pcbutts!

[cmsix]

"pcbutts1" <pcbutts1@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message
news:fercbj$bqa$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> You can't find it because Pcbutts1 is not my real name. I use my real name
> in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.

I know what you mean Pcbutts1. I'm actually Bill Gates but nobody believes
me either.

cmsix

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> "pcbutts1" <pcbutts1@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in news:ff3jvv$bqc$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> RLK used to be on DataBasix so he must have pissed him off.
>
> Umm, Christopher, AFAIK, She still has a valid account and posts from
> it... I'm sure she will jump in if I am mistaken.

I don't post from DataBasix at the moment. I use it as a feed for
Hamster. Individual.net is my posting server.

Apparently butts had a look at my headers and made an unwarranted
assumption. Nothing new there.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u...766545e259d53c
Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007
Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007
Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003
NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com> wrote in news:5nl7khFit7hnU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> He doesn't tolerate spam, however, so you are in error when you say
>
> My bad. Long day. quick typing...
>
>> The AUP is enforced in accordance with its terms, no matter how much
>> Gary likes or dislikes someone.
>
> Indeed it is, even if his server is knowingly being used to harrass or
> otherwise annoy various usenet groups. Freedom of speech n all.

I mentioned David Goldberger. He was an ACLU lawyer who defended the
right of the Nazis to march through Skokie. He is on record as not
thinking well of his client (to put it mildly), but he held to the
belief that if one fails to honor the rights of one person (or group),
one does irreparable damage to the rights of all persons (or groups).

Goldberger is Jewish, and he took a real beating in certain quarters,
because he was viewed as a traitor. The ACLU lost funding (contributions
and memberships) because defending Nazis was not a popular cause, but
under the theory that if one applies a principle to one group, one must
apply it to all the rest, it was a very important case.

http://www.digitalpast.org/cdm4/item...OPTR=208&REC=5

http://www.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/s...01&CISOPTR=208

The above is one of the tests of an ethical principal, btw--whether the
rule you wish to apply in one case is applicable to all similar cases.
This is why I continue to caution Leythos about painting with such a
broad brush.

For example, Vanguard is over in 24hs.hd calling me a spammer and egoist
(by implication) because my sig doesn't comply with RFC 1855 (which
itself states that it "does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind"). His general principle about sigs makes Leythos a spammer and
egoist too, but I rather doubt that's what Vanguard intended.

See the problem? It's easy enough to nail butts on the wrong things he
actually does without attributing wrongness to everything he does that
ethical others also do.

>>>> except to the extent that anyone who messes with you in a way that
>>>> constitutes abuse of the net will pay the price for it, because
>>>> Gary doesn't tolerate that any more than he tolerates a violation
>>>> of his
>>>
>>> What horse****. If someone or a group wanted databasix that bad,
>>> they could take it.
>>
>> I disagree with your statement, but it has nothing to do with what I
>> wrote, so it's irrelevant.
>
> Your lack of network knowledge and DDoSing noted, the point really
> isn't about all of that tho. No site is invicible on the internet. If
> someone/group/whatever wanted to down something bad enough, it could
> be done, regardless of who runs/admins it.
>
>> You almost had the point, but then you veered. The focus is not
>> DataBasix, but pcbutts.
>
>
> Well, to be honest.. From what I've read of the conversation, The
> focus seems to be on you trying to get leythos from posting the same
> old canned responses everytime pcbutts hits post. *grin*

Well, I don't think he's doing himself any service when he screams about
porn. Face it, most people don't have such a big problem with porn per
se, but just specific types of porn. (See the article from Slate I
posted elsewhere.) The fact that butts' pages are childish is another
matter, but in essence, even though he uses pornographic images, the
intent is not to disseminate pornography. The images are merely
representative of his very immature response to opposition.

But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
ethical. I understand why he does it, but I wouldn't condone it in
someone else so why should I condone it in him, even if I happen to be
in agreement with him about the subject of his stalking? (See? There's
another example of what I was talking about above.)

He's an intelligent enough man that he should see this, but somehow,
he's so stuck on butts, he can't quite get to the logic of it.

But the point of that particular post was something else, and as I said,
you almost had it until you veered.

--

Rhonda Lea Kirk

AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u...766545e259d53c
Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007
Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007
Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003
NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle

[Leythos]

In article <5nm9peFj3mk1U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
says...
> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
> ethical.

No, if you check, I don't always reply to his posts that contain my
name, as I don't look for them, in fact I don't even look at who posts
what (I don't have FROM enabled on my Usenet client). What I do is post
a reply when I read a thread where he's posted something about me - sig
or other, when I see it.

I had never been to this group until I was told that he was posting crap
about me here - he invited me to this group by posting about me here.

As soon as he drops my name from his posts you may never see another
reply about it, the ball is in his court.

--
Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <5nm9peFj3mk1U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
> says...
>> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
>> ethical.
>
> No, if you check, I don't always reply to his posts that contain my
> name, as I don't look for them, in fact I don't even look at who posts
> what (I don't have FROM enabled on my Usenet client). What I do is
> post a reply when I read a thread where he's posted something about
> me - sig or other, when I see it.
>
> I had never been to this group until I was told that he was posting
> crap about me here - he invited me to this group by posting about me
> here.

You've just used the same type of justification all stalkers use to
rationalize their behavior.

You're not the only person whose name is in his sig, nor are you the
only person for whom he has constructed a "fansite," but I don't see
anyone but you going at it with him every single day.

> As soon as he drops my name from his posts you may never see another
> reply about it, the ball is in his court.

So he controls what you choose to do?

Saying that you won't stop until he stops is another way of saying he
holds the switch that turns you on and off.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u...766545e259d53c
Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007
Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007
Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003
NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle

[Leythos]

In article <5nmd3nFin3f8U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <5nm9peFj3mk1U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
> > says...
> >> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
> >> ethical.
> >
> > No, if you check, I don't always reply to his posts that contain my
> > name, as I don't look for them, in fact I don't even look at who posts
> > what (I don't have FROM enabled on my Usenet client). What I do is
> > post a reply when I read a thread where he's posted something about
> > me - sig or other, when I see it.
> >
> > I had never been to this group until I was told that he was posting
> > crap about me here - he invited me to this group by posting about me
> > here.
>
> You've just used the same type of justification all stalkers use to
> rationalize their behavior.

No, I've justified my reply to HIS Actions. Nice try to spin it, but
it's up to him when it stops.

> You're not the only person whose name is in his sig, nor are you the
> only person for whom he has constructed a "fansite," but I don't see
> anyone but you going at it with him every single day.

So what? Does that make you a good person or anything else - no.

> > As soon as he drops my name from his posts you may never see another
> > reply about it, the ball is in his court.
>
> So he controls what you choose to do?

No, it means that you can stop *****ing to be about my reply to his
unethical behavior of abusing my name.

> Saying that you won't stop until he stops is another way of saying he
> holds the switch that turns you on and off.

Or it could be that I will reply, when I see fit, to point out that he's
an unethical person, as long as he keeps posting my name, as long as I
see fit. If he doesn't like being exposed for being unethical then he
can stop bringing me into it - it's that simple.

--
Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that
create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a look
at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.

[Dustin Cook]

lulu <lulutosirlove@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1192589663.455946.14720@k35g2000prh.googlegro ups.com:

> On Oct 16, 4:34 pm, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "pcbutts1" <pcbut...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in news:ferkmo$85$1
>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>> > If you think your lame BS attempt at getting me to ID myself is
>> > going to work then you are a bigger idiot then I thought.
>>
>> You have already been identified Christopher, I spoke to you on the
>> phone once where you work. You rudely tried to tell me I had called a
>> private number. I suppose I scared you a little eh?
>>
>> And yet, you still play games with people.
>>
>> --
>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
>> Email.: bughunter.dus...@gmail.com
>> Web...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>> Pad...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
>> PGP...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bughunter.dustin.txt
>
> Oh he mentioned that in court, that he was getting calls. he tried to
> blame me
>
>

Nope, was me who called him. My cell phone records prove it. LoL.


--
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
Email.: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com
Web...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
Pad...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
PGP...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bughunter.dustin.txt

[Dustin Cook]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5nm9peFj3mk1U1@mid.individual.net:

> I mentioned David Goldberger. He was an ACLU lawyer who defended the
> right of the Nazis to march through Skokie. He is on record as not
> thinking well of his client (to put it mildly), but he held to the
> belief that if one fails to honor the rights of one person (or group),
> one does irreparable damage to the rights of all persons (or groups).

I am somewhat familiar with that case. He took a severe beating for that
in some circles. However, I am in agreement with you concerning it.

> The above is one of the tests of an ethical principal, btw--whether
> the rule you wish to apply in one case is applicable to all similar
> cases. This is why I continue to caution Leythos about painting with
> such a broad brush.

Understood.

> See the problem? It's easy enough to nail butts on the wrong things he
> actually does without attributing wrongness to everything he does that
> ethical others also do.

Oh, I understand where your coming from. I didn't mean to imply
otherwise.

> Well, I don't think he's doing himself any service when he screams
> about porn. Face it, most people don't have such a big problem with
> porn per se, but just specific types of porn. (See the article from
> Slate I posted elsewhere.) The fact that butts' pages are childish is
> another matter, but in essence, even though he uses pornographic
> images, the intent is not to disseminate pornography. The images are
> merely representative of his very immature response to opposition.

Very true.

> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
> ethical. I understand why he does it, but I wouldn't condone it in

I don't judge Leythos as I am a neutral party. He has never done anything
untowards myself or anyone I know. While I may not agree with everything
he does, I'm certainly not going to reprimand him for it.

I understand your point of view and I understand his point of view from
having to deal with pcbutss previously myself.

I do think tho, that the word stalking is overused in this case.


> But the point of that particular post was something else, and as I
> said, you almost had it until you veered.

You could save time and posting by just saying what you intended in the
first place.




--
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
Email.: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com
Web...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
Pad...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
PGP...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bughunter.dustin.txt

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <5nmd3nFin3f8U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <5nm9peFj3mk1U1@mid.individual.net>, rhondalea@gmail.com
>>> says...
>>>> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's
>>>> not ethical.
>>>
>>> No, if you check, I don't always reply to his posts that contain my
>>> name, as I don't look for them, in fact I don't even look at who
>>> posts what (I don't have FROM enabled on my Usenet client). What I
>>> do is post a reply when I read a thread where he's posted something
>>> about me - sig or other, when I see it.
>>>
>>> I had never been to this group until I was told that he was posting
>>> crap about me here - he invited me to this group by posting about me
>>> here.
>>
>> You've just used the same type of justification all stalkers use to
>> rationalize their behavior.
>
> No, I've justified my reply to HIS Actions. Nice try to spin it, but
> it's up to him when it stops.

You can't justify fighting unethical behavior using unethical tactics.

>> You're not the only person whose name is in his sig, nor are you the
>> only person for whom he has constructed a "fansite," but I don't see
>> anyone but you going at it with him every single day.
>
> So what? Does that make you a good person or anything else - no.

Did I make the claim that it does? I don't see that claim anywhere in
this post or any other post I've made on the topic.

>>> As soon as he drops my name from his posts you may never see another
>>> reply about it, the ball is in his court.
>>
>> So he controls what you choose to do?
>
> No, it means that you can stop *****ing to be about my reply to his
> unethical behavior of abusing my name.

So, you can post whatever you like, whenever you like, but I can't? I
see.

>> Saying that you won't stop until he stops is another way of saying he
>> holds the switch that turns you on and off.
>
> Or it could be that I will reply, when I see fit, to point out that
> he's an unethical person, as long as he keeps posting my name, as
> long as I see fit. If he doesn't like being exposed for being
> unethical then he can stop bringing me into it - it's that simple.

"We have met the enemy and they are us."

Fighting unethical behavior with unethical tactics is unethical, and it
diminishes you.

I agree with you about Butts, generally, even if I think some of your
specific examples are not indicative of unethical behavior. But the
bottom line is that I think your behavior makes you look bad.

That's all I have to say to you about it.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u...766545e259d53c
Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007
Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007
Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003
NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:5nm9peFj3mk1U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> I mentioned David Goldberger. He was an ACLU lawyer who defended the
>> right of the Nazis to march through Skokie. He is on record as not
>> thinking well of his client (to put it mildly), but he held to the
>> belief that if one fails to honor the rights of one person (or
>> group), one does irreparable damage to the rights of all persons (or
>> groups).
>
> I am somewhat familiar with that case. He took a severe beating for
> that in some circles. However, I am in agreement with you concerning
> it.
>
>> The above is one of the tests of an ethical principal, btw--whether
>> the rule you wish to apply in one case is applicable to all similar
>> cases. This is why I continue to caution Leythos about painting with
>> such a broad brush.
>
> Understood.
>
>> See the problem? It's easy enough to nail butts on the wrong things
>> he actually does without attributing wrongness to everything he does
>> that ethical others also do.
>
> Oh, I understand where your coming from. I didn't mean to imply
> otherwise.

I was on my soapbox. It's an issue that's very important to me--one
about which I have to remind myself repeatedly when people write things
of which I do not approve.

>> Well, I don't think he's doing himself any service when he screams
>> about porn. Face it, most people don't have such a big problem with
>> porn per se, but just specific types of porn. (See the article from
>> Slate I posted elsewhere.) The fact that butts' pages are childish is
>> another matter, but in essence, even though he uses pornographic
>> images, the intent is not to disseminate pornography. The images are
>> merely representative of his very immature response to opposition.
>
> Very true.
>
>> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
>> ethical. I understand why he does it, but I wouldn't condone it in
>
> I don't judge Leythos as I am a neutral party. He has never done
> anything untowards myself or anyone I know. While I may not agree
> with everything he does, I'm certainly not going to reprimand him for
> it.

It doesn't matter what word one uses, but it's the same kind of tactic
that is used in auk to hound "kooks."

It doesn't matter to me who's doing it--the good guys or the bad
guys--it's still not a good thing to do.

> I understand your point of view and I understand his point of view
> from having to deal with pcbutss previously myself.

I've had to deal with butts too, as evidenced by my "vanity page" and
the repeated appearance of my name in his sig, right along with Leythos'
name (and others who have opposed Butts). I went more than a few rounds
with him awhile back.

I don't agree with anything that Butts does--I think he is a lowlife. I
also think, however, that he has no control over his behavior as a
result of the head injury he sustained in the accident. My guess is that
he has brain damage, and to him, everything he does seems reasonable and
right. His behavior is clearly sociopathic, but I don't think he's
capable of seeing it, so berating him repeatedly is pointless and
ultimately, useless. Better to put one's energy into constructive
(albeit, possibly expensive) action to shut him down.

But following him around and replying to his posts just feeds him. It
also confers upon him more importance than he warrants.

> I do think tho, that the word stalking is overused in this case.
>
>> But the point of that particular post was something else, and as I
>> said, you almost had it until you veered.
>
> You could save time and posting by just saying what you intended in
> the first place.

Well, no, I couldn't, actually, because it was bound to be misunderstood
and misconstrued. I'm sure if anyone gave it some thought, though, s/he
would realize that butts' choices are indicative of the fact that he is
running out of places to hide.

And the fact that he has the *need* to hide is indicative of his general
character.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u...766545e259d53c
Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007
Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007
Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003
NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle