00001188

REPLYTO: 1:396/3 UUCP

REPLYADDR: me@privacy.invalid
From: Diesel 

Anonymous 
news:58b93476dac9bb0fc19e98c5a20a2ec7@grizfrom.com Sun, 08 Feb 2015
03:50:13 GMT in alt.comp.anti-virus, wrote: 

> The post below that he made denying that the business name and
> phone number I posted is totally laughable.

I'm enjoying watching you try and convince someone (anyone?) that your 
stalking skills are worthy.

Why don't you call the number yourself? Why does atleast one of your 
so called helpers think the number is a cell phone, and another one 
thinks it's some house in Bristol? You said that number is 
423.276.6730 right? And that I own this business? Jax reported the 
advertising is recent, but anyone with a physical copy of an older 
phonebook of the tricities can check for themselves and see how many 
years off jax actually is.

You also seem surprised to discover a business making a false claim 
concerning their ownership of a software package. You might want to 
google double space by Microsoft (lolz, that killed me to type) 
sometime.

Why don't you have the balls to file the police report yourself? 
Instead of being a total arse muncher and discredit to yourself and 
all the hard work you've put into trying to fuxor me with google 
search? You know incitement isn't exactly, legal, right?

If you aren't willing to do what you demand others do, you can't very 
well expect them to be willing to risk filing a false police report 
and getting into trouble for your benefit. After all, you're the one 
trying to cause problems; You should be the one to do the required 
work to try and make it happen. 

You shouldn't need other random strangers on usenet to fake concern of 
some sort and try to file reports for you. Besides, you really 
underestimate the collective intelligence of the Kingsport Police dept 
when you make your suggestions known. They really aren't as stupid as 
you seem to think they would be. You actually think blind reports 
based on usenet!?! posts hold any merit here whatsoever. You think 
cyber stalking me and trying to tie me to the first business related 
to computers that happens to share my initials is useful information 
for the police. 

You're an idiot! I'm friendly with several police officers and country 
sheriff deputies. They don't need your help to 'find me' if they 
needed to see me about anything. They know they are free to call me 
anytime they like. IT related help or anything else. I'm also free on 
some weekends to go target shooting, if they're looking to do that.

Speaking of target shooting, if the weather is good next weekend, I do 
have plans with a particular kingsport city police officer to go 
target shooting. He's got a new .45 he's wanting to show off to 
several of us. I plan to attend. I'll ask if any of your cowardly 
####head friends has filed out the forms yet. [g]

 
> Did he confront the "Duncan Carbonelli" character who posted that
> it was his business listed?
> 
> No!
> 
> Did he reply to the Debbie Does Kingsport & Bristol gal who claimed
> she was the owner of the business?
> 
> No!
> 
> So why is that?

They're obviously fake names. IE: socks. Most people can see their 
posts are total bull####. I doubt you don't also know the posts are 
bull#### and aren't just trying to use it to your advantage for your 
smear efforts. 

I'm sure by now, you realize you're failing. Several regulars have 
told you to #### off, one individual thanked me for providing Xnews 
specific instructions to filter various remailers you enjoy using; 
because you don't have the nuts to post without one. Another one 
recently asked you politely to #### off and die. I responded to them 
and provided some of our background history. You quoted my post and 
reposted it elsewhere. He didn't disagree with my post. [g] That's how 
well you're being received these days. You've been caught outright 
lying and/or bending the truth too many times. The only thing left for 
you is old posts that nobody cares about, because they don't apply 
today. H0H0H0.

> Here - before his ridiculolsy laughable denial below, is his
> business info.

I'm sure the business owner appreciates your free advertising. I know 
the KPD appreciates your stalking demonstrations. Is that why you 
won't contact them yourself and report me? Are you concerned they 
might want to bring charges against you? :)
 
> (Notice below how in this ad he brags about being the author of Bug
> Hunter?) (sic)

Someone claimed to be the author of BugHunter in the advertisement, 
yes. I don't see how that's bragging though.
  
> (Bristol, TN is less than 25 miles from Kingsport.)

It's not Kingsport though. So, once again, you show that you don't 
really know where I live or work. AND, you're a stalker. Is that why 
you won't contact the police here yourself? Are you worried they might 
take an interest in your cyber stalking? You haven't figured out how 
to fill out the form and protect your identity while doing so eh? They 
can get a subpoena for your ISP if you were ever stupid enough to 
visit the site and not take steps to protect your identity.

As we all know your IT knowledge is very weak, this is probably a 
problem for you.
 
> Here is his laughable denial.

That's the post I was talking about earlier in this reply. Thanks for 
reposting it. :)


> Frank  news:maq6aq$1ar$1@speranza.aioe.org
> Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:02:03 GMT in alt.privacy.spyware, wrote:
> 
>> On 30-January-2015 7:29 AM, Jack Ryan wrote:
>>> Notice below how in this ad he brags about being the author of
>>> Bug Hunter? (sic)
>>>
>>
>> Kindly FOAD. (please :-)  )
> 
> Hola Frank. Posts like that will get you a future nasty greet (tm)
> in one of it's posts. It's happened to several people who took the
> time 

Why did you snip that part? it's all true you know! You will treat him 
like #### for calling you out.
 
> snipped

LOL, see above. You're being very dishonest here.
 
> They're just going with whatever they think they have from google
> searches. Public databases are updated and reliable as hell, don't
> ya know. *grin* One of them stated the number on the advertisement
> belongs to a house in a neighboring state. Another has decided it's
> a cell phone. And recently, one (jax I believe) claimed the
> advertisement is recent... I suppose that's true enough, if years
> is recent to you. [g] I couldn't resist, so I checked into it.
> 
> Was easy too. I looked at physical old phone books. [g] I know from
> the phone books which year the advertisement appeared. I know more
> than that, all gained from the phone books. Oh, and I don't know
> the owner of the business either. The owner was lying in his
> advertising online about having *anything to do with BugHunter*.
> BugHunter is mine. I wrote it independently of anyone else on my
> own equipment and time. The advertising in the phone book doesn't
> mention BugHunter. So... I don't know why the individual has
> different advertising? The advertising layout did change in a
> couple of the phone books, but, no mention of my BugHunter. One of
> the advertisements contained his rate per hour... so, like
> Progressive, I'll disclose that he's $20 per hour less than my
> present rate. 

:)


-- 
My truck does not leak. It's just marking its territory! 
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2