"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@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@69.28.186.121
>>
>>
>>
>>> "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.
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>>> 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.
> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>>>>> 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.
That was easy.
>>>>> 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.
Others lie and stick the knife in your back.
Guess which one you are.
>> 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.
> 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?
I don't care that you did it, but you lost your right to keep it private
when you made it public.
>> 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.
>> 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.
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?
This is exactly why no one should ever trust you.
>> 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.
--
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
Reply With Quote