TheApostle wrote:
> This post, Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com>
> Message-ID:<<5vkoscF1lcmoiU1@mid.individual.net>>
> may be monitored for quality assurance:
> |
> |TheApostle wrote:
> [..]
> |>>
> |>> We disagree.
> |>
> |> Apparently
> |>
> |>> Apparently 4Q reposted some of Sugien's own posts which are archived
> |>> in Google.
> |>
> |> A person, by your own admission, has the option of removing their
> |> posts from Google. A Usenet group only reaches the readers of the
> |> group, a Website reaches the entire Web. A person have no option to
> |> remove
> |> the website which Paul, whom you've admitted,
> |
> |Admitted what?
>
> Are you having trouble following your own words, I can repost them if you
> wish as a reminder of what you stated.
>
> |Certainly not this:
>
> Are you now lying, Rhonda? <rhetorical question>
>
> |> uses for personal
> |> attacks
> |> and to do real life harm.
> |
> |DO NOT put words in my mouth.
>
> I am not. If you don't like the truth, perhaps you should continue to
> ignore it like you ignore Paul's behavior.
>
> |>>>> None? Is that the case you're trying to make?
> |>>>
> |>>> No.
> |>>
> |>> You said that "availability makes no difference," so you're
> |>> contradicting yourself when you say no.
> |>
> |> Actually, no I'm not. In the context of the sentence I am saying that
> |> how the information was arrived at (whether is was posted by the
> |> person
> |> of his own choosing or revealed by private communication) makes no
> |> difference.
> |
> |lol
> |
> |>> I don't care.
> |>
> |> So you're taking the red pill to remain in the Matrix than?
> |
> |Apparently you did. How's it working for ya?
>
> Quite the little parrot you are, Rhonda.
>
> Do you have puppet strings too? <rhetorical question>
>
> |>> I think that posting real life information is ****ful, and I don't
> |>> think there's any excuse for it.
> |>
> |> I agree. I've made the mistake of doing and of that, I am not proud
> |> of it. My cross to bear sort to speak - why haven't you discussed
> |> this with Paul?
> |
> |Until today, I wasn't aware of it. I do certainly think that the cases
> |differ, although that does not changes the general principal. It just
> |makes it harder to apply for Sugien's benefit.
> |
> |Poor Sugien.
>
> Certainly makes it easier to excuse your friend tho eh?
>
> |>> I just think it's weird that everyone wants to come down hard on 4Q
> |>> for reposting Sugien's own posts of his address, but no one wants to
> |>> take Dustin to task for posting my information to alt.sex (with a
> |>> clear invitation to the world to stop by for sex).
> |>
> |> Excuse me, but isn't that a bit of a double-standard? Dustin is as
> |> guilty of posting information as Paul is. Yet I don't see you
> |> condemming him for his website, the encouragement of people to attack
> |> his targets, or inciting other people to fight his battles.
> |
> |You forgot that Sugien is "guilty" of posting his own information, which
> |was then reposted.
> |
> |I didn't post my information.
> |
> |Therein lies the difference. I know it's convenient for you to ignore
> |the difference, but it does exist.
>
> You're pitifully playing with semantics, Rhonda.
>
> |> I've already commented on Dustins actions. Dustin however hasn't put
> |> up
> |> a website - and continually invited, incitied, or encouraged people to
> |> take actions against you, as Paul has to his targets, which he claims
> |> he picks very carefully.
> |
> |You don't know what 4Q has done and not done.
>
> Now you're excusing him.
>
> |You have managed to exaggerate what he says he has done, however, into
> |something unrecognizable as having anything to do with reality.
>
> The only person avoiding reality here, Rhonda, is you with your continued
> defense of Pauls actions. Paul has admitted his crimes. There isn't any
> thing to exaggerate. The truth really does hurt you doesn't it, Rhonda.
>
> |> In fact, you said recently that Dustin continues to do real life harm
> |> and continues to attack (paraphrasing) - however I have not seen this
> |> and _all_ I've been witnessed to is Paul's repeated and blatent
> |> personal attacks on peoples families and real life information and
> |> yet you've remained silent.
> |
> |You have a lopsided view of a reality that long precedes your entry into
> |it.
>
> I've taking what Paul has said. How is that lopsided?
>
> |>> To Sugien, I would say this: you have the ability to nuke your own
> |>> posts in Google. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the
> |>> opportunity.
> |>
> |> And how does that excuse Paul of his website and webpages?
> |
> |Where in my sentence above do you see any claim you have made on my
> |behalf? (i.e., where is the "excuse"?)
>
> You've anwsered your own question, Rhonda. "WHERE"....
>
> |You read a lot into things. Unfortunately, most of what you're reading
> |isn't there.
>
> Show ANYONE a post from you telling Paul his actions are wrong.
>
> [
>
> SPACE RESERVED FOR THE POST
>
> ]
>
>
> |> You've said before that you didn't want to be manipulated and here
> |> you are defending a person, and his actions, which you've admitted
> |> are "****ful".. but like a mother avoiding the fact that their child
> |> might be responsible for a horrific crime - you're going to have to
> |> deal with it sooner of later.
> |
> |You should be writing for some sleazy, small-time politician somewhere.
>
> You don't like the truth and it's showing.
>
> |> So I ask you Rhonda, what is it going to be. A double standard or
> |> showing that you do not approve of his tactics.
> |
> |I don't approve of the posting of someone's address.
> |I've already said that.
>
> Clearly you do.. YOU JUST ENCOURAGED PAUL TO DO IT!!
>
> |In this case, however, it is quite clear that he was not the OP but the
> |reposter of material posted by the OP.
> |
> |Let me put it this way: If Dustin had found my information in an old
> |post of my own and merely reposted the information, you can be sure that
> |I would not have been *****ing about it the way I did when he posted
> |information that was entrusted to him privately into a sex-related
> |newsgroup with an invitation to anyone reading to come to my house.
>
> You've already shown that your motives have NOTHING to do with im posting
> your information, Rhonda. You said it yourself. Let's remind everyone.
>
> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.virus,,,,alt.usenet.kooks
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:57:44 -0500
> Message-ID: <5vkjecF1mj92pU1@mid.individual.net>
>
> The answer is that as long as Dustin tries to pretend to be someone
> he is not, I will be serve as an object lesson to those who might
> believe him. Not with any regularlity, mind you, but merely as the
> mood strikes me.
>
> So you're using this "exception" as an excuse for your actions and the
> actions of your friends.
>
> |You're a very manipulative person. I asked you to stop involving me in
> |your campaign against 4Q, but it seems you have a compulsion. I don't
> |like it, and I've just about decided that I don't like you.
>
> That's ok, Rhonda, it's hard to like someone who has to show you the reality
> of seeing one of your dear friends put in a light that you've been ignoring
> for so long. Even worse having someone like me show your gross hypocrisy and
> double standards while condemming the conduct of others.
>
> I still like you, Rhonda, dispite your angry posts upset over this awakening.
>
> One can only see you making excuse after excuse for his actions while
> constantly encouraging him to do what you hate. Hypocrisy is hard for ones
> ego to have to ensure. After all, it's ok when you and your friends take shots,
> but when it's one of your enemies taking the shots it is all evidence of their
> psychological problems, right.


Leslie Paulin's very short book on
"How to make friends the Paulin way!"

Okay NEXT...

Let's see work your magic on Laura,
Are you ready Laura? Are you ready to
be charmed?

*HAHAHAHHAHAAHA* *choke* *LMFAO*

4Q