On Apr 3, 4:54 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175629214.937924.41690@o5g2000hsb.googlegrou ps.com
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 6:51 am, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Dustin Cook" <spamfilterineffect.see....@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> message
>
> >>news:Xns990710F21ED9EHHI2948AJD832@69.28.186.1 21
>
> >>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote in news:eur0hf$22$1
> >>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
> >>>> "Dustin Cook" <spamfilterineffect.see....@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >>>> messagenews:Xns990673855344HHI2948AJD832@69.28.186 .121
> >>>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@gmail.com> wrote in news:eupni3$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.
> >>>>>>>BugHunteris 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.
>
> > Perhaps, or perhaps I really don't like assinine tit for tat riddles.
> > You said I was trying to change something or other, I asked for
> > clarification, you don't wish to answer, fine.
>
>

As I said...

> >>> 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.
>
> > Do you really expect anyone to believe this bull**** of yours? I have
> > apologized for everything that I did, I don't know what the hell else
> > you expect from me.
>
> Some people have a knack for making apologies for things even though you
> know that to turn your back on them means nothing more than they will do
> it again--or worse--as it suits them.

Your wrong Rhonda. I have no desire nor intention nor future intention
to do anything to you. Nothing, zero, zilch. I didn't turn my back on
you anyway, You didn't have my trust. I don't know why you think you
should have.

I said I was sorry for what I did, and I am, regardless of whether or
not you believe it.

> > You've seen usenet posts, you haven't seen private
> > correspondence, online chats, nor have you observed me in real life on
> > my time or company time. Your opinion isn't based on factual evidence,
> > only what you percieve to be. And you already have a slanted view.
>
> I have a view of you based in only medium that counts--this one. Real
> life only counts for those people who know you in real life. I don't.
> Neither do any of the rest of the posters here.

This one is the only one that counts? Thank God my life doesn't exist
around usenet. I wouldn't speak for all of the posters here, You never
know which ones if/any do infact, know me in real life. As I said, you
don't really have much information on me; and your using an unreliable
resource for reference material.

> >> You went over the line with /me/, remember?
>
> > After you began discussing in usenet with kman about why I might have
> > decided to no longer speak to you.
>
> After you made a public announcement that you were no longer going to
> write to me.

And that was in poor taste. I shouldn't have done it.

> >> So I know what kind of person you are.
>
> > No, you don't. You have no clue about me.
>
> I've seen you here. It's the only idea I need.

Alright. In fairness, then, do you mind reading my old posts in
fidonet? Before my vx days. If your going to slant something, we
can slant in my favor for a change.

> >>>>>> 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?
>
> > At this point, I really don't know why I bother... It's obvious you
> > don't want a resolution, you just want to troll. So troll away, I'm
> > done.
>
> Okay.
>
> We're back to the beginning.

Is there a particular reason your dragging this on and on? What else
do you want besides an apology? It's a very simple question, very
straightforward. Can you try not responding in some silly child like
riddle? Please?

> That was easy.

You can't really be like this.... How could you function in real life
if you were...

> >>>>> 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.
>
> > Do you know of any humans that do not lie? It's a pointless strawman
> > Rhonda.
>
> Some people only lie about how nice your haircut looks.

I wouldn't be one of those.

> Others lie and stick the knife in your back.

I don't get you from the backside. I've always been in your face.
Another poster to usenet put it best, "I like your style, it's akin to
pissing in someones mailbox door and then politely asking how far did
it go". Like I said previously, you really don't know much about me.
That information is available in the only forum that seems to matter
to you, and you obviously weren't aware of it.

> Guess which one you are.

Neither.

> >> 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.
>
> > Not entirely true. Are you intentionally misleading persons? I believe
> > you started hypothesising with kman over why I decided I no longer
> > wished to speak with you.
>
> After you publicly announced it.

And this was necessary because? Yes, I did something in poor taste,
announcing it in public. You however began to discuss it further with
kman in public. You didn't exactly respond in an adult civilized
manner yourself.

> > You've had a tone with me ever since. I
> > didn't respond in a professional manner, but lets not forget who
> > exactly initiated this.
>
> You, by taking something private, public?

So two wrongs makes a right?

> I don't care that you did it, but you lost your right to keep it private
> when you made it public.

And that somehow means we should continue to squabble?

> >> Tell me again about your ability to reason.
>
> > I don't know what else I can do for you, I've apologized for
> > everything I did. I've taken more than my fair share of the blame for
> > it even having gotten as far as it has. You could try meeting me
> > halfway here. Of course, that would be a bad assumption on my part, as
> > I do not wish to continue a troll fight; and you do.
>
> See above.

I've asked you for days what can be done to resolve our differences in
a civil manner. I really think your just trolling or jerking me around
at this point. Either you want peace or you don't. I do, so what will
it take?

> >> Right. That's why I wasn't worried about your having my address. More
> >> like, I have far too little paranoia.
>
> > Rhonda, another misleading? Your address and name YOU willingly
> > inserted into some program that thought it wise to include it with
> > each outgoing email. Stop trying to pretend your address was a well
> > kept secret. I wasn't going to say anything about that, but it's
> > getting old. Play a new song.
>
> I don't email that many people, Dustin.

The amount of individuals you do email doesn't deter from the point I
made above, Rhonda. In case you missed it (and I have the reading
comprehension problem?), You voluntarily entered all of that
information in some social networking program you made use of. At that
point, you had no expectation that it would be private information.

> And no one else has published my physical address publicly.
>
> Do you notice how you're now trying to minimize and justify what you
> did?

I am not minimizing nor justifying my actions. I already apologized
for doing it. What you perceive to be minimizing is nothing more than
providing the details of how I came about this information in the
first place. I noticed you certainly didn't think it was necessary to
tell anyone you provided the information automatically to anyone you
did email because it was a signature... Was it a simple forgetful
moment on your part, or was it intentional?

> This is exactly why no one should ever trust you.

And this is where you would be wrong, as usual. You really don't know
anything about me, you should quit showing your ass by pretending that
you do.

Seriously, It's simple peace I want. I really don't want a fight, but
you seem to be dieing to provoke a negative response from me. What is
the point in this?

> >> 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.
>
> > My claims? Whatever. This is pointless. If some people here can digup
> > my criminal record, they can likely dig up my medical records too.
> > Debating over a few IQ points is a complete waste of my time. You may
> > think whatever suits you, I really don't care. I am not going to fight
> > with you, do you understand this yet?
>
> Yes, Dustin.

We are making some progress then.

--
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk