On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:57:48 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson <rescyou@spro.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:16:55 GMT, Reg <reg@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Dan Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting. "Real life" and "Usenet posts". When you type on your
>>> computer do you fall into some fantasy land? Are you ashamed of what
>>> you post? If I had a boss, he/she wouldn't have an issue with what I
>>> post so why is it such a problem for you?
>>
>>That's not the point. I think I get the picture now.
>>
>>> I never sent a complaint to your boss. If your "shared laugh" is the
>>> result of a complaint then why are you dwelling on it. Sounds like more
>>> of your signature trolling BS to me. Take it back to alt.cult.kibology
>>> and spare the people here your sad story.
>>>
>>> I would have emailed you privately but you seem to think that is
>>> "stalking".
>>
>>Forget all this bullshit. I think you went after his IRL, and that
>>makes you a lowlife bitch.
>
>Thank you for arriving at that conclusion. You are correct. I stopped
>posting to AFB for a while, figuring that I wanted no part of a group
>that contained such a petty, vindictive non-entity, particularly if
>that group approved of his low-life actions. But if Dank is going to
>follow me from group to group for the sole purpose of posting personal
>attacks, then his low-life actions are going to see the light of day.
>
>These are the facts:
>
>1. Months ago, my boss said, "You have another fan. Someone's
>complaining about you posting to Usenet." <shrug> Okay. We both agreed
>there are a lot of kooks out there.
>
>2. The other day, in a discussion about online privacy, and without
>any prompting from me, my boss said, "What did you do to piss off this
>Dan Krueger guy? He still sends me stuff you post to Usenet."
>
>3. I have never mentioned Dank's name to my boss. Never. Not once. Yet
>he know's Dank's name.
>
>4. I didn't ignore Dank for months only to wake up one day with the
>brilliant idea of pretending that he complained to my boss. Why
>bother? Yet that's one of his many denials -- that I made the whole
>thing up. Another is that someone forged his name to the complaints.
>Why would anyone bother doing so? Both demented conspiracy theories
>are just more hand-waving from Dank, hoping to distract people from
>what he did. Occam's Razor suggests that my boss knows his name
>because Dank is the source of the complaints.
>
>5. I'm not about to drag my boss any further into this dispute by
>asking for and posting copies of the complaints. For one thing, I'm
>not going to stoop to Dank's level by taking a Usenet dispute into
>Real Life. Besides, Dank would only claim that the complaints were
>forgeries, so why bother?
>
>If those simple facts aren't compelling enough, consider the
>circumstantial evidence. At the same time that Dank was complaining to
>my boss, I re-installed Agent on a couple machines. I didn't bother to
>recreate my .sig, which for years has said, "Tech Writer at a
>University Somewhere in Idaho." Ever since, Dank has followed me from
>group to group, repeatedly posting, "What happened to the .sig, pro?"
>(Google him in alt.religion.kibology. He's more circumspect here.)
>
>Ask Dank why he asks that question, and why so often. I know the
>reason: He thinks that my boss told me to lose the .sig in response
>to Dank's complaints.
>
>Let's ask him, since I know he reads everything I post: "Dank, why do
>you ask that question? What is its significance? What do you mean to
>imply by asking it?"
>
>I let him think that I'd been told to remove the .sig, and I also
>trolled him into at least suspecting, if not believing, that I had
>gotten fired. Check out his response in ARK to my announcement that I
>am no longer a tech writer at a university in Idaho. He sniffed warily
>at the bait, but it's clear from his posts that he wanted to believe
>I'd been fired. He came <> this close to outing himself as the cause
>of my "firing." He wanted to believe it sooooo badly.
>
>The dum bass. I'm not a tech writer at a university in Idaho any more.
>I got promoted. We had a good laugh in ARK about that. (Oh, Dank?
>YHBT. YHL. HAND. FOAD.)
>
>>It's a long standing tradition that this is never done. Not to
>>anyone, ever. Even the worst MFer on the face of the earth.
>
>True, very true. Going real-life as Dank did isn't just k00k sign.
>It's k00k sign of Richard Bullis caliber. And there ain't no lower
>form of life on Usenet than Richard Bullis.
>
>>Shame on you.
>
>Indeed. Though he's a reprehensible worm, he could at least be a
>reprensible worm with a shred of dignity left intact if he at least
>owned up to what he did. That's what makes him truly pathetic: He's
>not man enough to take responsibility for his actions.
>
Hahaha. Wound up a little kevvie. I think you are the one that HBT/
And YHL!
Haaahaha! HAND kevvie. HAND.
|
|