Spyware Blaster Database Updated 3|12|2010
in [Spyware]
|
From: Bullwinkle on 16 Mar 2010 17:36 A religious kook, just like mohammad. "~BD~" <BoaterDave.is.(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:SfSdnYGxQcEgbQLWnZ2dnUVZ7tidnZ2d(a)bt.com... SeaNymph wrote: > Why don't you just answer the question? You claimed that Jenn knows your > story is true. My questions was how does she know it's true? How? I told you. Through The Holy Spirit. > A simple, direct answer will suffice. I cannot simplify further. -- Dave
From: Bullwinkle on 16 Mar 2010 17:38 Yes, you do! Also you want to scam and steal. "~BD~" <BoaterDave.is.(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:ItGdnYocWK-baQLWnZ2dnUVZ8mmdnZ2d(a)bt.com... I do *not* want to create chaos. I just want to expose the truth. -- Dave
From: Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries on 16 Mar 2010 17:37 ~BD~ wrote: > Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote: >> David H. Lipman wrote: >>> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries"<rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> >> <snipped> >> >>>> Oh, and why are you trolling this group now? Run out of fish >>>> elsewhere? >>> >>> No, Rhonda. He didn't run out, he is adding to his repertoires. >> >> I avoid feeding him everywhere I see him, but there was no >> reason for him to do this. > > You seem to feel that I have done something wrong by asking a > straight-forward question, yet you do not explain why. In for a penny, in for a pound. And then into the bozo bin you go. You did not ask a straightforward question. You engaged in full-frontal assault. >> If he wants an answer to his question, he should go directly to >> the source. Then again, I suppose if he did, he'd just be ignored. > > Exactly! I have asked Siljaline before - and others at Aumha too. > > No satisfactory answer has *ever* been forthcoming. Perhaps that's because no one feels compelled to satisfy you. Just because you want information does not mean it's any of your business. Bringing it here because you couldn't get an answer at the source is just...classless. Not to mention stalkerish. >> This way, he gets to create chaos, which is just what he wants. > > I do *not* want to create chaos. I just want to expose the truth. "Expose the truth," huh? This is usenet, not the National Enquirer. The person you are obviously harassing is not a public figure; he is a private person with as much right to his privacy as any of the rest of us. What you're doing (by your own admission, above) is stalking. No surprise there. -- Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. Hubert H. Humphrey
From: SeaNymph on 16 Mar 2010 18:02 You cannot be serious? God told Jenn you were telling the truth? "~BD~" <BoaterDave.is.(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:SfSdnYGxQcEgbQLWnZ2dnUVZ7tidnZ2d(a)bt.com... > SeaNymph wrote: >> Why don't you just answer the question? You claimed that Jenn knows your >> story is true. My questions was how does she know it's true? > > How? I told you. Through The Holy Spirit. > >> A simple, direct answer will suffice. > > I cannot simplify further. > > -- > Dave
From: ~BD~ on 16 Mar 2010 18:09
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote: > ~BD~ wrote: >> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote: >>> David H. Lipman wrote: >>>> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries"<rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> >>> <snipped> >>> >>>>> Oh, and why are you trolling this group now? Run out of fish >>>>> elsewhere? >>>> >>>> No, Rhonda. He didn't run out, he is adding to his repertoires. >>> >>> I avoid feeding him everywhere I see him, but there was no >>> reason for him to do this. >> >> You seem to feel that I have done something wrong by asking a >> straight-forward question, yet you do not explain why. > > In for a penny, in for a pound. And then into the bozo bin you go. I appreciate you responding. Thank you. :) > You did not ask a straightforward question. You engaged in full-frontal > assault. I understand that is *your* view, but I didn't see things quite like that. Someone once commented "maybe they are all in it". Well, maybe they are! >>> If he wants an answer to his question, he should go directly to >>> the source. Then again, I suppose if he did, he'd just be ignored. >> >> Exactly! I have asked Siljaline before - and others at Aumha too. >> >> No satisfactory answer has *ever* been forthcoming. > > Perhaps that's because no one feels compelled to satisfy you. Just because > you want information does not mean it's any of your business. Do you think the residents in Florida should have asked questions about the flying training pertaining to the guys who subsequently flew the planes into the World Trade Centre on 9/11? Maybe not. Perhaps you feel that it was none of their business. > Bringing it here because you couldn't get an answer at the source is > just...classless. Not to mention stalkerish. Again, you are entitled to your view. >>> This way, he gets to create chaos, which is just what he wants. >> >> I do *not* want to create chaos. I just want to expose the truth. > > "Expose the truth," huh? This is usenet, not the National Enquirer. The > person you are obviously harassing is not a public figure; he is a private > person with as much right to his privacy as any of the rest of us. What > you're doing (by your own admission, above) is stalking. May we just clarify one thing here. Exactly *who* are you accusing me of stalking? > No surprise there. Maybe not - but you have me confused! -- Dave |