"Dustin Cook" <spamfilterineffect.see.sig@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns990710F21ED9EHHI2948AJD832@69.28.186.121
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com> wrote in news:eur0hf$22$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> "Dustin Cook" <spamfilterineffect.see.sig@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> message news:Xns990673855344HHI2948AJD832@69.28.186.121
>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com> wrote in news:eupni3$d7l$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>
>>>> Dustin, if you had claimed a particular talent, it would be a
>>>> different discussion.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed a measured IQ that is belied by your own posting
>>>> history.
>>>
>>> *yawn*. Round and round you go. Why did you ever email me again?
>>
>> Email you again?
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>>>> The program would quickly be taken offline, a notice would be
>>>>> released, I would be in a courtroom for damage claims against me
>>>>> from one or more users; not even including corporations for
>>>>> deliberatly altering/deleting files without authorization. Those
>>>>> are very real crimes, and they do carry prison sentences.
>>>>> BugHunter is released under my real name, Rhonda.
>>>>
>>>> You're missing the point.
>>>>
>>>> Again.
>>>
>>> I'm not missing anything Rhonda. The program is as I've said it was
>>> all along. Your trying to defend a very weak theory. And it's not
>>> working.
>>
>> How can you tell?
>>
>>>>> As I said Rhonda, You have every right to feel your being conned,
>>>>> but, again, I'm not the one bsing you. I strongly encourage you to
>>>>> do your own research on 4Q before you really list him as a friend.
>>>>
>>>> Somehow I don't feel as if you're being protective of me, Dustin.
>>>
>>> I have no interest in trying to protect you from anything, Rhonda.
>>
>> As I said.
>>
>>>> But 4Q knows what to expect from me, and there is nothing you can
>>>> do to change that.
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware I was trying to change anything. Care to elaborate on
>>> this?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You have a high IQ. Figure it out.
>
> I don't see what an IQ has to do with my question.

For someone with a high IQ, you have serious reading comprehension
problems.

>>>>>>> BugHunter has on average 200 or so downloads per day, and it's
>>>>>>> slowly but surely growing!. Lots and lots of people have seen
>>>>>>> the program now, and everybody knows it's not malicious. 4Q was
>>>>>>> 0wned on his claim of it being malicious, he's really desperate
>>>>>>> to protect his claim with well, it's a sleeper trojan now. It
>>>>>>> hasn't been a trojan of any kind in 2 years time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You continue to troll yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> By no means. Various individuals have claimed BugHunter is or does
>>>>> or will do things I have maintained from the beginning that it
>>>>> does not do. You know what does tend to happen tho? People become
>>>>> curious, and download it. That's more downloads Rhonda.
>>>>
>>>> And again.
>>>>
>>>>>> you to the concerns of those who have seen you in action in the
>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand what I just said?
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand where some individuals are coming from Rhonda, my
>>>>> past isn't exactly something to be proud of. Some individuals
>>>>> have no reason to trust me or my code, based on the limited
>>>>> knowledge they do have on me, which is primarily, under the nym
>>>>> Raid. Some people even think I'm out to get them, or that I will
>>>>> at some point, I'm just waiting...Based on posts on usenet from
>>>>> my nym Raid mind you, people have formed conclusions about what I
>>>>> must be like and even look like. Some even think I'm a sociopath
>>>>> based on nothing more, than usenet posts.
>>>>
>>>> You snipped what I wrote again.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>> Really. You snipped.
>
> Hmm. Does it really matter? Your basing your opinions on me based on
> old usenet posts primarily.

No. I'm not, actually. I'm basing my opinion of you on the way I've seen
you behave, in the present time, with me and with others.

And snipping out the parts of the argument you don't want to deal
with--much like a cat trying to cover a pile of **** on the living room
carpet--isn't going to work to give me a better opinion of you.

>>> You said my past is why some people have issue with me.
>>> Now, if you don't want to discuss this from a logical standpoint,
>>> just say so. Why beat around the bush?
>>
>> Why put words in my mouth when I'm happy with the words I wrote?
>
> Wtf...

Why snip my words and replace them with words of your own. I don't care
how you perceived what I wrote...mostly because you perceive it
incorrectly.

>>>>> In a strange way, it's funny. I didn't really think years ago
>>>>> when I was posting all that horse-****, that everyone would
>>>>> actually believe it. I expected a few, but not the majority.
>>>>
>>>> Dustin, this is a very big backpedal.
>>>
>>> I'm not backpeddling anything. The fact of the matter is that many
>>> posts under the nym Raid are bull****. No two ways about it. The
>>> fact it duped you and who knows how many others doesn't change that
>>> fact.
>>
>> Just keep digging that hole.
>
> No hole to dig hun. Look up the history for yourself. You were conned
> into believing the bull****.

No, Dustin.

You went over the line with /me/, remember?

So I know what kind of person you are.

>>>> You would be more believable, after all, if you weren't trying so
>>>> hard to convince people that the old Dustin was full of ****.
>>>
>>> Rhonda, if you think I'm responding to you to be believable to
>>> people on usenet, which mainly consists of trolls anymore, your on
>>> serious drugs and/or have a serious drinking problem.
>>
>> Then why are you responding, Dustin?
>
> Are you trying to emulate a liza program? Or have you been to see a
> therapist recently?

Why are you responding, Dustin?

>>> The fact those old posts that you hold against me are primarily
>>> bull**** is just something your going to have to deal with. As a
>>> newbie to this, it's your own fault for buying into all of it. And
>>> it's not very nice of 4Q to let you believe it all either. The sorry
>>> prick knows much of the raid posts is bull****, but he's going to
>>> continue to let you think otherwise. Your a sheep rhonda.
>>
>> Baaaaaaaaaa.
>
> Is it the time of day when you responded? Your clearly not making any
> sense here...

You called me a sheep. What's not to understand?

>>>>> In another way, it's a bit depressing to think people are that
>>>>> gullible. It does reflect my pessimistic viewpoint tho, that
>>>>> part about me is true. I am indeed, a pessimist.
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I think you're an optimist, because you expect people to
>>>> believe you.
>>>
>>> I think even 4Q would have to disagree with you. I've never been
>>> accused of being an optimist, and again, you don't have to believe
>>> what I've written; because as I said all along, you don't know
>>> anything about me.
>>
>> On usenet, you are your words.
>
> Obviously that's not true. As you and several others are selectively
> choosing my words to form your opinions concerning myself.

No. I look at your behavior.

When pushed, you flip out. And then you do really ****ed up ****.

That's the test of everything.

>>> You know what was written years ago. You can either accept the fact
>>> you jumped to conclusions about me based on bad information or you
>>> can continue to try and deflect and defend your weak arguement, It
>>> doesn't make any difference to me at the end of the day.
>>
>> Bad information from your own keyboard.
>
> Indeed, from my own keyboard. Yes, when I was doing quasi legal
> things. Does it change the point I made in the slightest? No.

You were lying then or you're lying now. Either way, you lie.

>>>>> Then, with all due respect, dumb it down for me. I would like to
>>>>> know what it would take for us to resolve our differences
>>>>> peacefully? I suppose I could go back to ignoring your posts, but
>>>>> this does not solve the underlying issue. You and I have a
>>>>> problem, I wish to resolve it.
>>>>
>>>> You don't look like you have an ulterior motive or anything.
>>>
>>> Heh. I think i've proven my point nicely. You are too paranoid.
>>
>> <projection> You're the guy who posted my personal information
>> because of what you thought I was going to do. That I never even
>> considered doing. That I never did.
>
> You keep saying because i thought this or that. Truth is Rhonda, I
> thought (rightfully so) that you were trolling me. Nothing more,
> nothing less.

But all the evidence indicated that wasn't so.

No one had your emails, I didn't start poking at you until you started
calling me names and wishing me dead. I even protested the treatment you
were receiving up until them.

Tell me again about your ability to reason.

>> Tell me about paranoid.
>
> I'm sure you have years experience on me.

Right. That's why I wasn't worried about your having my address. More
like, I have far too little paranoia.

>>>>>> It's not good information. Besides the links I posted above, I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry, would you mind listing your degrees again please?
>>>>
>>>> This is one of those logical fallacy things, Dustin.
>>>
>>> I see. Those degrees please?
>>
>> My education isn't germane to the discussion.
>
> Your questioning my intelligence because you don't personally think IQ
> scales go beyond 170.

I didn't say that.

And here, again, is the link I posted:

http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm

Now if you even skim it, you should understand what 4Q was saying about
"170."

> Since I know for a fact they do, and that the IQ
> tests provided to Einstein are NOT the same tests as provided today,
> Your damn right your education plays into the discussion.

I don't think Einstein ever took an IQ test. I haven't researched it
thoroughly, but I believe his IQ was estimated, based on what he did.
That should tell you something about your claims.

> What you do know, or in this case, don't specifically.

Eh?

>>>> And again, you trimmed what I wrote.
>>>
>>> You said the information I posted was crap, it disagrees with 4Q's
>>> claim of the IQ chart. If your going to challenge the information,
>>> I'd like to know your qualifications.
>>
>> Did you read the links I posted?
>
> The links do not list your qualifications. Those links are no
> better/worse than mine.

So much for critical thinking.

>>>>> I do not mean to ask in a hostile way, although the question could
>>>>> be taken as such, ok?
>>>>
>>>> No problem.
>>>
>>> Great, so you should have no trouble answering it then. Your degrees
>>> please?
>>
>> Again, they aren't relevant, Dustin. Read the links.
>
>
>> If you don't know that you look like a smacked ass for claiming an
>> astronomical IQ, I can't help you.
>
> An astronomical IQ? What are you smoking? Do you really believe this
> or are you just playing a part at this point?

Read my link.

You went overboard, and you look like an idiot.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

If you ever need some proof that time can heal your wounds,
just step inside my heart and walk around these rooms;
where the shadows used to be.... Mary Chapin Carpenter