From: pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 95 20:53:49 PST
To: Carol Anne Braddock  <carolann@mm.com>
Subject: Re: Soapbox mode on!(but short)
Message-ID: <9501080445.AB23191@eri.erinet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:22 AM 1/7/95, Carol Anne Braddock wrote:
>Dear Paul J. Ste. Marie,
>
>I was quietly going through my mail after an eight hour layoff.
>The first thing you do is lie.
>
>I have called you a liar. Point Blank!
>
>And for the honor of this very list, so that there is some
>credibility, I shall retrieve from a tin reader the actual
>posting, COMPLETE WITH HEADER.  

Interesting.  You did retrieve the message I posted, but not the article 
from alt.current-events.net-abuse.  If you want to call me a liar, that's 
fine, but post something with some relevance.  I'm not in the habit of 
scanning the news hierarchy for spam, and I'm perfectly willing to believe 
you stopped after ten groups, but that isn't what I recalled seeing in 
a.c-e.n-a.  I could be remebering things wrong, but if that is the case, 
kindly post something that actually shows the discussion in a.c-e.n-a was 
otherwise.

>And what makes creeps like you going is the ability to continue,
>to spread those lies. 

And now you're sounding like Martha Siegel.  My words were:

>> The discussion on alt.current-events.net-abuse seemed to indicate that the 
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> claim of "Just 10" above is a slight understandment.  The newsgroups seem to 
>> have been hit alphabetically, and I believe the total count was in the 
>> hundreds.

Am I rememebering a.c-e.n-a inaccurately, or have you simply decided not to 
rebut anything in the forum in which it was presented?  All I suggested is 
that your account bore checking out before people leaped to your defense.  
An unwillingness to have your story verified speaks for itself.

    --Paul J. Ste. Marie
      pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com