THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF:
PATRICK PARIS -- I RUB MY COCK IN YOUR FACE
PATRICK PARIS -- MORALLY BANKRUPT
PATRICK PARIS -- FAILED CRACKER
PATRICK PARIS -- FAILED REMAILER OPERATOR
*****************************************
The message below came through a remailer.
Take that into account as you read the message.
*****************************************
Fishmongers love e,e'l.B@$h
Eelbasher
<<==========>>
Subject: Re: Testing - Stats Service
http://beta-stats.bananasplit.info
Wolff Wehrkugel wrote:
*****************************************
The message below came through a remailer.
Take that into account as you read the message.
*****************************************
thks, good work
The above disclaimer is only one reason why I'd NEVER use Eelbash as exit.
It effectively says "The message you're about to read was posted through a
remailer which means it's not worth reading"
An anti-abuse disclaimer like the one Panta-Admin uses is one thing, but I
don't care for this kind of editorial comment being prepended to a post.
Frankly, there's no excuse for it.
<<==========>>
Subject: Re: Serious question, related to this "Pangborn" stuff
AD wrote:
"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote:
^ krp ! wrote:
Sounds like RATIONALIZATION............... *I* have NEVER NEVER
NEVER
NEVER NEVER NEVER used a remailer. GOT IT MORON? NEVER!
I do NOT have the anonymizing software on my computers. PERIOD!
Message-ID: <TNK938ME38419.5208101852@reece.net.au>
Message-ID: <tjhXd.77945$Dc.44771@trnddc06>
The same message posted first through a remailer, then through your own
account.
In regard to the message IDs mentioned above, which are also mentioned on
the page www.aboutkenpangborn.com/altatheism.html. To me this seems to
indicate that Kenny is guilty of the very offenses which he accuses others
of: forging and harassing through the remailers. The message posted
through the remailer looks like it was a forgery of someone else in
another group, and the fact that Kenny a short while later sent the exact
same text
from his known address makes it indeed seem that he was the forger. Could
I be interpreting this wrong?
If he indeed is the sender, then it would seem he is delibarately abusing
remailers so that he can have more ammunition in his arguments here in
APAS. I am curious to know how others may interpret these facts.
The term 'net-kook' comes quickly to mind
