>From mix@thetis.deor.org Wed Nov 14 18:37:46 2001 Return-Path: <mix@thetis.deor.org> Received: from thetis.deor.org (thetis.deor.org [207.106.86.210]) by netbasix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18163 for <taylor@wilhelp.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:37:45 GMT Received: (from mix@localhost) by thetis.deor.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28743; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:39:54 -0800 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:39:54 -0800 From: "A. Melon" <juicy@melontraffickers.com> To: taylor@wilhelp.com Subject: You have it wrong, Taylor -- and you are wrong Message-ID: <da3e3bab55265fc0b25b1252ca870d9b@melontraffickers.com> X-UIDL: #Q;!!T03!!k[4"!W_c"! Taylor, Before getting you into real trouble, I am emailing to inform you of how the FAQ is wrong in some big ways. If you take appropriate actions you may be able to avoid real problems. First, Brad was never warned against off-Usenet "stalking" activity. At the point in time where the officer was contacted, NO off-Usenet activity of any kind had occurred (and most certainly no off-Usenet activity against the complaintants). The only "stalking" (and it was NEVER officially labeled as such) that Brad was "warned" about was upsetting posts being made to Usenet. The officers simply wondered outloud whether someday Usenet posting might be considered to be of a harassing or stalking nature -- it was never said they were. They indicated they would warn Leslie Packer similarly. The only reason Brad was ever contacted was because of MANY months of repeated complaints by Leslie against Brad, supposed supported by Peter's "cd of evidence". They were the off-Usenet complainers, big time. It is false and libelous to indicate that stalking was determined. And, it is yet more false and libelous to indicate this had anything to do with off-Usenet activity (and had anything to do with real stalking). It most definitely did not. The complaintants (Leslie and Peter) themselves were the first of the 2 parties to engage in off-Usenet activity. Brad did finally reciprocate with a complaint to the APA about Leslie Packer. Brad would not have taken any off-Usenet action against Leslie Packer if he didn't need to to answer the complaint she had filed against him. Another big area of false and libelous statements regard the "aliases". First they are NOT aliases. Second there is no decent evidence that any except about a quarter of the screen names are Brad. Many of the screen names, in fact, are not Brad. All throughout the presentation of the case against Brad, where these screen names are used as evidence for a point, the web page is false and libelous. I would ask you to make adjustments to the FAQ in these regards immediately or it is certain you are engaging in libel/slander. Actually, the reasons you are getting into the trouble you are is that you don't really know the story. The only reason you are involved is because some big shots are making you feel like a big shot. It really is unseemly to be hosting a web page you did not write about a topic (of any kind, but esp. about a person) where you do not know the facts. Did you know that several web sites that ONLY had links directly to posts by Leslie, Peter, Dan were taken down by services because they complained about them? These sites were clearly doing nothing but objectively summarizing the certain evidence and providing a direct links to posts clearly by them doing their wrong-doing. No characterizations were provided (unlike the libelous site you host). Thus, you are doing what the hypocrites themselves have NOT thought was right. I am again, politely requesting that, because of all the problems noted above, you remove the web site. If you were a real man and not a terrorist who is threatening peoples' free speech through a sort of extortion, you would take the page down and find a more useful way to use your energy. You are actually a libeler/slanderer, an extortionist and a terrorist. People like you are exactly like racist bigots, quickly forming their opinions and their hatred. You are a disgrace as an American and nothing but the clearest form of hoodlum thug and snot-nosed punk. I will grace you no further with may reasoning.