On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:14:39 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<Greegor47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 2:21 pm, childadvocate <smartn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>CA > The conference recommends that people
>CA > come with a sup****t person to help them.
>CA > Current perpetrators are not allowed in the conference.
>
>G > Do you mean perpetrators or alleged perpetrators?
>G > Do you include all accused as perpetrators,
>G > or only people who are criminally convicted?
>
>KW > In CA's mind, anyone who doesn't swallow
>KW > the whole SRA is a rampant pandemic, is
>KW > a perpetrator. BTW, CA replied to one of
>KW > your posts in the Lar$on group. Why she
>KW > chose to remove every group you read in
>KW > her reply is anyone's guess.
>
>Is it REALLY so hard to figure out, Kent?
In regards to why she removed every group read, I asked, "Is
there a specific reason? Are you worried he would be able to find
fault in your claims?
"If so, your claims are extremely weak."
>What makes you think it's a HER?
You got me there. I don't KNOW that it's Diana, or any other
female. I presume the author is female since CA claimed I attacked
him/her when I commented about how Bob Lar$on did and Diana Napolis
does thrive on the topic.
Unless CA is one of them, I couldn't have attacked him/her. Not
that it was really an attack by any rational definition.
CA's writing style isn't consistent with Lar$on's so he's not
likely to be the one posting. This left only Diana as the sole
possibility.
It is, of course, possible CA is neither and simply chose to be
deceptive in claiming my comment about Lar$on and Napolis was an
attack against him/her.
>Is it Diana Napolis using more fake names?
Very possible.
>She's notorious for that so skip the Fregoli crap.
>
How, within the confines of reality, is my pointing out that she
sent a reply to one of your posts to a group you don't tend to read
connected to Fregoli?
Be specific.
>Is it true you replied to me in a newsgroup
>I don't regularly read?
No. I replied to CA in a group you don't normally read. In fact,
I mentioned that if she wanted to debate you, she needed to do so in a
group you read.
You can read it for yourself by checking Message-ID:
<h2reh4lcu8a9um5ng9h7cgbcsteocvcrj6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Please answer without
>cutting the cross post list.
Have I ever sent a reply to any of your posts to a group you don't
tend to read? I'll remove the friends group, when I catch it, but
that's it.
When I expose your latest lies or point out your proof that you
have serious mental defects, I want you to know I've done so. To send
such to a group you don't normally read wouldn't do much good.
>
>G > What about Diana Napolis, is she welcome there?
>
>KW > She most certainly would be.
>
>How WOULD you decide who to exclude, CA?
I'm not CA.
>
>G > Do convictions impair a believer's entry?
>G > Or just non-believers?
>
>KW > Everyone who questions the validity of SRA being real is barred.
>
>That was my impression also.
That's the impression everyone should get.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <1150922197.475392.294570@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
