| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Oops, someone needs a firewall.........
Ping 205.162.217.34
[cblmdm205-162-217-34.buckeye-express.com] Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 56 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 48 ms Average time over 10 pings: 51.4 ms |
"U Know Who" wrote in message ... Ping 205.162.217.34 [cblmdm205-162-217-34.buckeye-express.com] Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 56 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 48 ms Average time over 10 pings: 51.4 ms Ping 68.41.138.160 [bgp987471bgs.madsnh01.mi.comcast.net] Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 49 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 48 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 49 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 47 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 60 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 61 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 73 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 52 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 64 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 62 ms Average time over 10 pings: 56.5 ms Ping time coincidence? Nah. |
"U Know Who" wrote:
Ping 205.162.217.34 [cblmdm205-162-217-34.buckeye-express.com] Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 56 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 48 ms Average time over 10 pings: 51.4 ms Here's what I got on the first ping: http://img133.echo.cx/img133/4491/dogiestation3sl.jpg Second ping: http://img66.echo.cx/img66/7799/assfacedogie9vv.gif |
"U Know Who" wrote:
"U Know Who" wrote in message ... Ping 205.162.217.34 [cblmdm205-162-217-34.buckeye-express.com] Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 56 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 48 ms Average time over 10 pings: 51.4 ms Ping 68.41.138.160 [bgp987471bgs.madsnh01.mi.comcast.net] Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 49 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 48 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 49 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 47 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 60 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 61 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 73 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 52 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 64 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 62 ms Average time over 10 pings: 56.5 ms Ping time coincidence? Nah. Who do we know in madison hts? http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=scan00032pg.jpg OH! |
Ping 205.162.217.34
[cblmdm205-162-217-34.buckeye-express.com] Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 56 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 48 ms Average time over 10 pings: 51.4 ms Poor sad mopey and his gay pals. All you can do is ping. You is POWERLESS, boi. |
uhhh, no. Who needs a firewall?
|
"mopathetic is STILL a chickenboy, won't say where he is camping" wrote in message oups.com... uhhh, no. Who needs a firewall? *Everyone* should have a firewall. If you aren't set up as invisible, your machine will respond to pinging. Your machine is vulnerable without a firewall, *especially* if you are on broadband. Regardless, even a dial-up should have a good firewall as well as an anti-virus program running at all times whilst on the Internet. It is also a good idea to have an anti-spyware program as well. Do a google search and see what you turn up. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim |
On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:32:15 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote: "mopathetic is STILL a chickenboy, won't say where he is camping" wrote in message roups.com... uhhh, no. Who needs a firewall? *Everyone* should have a firewall. If you aren't set up as invisible, your machine will respond to pinging. If I have a router in between you won't see my PC, firewall or not. My router doesn't broadcast my local machine address's. Your machine is vulnerable without a firewall, *especially* if you are on broadband. Regardless, even a dial-up should have a good firewall as well as an anti-virus program running at all times whilst on the Internet. It is also a good idea to have an anti-spyware program as well. A dialup is one of the biggest cases where you need a firewall. Almost all dialups are directly to the internet. Your local PC IP address is your dialup internet address. Do a google search and see what you turn up. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim |
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:23:03 GMT, Lancer wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:32:15 GMT, "Jim Hampton" wrote: "mopathetic is STILL a chickenboy, won't say where he is camping" wrote in message groups.com... uhhh, no. Who needs a firewall? *Everyone* should have a firewall. If you aren't set up as invisible, your machine will respond to pinging. If I have a router in between you won't see my PC, firewall or not. My router doesn't broadcast my local machine address's. I too have a router, but am not sure if I am invisible. I do use the router firewall and software firewall. Vinnie S. |
Steveo wrote:
"U Know Who" wrote: "U Know Who" wrote in message ... Ping 205.162.217.34 [cblmdm205-162-217-34.buckeye-express.com] Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 56 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 48 ms Average time over 10 pings: 51.4 ms Ping 68.41.138.160 [bgp987471bgs.madsnh01.mi.comcast.net] Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 49 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 48 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 49 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 47 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 60 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 61 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 73 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 52 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 64 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 62 ms Average time over 10 pings: 56.5 ms Ping time coincidence? Nah. Who do we know in madison hts? http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=scan00032pg.jpg OH! I rated that image "Astonishing!". ;-) Jeff |
"Jim Hampton" wrote:
"mopathetic is STILL a chickenboy, won't say where he is camping" wrote in message oups.com... uhhh, no. Who needs a firewall? *Everyone* should have a firewall. If you aren't set up as invisible, your machine will respond to pinging. Hello Jim. Save your time explaining anything to dogie except maybe proper antenna installation. :D http://img64.echo.cx/my.php?image=dogie049cy.jpg |
"Vinnie S." wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:23:03 GMT, Lancer wrote: On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:32:15 GMT, "Jim Hampton" wrote: "mopathetic is STILL a chickenboy, won't say where he is camping" wrote in message egroups.com... uhhh, no. Who needs a firewall? *Everyone* should have a firewall. If you aren't set up as invisible, your machine will respond to pinging. If I have a router in between you won't see my PC, firewall or not. My router doesn't broadcast my local machine address's. I too have a router, but am not sure if I am invisible. I do use the router firewall and software firewall. Vinnie S. I can't see you. But then again, you may just be too far away. g |
"Jeff Mayner" wrote:
Steveo wrote: "U Know Who" wrote: "U Know Who" wrote in message ... Ping 205.162.217.34 [cblmdm205-162-217-34.buckeye-express.com] Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 56 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 51 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 47 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 57 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 50 ms Round trip time to 205.162.217.34: 48 ms Average time over 10 pings: 51.4 ms Ping 68.41.138.160 [bgp987471bgs.madsnh01.mi.comcast.net] Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 49 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 48 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 49 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 47 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 60 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 61 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 73 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 52 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 64 ms Round trip time to 68.41.138.160: 62 ms Average time over 10 pings: 56.5 ms Ping time coincidence? Nah. Who do we know in madison hts? http://img145.echo.cx/my.php?image=scan00032pg.jpg OH! I rated that image "Astonishing!". ;-) Jeff It's almost priceless, Jeff. ;) |
I am not positive here (and I am no lawyer--but the man you stalk needs to
take your posts and pics to one), but you seem in violation of the stalking laws--I think if he now sues your A$$ he will have gobs of money to feed his kids with!!! Regards, John "Steveo" wrote in message ... | "Jim Hampton" wrote: | "mopathetic is STILL a chickenboy, won't say where he is camping" | wrote in message | oups.com... | uhhh, no. Who needs a firewall? | | | *Everyone* should have a firewall. If you aren't set up as invisible, | your machine will respond to pinging. | | Hello Jim. | | Save your time explaining anything to dogie except maybe proper antenna | installation. :D | | http://img64.echo.cx/my.php?image=dogie049cy.jpg |
"John Smith" wrote:
I am not positive here SHOCKING |
No. NOT SHOCKING...
ECCONOMICLY BURDENING!!!--to the party sued... Regards, John "Steveo" wrote in message ... | "John Smith" wrote: | I am not positive here | | SHOCKING |
On Mon, 02 May 2005 22:08:00 GMT, "U Know Who" wrote:
"mopathetic is STILL a chickenboy, won't say where he is camping" wrote in message legroups.com... uhhh, no. Who needs a firewall? *Everyone* should have a firewall. If you aren't set up as invisible, your machine will respond to pinging. If I have a router in between you won't see my PC, firewall or not. My router doesn't broadcast my local machine address's. I too have a router, but am not sure if I am invisible. I do use the router firewall and software firewall. Vinnie S. I can't see you. But then again, you may just be too far away. g Get some glasses !!! Vinnie S. |
Vinnie S. wrote:
Get some glasses !!! Vinnie S. Sol's reading glasses? |
|
"John Smith" wrote:
No. NOT SHOCKING... ECCONOMICLY BURDENING!!!--to the party sued... Regards, John "Steveo" wrote in message ... | "John Smith" wrote: | I am not positive here | | SHOCKING Do ewe soo the mall when you fall down in the parking lot too, F U Bailey? |
From: (John=A0Smith)
I am not positive here (and I am no lawyer--but the man you stalk needs to take your posts and pics to one), but you seem in violation of the stalking laws-- Cite the single passage you misinterpret him violating as pertains to stalking laws. 36 W. Gay St., Suite 311, Columbus, OH 43215 614-221-1255 PHONE | 888-622-9315 TOLL-FREE | 614-221-6357 FAX | www.actionohio.org OHIO LAW Menacing by Stalking “No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person.” “Pattern of conduct” is defined as “two or more actions or incidents closely related in time, whether or not there has been a prior conviction based on any of those actions or incidents. The law has been amended to expand the definition of “pattern of conduct” to include cyberstalking (e.g. such as sending threatening messages, posting such messages on a computer bulletin board, using a computer bulletin board or listserv to induce a third person to engage in stalking conduct against the victim, or using the Global Positioning System to track the whereabouts of the victim). Actions or incidents that prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official, firefighter, rescuer, emergency medical services person, or emergency facility person of any authorized act within the public official’s, firefighter’s, rescuer’s emergency medical services person’s, or emergency facility person’s official capacity may constitute a ‘pattern of conduct.’” “Physical harm” is defined as “any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” “Mental distress” is defined as “any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity or any mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services whether or not any person requested or received psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services.” The law prohibits stalking or harassing someone repeatedly through electronic means, such as by e-mail, web chat room, or message board. Posting false information on the Internet to cause another person to stalk an individual is also illegal. (The Ohio Domestic Violence Benchbook – A Practical Guide to Competence for Judges & Magistrates, Second Edition, Family Violence Prevention Center, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services.) |
I said "I am not a lawyer", at this point, if it were me, I'd be consulting
one.... John "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... From: (John Smith) I am not positive here (and I am no lawyer--but the man you stalk needs to take your posts and pics to one), but you seem in violation of the stalking laws-- Cite the single passage you misinterpret him violating as pertains to stalking laws. I think if he now sues your A$$ he will have gobs of money to feed his kids with!!! Regards, John No chance at all. Mopar was publicly invited by Dogie. -You- need to talk to a lawyer and have him properly explain what constitutes stalking, as you are misinformed. In the meantime, try not to think about such things. |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9844-4276C807- : From: (John=A0Smith) I am not positive here (and I am no lawyer--but the man you stalk needs to take your posts and pics to one), but you seem in violation of the stalking laws-- Cite the single passage you misinterpret him violating as pertains to stalking laws. I think if he now sues your A$$ he will have gobs of money to feed his kids with!!! Regards, John - No chance at all. Mopar was publicly invited by Dogie. -You- need to talk to a lawyer and have him properly explain what constitutes stalking, as you are misinformed. In the meantime, try not to think about such things. - You have no idea who made the invite, The rest of your post assumes the above to be true. You have discounted the possibility the identity of one who made such a physical threat was found immediately after the post and logged with the isp's he utilized, due to them being contacted and instructed future legal ramifications may arise referring this specific user due his violation of the law. But I'll play devil's advocate for you. some one says they are george bush and to come to the white house you have carte blanche to go there? Good point. I taught N3CVJ this a few posts ago when he said saying something on usenet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of law. Where were you then? : ) Dont be so ****ing stupid. just the same as I AM NOW CHRIS BUSCH loL this assclown is as clueless as you tipsy.. and thats bad (shrug) Clueless is providing the FCC a false address. It's also a crime. |
|
So, you think that harassing a man, such as being done here, would NOT be
found to be offensive to the general public??? You think the general public would support your abuse of this man??? Well, maybe so, or maybe you should rethink that.... Regards, John "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9844-4276C807- : From: (John Smith) I am not positive here (and I am no lawyer--but the man you stalk needs to take your posts and pics to one), but you seem in violation of the stalking laws-- Cite the single passage you misinterpret him violating as pertains to stalking laws. I think if he now sues your A$$ he will have gobs of money to feed his kids with!!! Regards, John - No chance at all. Mopar was publicly invited by Dogie. -You- need to talk to a lawyer and have him properly explain what constitutes stalking, as you are misinformed. In the meantime, try not to think about such things. - You have no idea who made the invite, The rest of your post assumes the above to be true. You have discounted the possibility the identity of one who made such a physical threat was found immediately after the post and logged with the isp's he utilized, due to them being contacted and instructed future legal ramifications may arise referring this specific user due his violation of the law. But I'll play devil's advocate for you. some one says they are george bush and to come to the white house you have carte blanche to go there? Good point. I taught N3CVJ this a few posts ago when he said saying something on usenet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of law. Where were you then? : ) Dont be so ****ing stupid. just the same as I AM NOW CHRIS BUSCH loL this assclown is as clueless as you tipsy.. and thats bad (shrug) Clueless is providing the FCC a false address. It's also a crime. |
|
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9844-4276C807- : From: (John=A0Smith) I am not positive here (and I am no lawyer--but the man you stalk needs to take your posts and pics to one), but you seem in violation of the stalking laws-- Cite the single passage you misinterpret him violating as pertains to stalking laws. I think if he now sues your A$$ he will have gobs of money to feed his kids with!!! Regards, John - No chance at all. Mopar was publicly invited by Dogie. -You- need to talk to a lawyer and have him properly explain what constitutes stalking, as you are misinformed. In the meantime, try not to think about such things. - You have no idea who made the invite, The rest of your post assumes the above to be true. You have discounted the possibility the identity of one who made such a physical threat was found immediately after the post and logged with the isp's he utilized, due to them being contacted and instructed future legal ramifications may arise referring this specific user due his violation of the law. But I'll play devil's advocate for you. Cite the single passage you misinterpret him being exempt from as pertains to stalking laws. |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) "John Smith" wrote in : I said "I am not a lawyer", at this point, if it were me, I'd be consulting one.... John John he is no lawyer either thats why his advise sucks wind. No chance at all. Mopar was publicly invited by Dogie. -You- need to talk to a lawyer and have him properly explain what constitutes stalking, as you are misinformed. In the meantime, try not to think about such things. 6 W. Gay St., Suite 311, Columbus, OH 43215 614-221-1255 PHONE | 888-622-9315 TOLL-FREE | 614-221-6357 FAX | www.actionohio.org OHIO LAW Menacing by Stalking "No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person." Daaaamn,,,,Dogie is guilty fo this not with one person not with two people here, but with a boatload. "Pattern of conduct" is defined as "two or more actions or incidents closely related in time, whether or not there has been a prior .conviction based on any of those actions or .incidents. The "actions' you speak of were initiated and perpetuated by Dogie. He could not sue one for behaviors he initiated and committed countless times against others. The law has been amended to expand the definition of "pattern of conduct" to include cyberstalking (e.g. such as sending .threatening messages, posting such messages on a computer bulletin board, using a computer .bulletin board or listserv to induce a third person Just what did you consider the threats Dogie posted? Oh, that's right, you claim you can't be sure it's him, but you can be sure it's Mopar..lol. to engage in stalking conduct against the victim, or using the Global Positioning System to track the whereabouts of the victim). Actions or incidents that prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official, firefighter, rescuer, emergency medical services person, or emergency facility person of any authorized act within the public official's, firefighter's, rescuer's emergency medical services person's, or emergency facility person's official capacity may constitute a 'pattern of conduct.'" Yep,,,once could certainly argue that jamming a repeater as Dogie did constitutes the prevention, delay or obstruction of possible emergencies. "Physical harm" is defined as "any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration." Yea,,this goes with the word "tangible" you can't comprehend. "Mental distress" is defined as "any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity or any mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services whether or not any person requested or received psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services." Yet, Dogie received mandatory court ordered treatment for his mental instability resulting in crimes against children and the state. The law prohibits stalking or harassing someone repeatedly through electronic means, such as by e-mail, Cool,,,,I knew I saved all the threats he made for a reason. web chat room, or message board. Those too. Posting false information on the Internet to cause another person to stalk an individual is .also illegal. LOL,,,,y'all should be shaking in your fairie boots right about now with such an overwhelming amount of evidence against Dogie. (The Ohio Domestic Violence Benchbook - A Practical Guide to Competence for Judges & Magistrates, Second Edition, Family Violence Prevention Center, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services.) Now,,if only you could cite a single source that claims "law" as a definition of "tangible"...LMFAO! |
|
Typical Twistedhed BS. Not a single, documented fact to back up his claims.
From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) "John Smith" wrote in : I said "I am not a lawyer", at this point, if it were me, I'd be consulting one.... John John he is no lawyer either thats why his advise sucks wind. No chance at all. Mopar was publicly invited by Dogie. -You- need to talk to a lawyer and have him properly explain what constitutes stalking, as you are misinformed. In the meantime, try not to think about such things. 6 W. Gay St., Suite 311, Columbus, OH 43215 614-221-1255 PHONE | 888-622-9315 TOLL-FREE | 614-221-6357 FAX | www.actionohio.org OHIO LAW Menacing by Stalking "No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person." Daaaamn,,,,Dogie is guilty fo this not with one person not with two people here, but with a boatload. "Pattern of conduct" is defined as "two or more actions or incidents closely related in time, whether or not there has been a prior .conviction based on any of those actions or .incidents. The "actions' you speak of were initiated and perpetuated by Dogie. He could not sue one for behaviors he initiated and committed countless times against others. The law has been amended to expand the definition of "pattern of conduct" to include cyberstalking (e.g. such as sending .threatening messages, posting such messages on a computer bulletin board, using a computer .bulletin board or listserv to induce a third person Just what did you consider the threats Dogie posted? Oh, that's right, you claim you can't be sure it's him, but you can be sure it's Mopar..lol. to engage in stalking conduct against the victim, or using the Global Positioning System to track the whereabouts of the victim). Actions or incidents that prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official, firefighter, rescuer, emergency medical services person, or emergency facility person of any authorized act within the public official's, firefighter's, rescuer's emergency medical services person's, or emergency facility person's official capacity may constitute a 'pattern of conduct.'" Yep,,,once could certainly argue that jamming a repeater as Dogie did constitutes the prevention, delay or obstruction of possible emergencies. "Physical harm" is defined as "any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration." Yea,,this goes with the word "tangible" you can't comprehend. "Mental distress" is defined as "any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity or any mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services whether or not any person requested or received psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services." Yet, Dogie received mandatory court ordered treatment for his mental instability resulting in crimes against children and the state. The law prohibits stalking or harassing someone repeatedly through electronic means, such as by e-mail, Cool,,,,I knew I saved all the threats he made for a reason. web chat room, or message board. Those too. Posting false information on the Internet to cause another person to stalk an individual is .also illegal. LOL,,,,y'all should be shaking in your fairie boots right about now with such an overwhelming amount of evidence against Dogie. (The Ohio Domestic Violence Benchbook - A Practical Guide to Competence for Judges & Magistrates, Second Edition, Family Violence Prevention Center, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services.) Now,,if only you could cite a single source that claims "law" as a definition of "tangible"...LMFAO! |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:427-4278F4CB-25 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net: Just what did you consider the threats Dogie posted? Oh, that's right, you claim you can't be sure it's him, but you can be sure it's Mopar..lol. Listen real close assjuice, Keep your mother's bodily fluids out of the topic and you'll do fine. moped has pictures of someones house he went to that is a known fact, Fact #1..he was invited there. Fact#2...it is not illegal to take pictures. See paparazzi. the persons house he went to may not have made those posts. Fact #3..the person who took those pictures may not be Moparholic. Fact #4..the person who posted those pics may no be moparholic. That is also fact, Nope. Your useof the term "may" excludes it from being a fact. A fact is certain, you are not. now go wash off Yes, you may now go wash off or whatever it is you do after the behavior that has you preoccupied with the term 'ass' and a penchant for speaking of bodily fluids when speaking to other men. |
|
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) "John Smith" wrote in : I said "I am not a lawyer", at this point, if it were me, I'd be consulting one.... John John he is no lawyer either thats why his advise sucks wind. No chance at all. Mopar was publicly invited by Dogie. -You- need to talk to a lawyer and have him properly explain what constitutes stalking, as you are misinformed. In the meantime, try not to think about such things. Nad and dogie are all up in arms now, Twist. They thought they could run their pie-holes behind a keyboard without consequence. When the buzzards start circling they run to the law. This ain't the first time Ive seen a dogie who's bark is -much- bigger than his bite. He won't be at the convention either. |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:427-4278F4CB-25 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net: Just what did you consider the threats Dogie posted? Oh, that's right, you claim you can't be sure it's him, but you can be sure it's Mopar..lol. Listen real close assjuice, moped has pictures of someones house he went to that is a known fact, the persons house he went to may not have made those posts. That is also fact, now go wash off. The new pope might not be catholic too. You haven't seen all the emails with his addy on them yet either, chrissy. Disgusting **** man. |
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:427-4278F4CB-25 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net: Just what did you consider the threats Dogie posted? Oh, that's right, you claim you can't be sure it's him, but you can be sure it's Mopar..lol. Listen real close assjuice, Keep your mother's bodily fluids out of the topic and you'll do fine. moped has pictures of someones house he went to that is a known fact, Fact #1..he was invited there. Fact#2...it is not illegal to take pictures. See paparazzi. the persons house he went to may not have made those posts. Fact #3..the person who took those pictures may not be Moparholic. Fact #4..the person who posted those pics may no be moparholic. That is also fact, Nope. Your useof the term "may" excludes it from being a fact. A fact is certain, you are not. now go wash off Yes, you may now go wash off or whatever it is you do after the behavior that has you preoccupied with the term 'ass' and a penchant for speaking of bodily fluids when speaking to other men. Chrissy sees the same buzzards. The 'another keyboard coward' club (AKC) is all up in arms now. hehehe |
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) "John Smith" wrote in : I said "I am not a lawyer", at this point, if it were me, I'd be consulting one.... John John he is no lawyer either thats why his advise sucks wind. No chance at all. Mopar was publicly invited by Dogie. -You- need to talk to a lawyer and have him properly explain what constitutes stalking, as you are misinformed. In the meantime, try not to think about such things. Nad and dogie are all up in arms now, Twist. They thought they could run their pie-holes behind a keyboard without consequence. What "consequence"? Digital photos? LOL |
IAmnotGeorgeBush (bka twitlips)meweled: From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:427-4278F4CB-25 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net: Just what did you consider the threats Dogie posted? Oh, that's right, you claim you can't be sure it's him, but you can be sure it's Mopar..lol. Listen real close assjuice, twitlips is retarded, he can't listen to anything but his lusts. Keep your FUGGLY's bodily fluids out of your mouth and you'll do fine, twitlips. mopathetic has pictures of someones house he went to that is a known fact, Fact #1..he was invited there. He got told what would happen if he stepped in the door. You and FUGGLY just want him so much you will say anything to hump his leg. Fact#2...it is not illegal to take pictures. See paparazzi. Nobody cares. the persons house he went to may not have made those posts. Fact #3..the person who took those pictures may not be Mopathetic. Fact #4..the person who posted those pics may no be mopathetic. Baloney, he has publicly admitted it. Of course, if the main thesis is that he is a slimy lying garbage sack, then your words make sense. You and FUGGLY musta wore Dweebo out, now you are slobbering over mopathetic. This whole deal is twithed's way of trying to deflect light from the fact that his boyfriend mopathetic won't say where he is camping at Dayton. Either it is cuz mopathetic is scared of the AKC, or they are both afraid the AKC will do some photo work of their own and catch them and FUGGLY in an intimate moment. Six one, 1/2 dozen of other...no biggie. Likely it is both. |
so where are you camping, limpwrist? And OH YESSSS...the AKC will be at
Dayton. Absolutely. Where are you camping? If Uhl tell us we will come introduce ourselves. Your lies can't change that. |
Yeah, mopathetic has to take pictures...he aint too good at text.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com