Re: Rhonda Lea Kirk Peaches and Cherries

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Alan Erskine wrote:
> "Kent Betts" wrote:
>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk"

>>> The casual observer would think that *all* the posts are
>>> related

>> Uh Rhonda....did you know your general discussion of
>> flames or trolls or whatever is going to five
>> newsgroups? I mean, it is not really all that
>> interesting, so maybe one newsgroup would be
>> appropriate. Five seems a bit much.

> It's not Rhonda that did that. It's the work of the
> coward who's been attacking so many people while hiding
> behind anonymous remailers.

He's talking about the fact that *I* haven't been trimming
the headers, Alan. He's not holding me responsible for what
someone else does. He's holding me responsible, and
rightfully so, for what I do.

There's an object lesson this. I'm leaving, so it makes no
difference to me. You're not. Get a clue.

rl

[Alan Erskine]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" > wrote in message
...
> There's an object lesson this. I'm leaving, so it makes no
> difference to me. You're not. Get a clue.

So why keep responding to this coward if you're leaving? All you're doing
is fanning the flames and making it worse for the rest of us.

All you've done in the five months you've been in these groups is flame
people and cause flame wars and point out that people have been abusing
"usenet etiquette" with examples of various rules.

I think it's you who need to get a clue.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Is Lewis Moran the type of father figure
John Howard wants for Australian children?

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Alan Erskine wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:

>> There's an object lesson this. I'm leaving, so it makes
>> no difference to me. You're not. Get a clue.
>
> So why keep responding to this coward if you're leaving?

About the appellation "coward," please see below. As to why
I am having a discussion with this person, it's really not
your business.

You forget, Alan, I too was forged. This is not all about
you. And my conversation with this person is certainly not
about you.

> All you're doing is fanning the flames and making it
> worse for the rest of us.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

This from the guy who--even though he was warned that it
would cause flooding--could not forego harrassing the remops
and who responds to every post and every response to every
post with ineffectual threats, not only against the forger,
but against ordinary posters in other groups who have no
reason to know what's going on.

> All you've done in the five months you've been in these
> groups is flame people and cause flame wars and point out
> that people have been abusing "usenet etiquette" with
> examples of various rules.
>
> I think it's you who need to get a clue.

You're losing allies all over the place with your continued
threats, Alan. I'm only one of many.

And if you're going to threaten people with abuse reports
because they don't remove all reference to you before
responding to these posts, perhaps you should have
considered changing the subject line in this one.

If you would start applying the same standard to yourself
that you demand from everyone else, the situation might
improve. If you threaten, you should expect to be
threatened. If you report abuse, you should expect to be
reported for abuse. Why was it okay for you to assume a
false identity (this is no secret, Alan, everyone knew it
was you) to threaten the Maxsons, but it's not okay for
someone to assume a false identity to pick on you? Are you
also a coward because you tried to obscure your identity and
because you used the x-no-archive tag for those posts? All
the things you're bitching about, all the things you make
abuse reports about, are things you yourself have done.

You went off half-cocked and made a specious public
accusation about the identity of the forger with no evidence
at all. You came up with some really weird speculation about
my use of the CIS-DFN server, but as I think Kevin pointed
out, it is a free server used by many people, and it is
mentioned in the ssm FAQ. You...you've done a lot of things,
Alan, that no rational person would do, and while you are
the victim of an attack, you are the sole cause of that
attack's escalation.

You don't seem to realize that there's more than one thing
going on here, and that there's more than one "coward." Do
you really believe this is all the work of one person for a
singular reason? Please. Give me a break.

By your failure to respond rationally to all this, you have
escalated the situation to such a degree that...I
dunno...the fallout is too extensive for me to gauge at this
point, but it spans many, many groups, and at this point has
very little to do with the original forgeries.

I've got a clue. Usenet fosters a mob mentality. I would
know, because I've become part of the mob more than once.
When possible, I've tried to correct the mistake when
possible, but not everything is fixable. Sometimes it's
better to shut up and that's the course I've chosen. Three
years gone wasn't enough. I've got 12 more days to wrap up
my business here, and if that's not enough time to do it
all, so be it.

rl

[Kent Betts]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk"
> You're losing allies all over the place with your continued
> threats, Alan. I'm only one of many.

Both of you ****s need to **** off into hell.