant?

I am especially interested in your answer to the second question.

Can you spare a moment and answer?

KW > That's what Greg does.
KW > Heck, he'll post the names and dates of
KW > birth of people who no longer post to Usenet at all.
G > You're still posting.
KW > Mathew and Bianca, to name just two,
KW > ceased posting LONG ago, yet you
KW > freely posted their names and dates of birth.
freely? =A0 Got a link?
KRP > I have NOT seen him do that.
KW > Liar.
KRP > Sorry Kent YOU made that list public first.
KRP > Where else do you think Greg got it from??
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.friends/msg/6a2829d77a083a47http://grou=

http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
alt.friends birthday list =A0 Names are in no particular order.
13 =A0Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) =A0Jan 8, 1969 =A0compuelf at gmail
G > It's a page on a freakin' WEB SITE on the WORLD WIDE WEB!
G >To Kent Wills that means it was private information!
KW > Why do you LIE? =A0What is the root cause of
KW > your mental illness? =A0 Serious questions.
KW > I specifically mentioned that the site is
KW > available to anyone with a web browser.
KW > The same as the site that details
KW > Kenny-Bob's house.
KW > Somehow you're posting the names and
KW > birthdays of past and current members of
KW > alt.friends is acceptable,
G > You mean YOUR birthday is chafing?
KW > How, exactly, do you apply a nautical
KW > term, chafing, to my date of birth?
LOL - Playing "dictionary" ? =A0get a better one!
KW > but David's simply mentioning the
KW > home is for sale is stalking.
G >Where did I say that? =A0 Got a link?
KW > When have I claimed you said it?
From a few lines above:
=A0 =A0 =A0" KW > but David's simply mentioning the
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0KW > home is for sale is stalking."
KW > If you prefer, you may admit this is
KW > another Gregory Hanson LIE via innuendo.
KW > I'm wondering why he has the double standard.
G > Who?
KW > Kenny-Bob.
KW > Why do you C&P comments from different posts?
KW > So far he's avoided answering my question.
G > Moore?
KW > Pangborn.
KW > Much as you avoid answer my question
G > You make big talk at me?
KW > Ugh! =A0Me make big talk. =A0Grunt.
KW > as to why you are stalking and harassing
KW > past and current members of alt.friends.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.friends/msg/6a2829d77a083a47http://grou=

KW > Why are you doing that, especially in light
KW > of the definition you posted for stalking?
KW > You know, the one you used to imply
KW > Mr. Probert, et al., was stalking you.
G > I was arguing against that definition.
KW > Yet you used it to try and accuse
KW > Mr. Probert, and others, of stalking you.
KW > Odd that.
Did he see it that way?
G > When it comes to stalking, the
G > LEGAL definition is what matters.
KW > Now, sure. =A0Since using the very
KW > definition you once used means
KW > you MUST admit you are a stalker.
OH LOOK! =A0Right there in that original quote
WAY BACK THEN (June 2006), I pointed out
the LEGAL definition matters.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/5ec84f42bba...
G > The LEGAL definition is less like "Chicken Little".
G > Kane's definition came closer to that.
And how do you explain this comment, Kent?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/5ec84f42bba...
G > The Psychology and social work types define
G > stalking so vaguely that they have yet again
G > converted normal human interaction into a pathology.
G > Their definition is very political.
How do you explain that assertion by me,
(in that original quote)
removed to take the quote out of context
to bend it to your deceptive assertion that
I was promoting the Meloy definition?
You (and Betty) cheated on context, badly,
and even after the full context proved that
you outright lied by cheating context,
you keep reasserting the lie over and over.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/5ec84f42bba...
KW > Oh, and why did you LIE and claim that
KW > pcpages is a government site?
KW > You've flat out REFUSED to answer that question.
G > Your BIRTHDAY is important for verifying
G > the court records. =A0Does that chafe?
KW > Again, I don't see how nautical terms factor in.
KW > You'll need to explain this.
Try a better dictionary!
I looked up the thread context of the post that
Kent and Betty quoted parts of OUT OF CONTEXT.
Betty and Probert were accusing Ilena of stalking.
Probert posted a whole list of definitions for
the word "stalking" and in the post in question,
I was ridiculing the way they "shopped around"
for a definition to suit THEIR IMMEDIATE PURPOSES.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/5ec84f42bba...
From: "Greegor" <Gree...@hotmail.com>
Date: 21 Jun 2006 13:36:37 -0700 =A0Local: Wed, Jun 21 2006 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: BETTY LIES ABOUT A THREAT
Clearly? =A0No.
Yes.
The Psychology and social work types define
stalking so vaguely that they have yet again
converted normal human interaction into a pathology.
Their definition is very political.
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.
The LEGAL definition is less like "Chicken Little".
Kane's definition came closer to that.

Hi Dan!

<Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

G > Hi Dan!
KW > Dan isn't posting to this thread, simpleton.
KW > Why are you LYING and implying that he is?