Received: from europa.cox-internet.com [208.180.118.40] by mail3.wilhelp.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-7.04) id AFDD1C7005A; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:47:57 -0600
Received: from aptiva.cox-internet.com ([208.180.128.40])
          by europa.cox-internet.com
          (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 180e1de7f543f89455b24e508f9cca39)
          with SMTP
          id <20020221024404.OOQG4641.europa@aptiva.cox-internet.com>
          for <taylor@wilhelp.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:44:04 -0600
To: taylor@wilhelp.com
Date: 21 Feb 2002 02:42:58 -0000
Message-ID: <NVC5XXVQ37307.8631712963@anonymous.poster>
From: Brad <00003483@no-id.com>
Subject: Please email me your attorney's name
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was
        automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.
        This service is free. Please report problems or inappropriate use 
        to the address below.
X-RCPT-TO: <taylor@wilhelp.com>
Status: U
X-UIDL: 309600000



Taylor,



Please email me your attorney's name and contact information and 

you will not hear from me again. (Otherwise you might.  As a 

"domain owner" you should have the expectation of appropriate contact.) 

I see no reason my lawyer should have to ever deal directly with a 

psychopathic moron like yourself.  My lawyer will have instructions to 

seek stalking and harassment charges first and then defamation. He (or 

we) will soon be entering the MN BCA and talking with the agents who 

have taken over for DiPrima since his retirement (you would know he 

was retired if you ever bothered to call -- please still do call 

so you are easier for us to find and identify). I deal with other 

people there now. 



I see little reason to keep cautioning you, because you do not listen. 

But, I noticed you claim I made phone calls to people.  I never once 

called anyone I met on Usenet.  Not one person.  Not one time.  There 

are not only issues of your inaccuracy, but your opinions based ONLY 

on second hand hearsay or rumors are all very problematic for you. 

They show your malice.  One should not present opinions for which 

he has NO KNOWLEDGE. You have little or no direct knowledge (I would 

say NONE) of the allegations you make.  To make them without clear 

or at least reasonable evidence is malicious defamation. To present 

things you believe as FACTS is also malicious. 

You make a fine target, though. Getting bigger all the time.



I would also like to point out the ONLY Dr. Leslie Packer had a copy 

of the DiPrima letter (several did not get it).  You have directly 

implicated Dr. Packer in the defamation.  Since you are getting other 

people in trouble, it might be a good idea to let them know that. Dr. 

Packer was also complained about with the BCA back in December or 

whenever it was.  The links then were clear.  My attorney will know this. 

Let Dr. Packer know, please.



Thanks. Brad



P.S. You may want to get your lawyer prepared. Perhaps a quick call to 

the MN BCA would be in order.