Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, " krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
> >"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> >news:64af0e2de41551e1322b0bfefd435785@pseudo.borked.net...
> >
Several weeks ago we were discussing the atheism forgeries and all of
the alleged attacks on you here on usenet. You invited me to contact
a Dan Toomey, who was a law enforcement agent supposedly working on
the case and who could verify that "Moore" was under investigation.
You also said that law enforcement would be able to verify that they
had been monitoring your internet usage, and would be able to vouch
that you have never used a
remailer.
> >>>>>>
I contacted Toomey several weeks ago, as well as the Florida agency
whom you said could verify these things. To date, I have never
received a response. Can you shed some light on this?
> >>>>>
Maybe it is YOU!
> >>>>
Maybe "what" is me? Detective Toomey? The Pinellas police? That
didn't make any sense. My point was that I asked you how I could
verify your innocence and Dan's guilt, and you told me who to contact.
I followed your directions, and they didn't verify anything.
> >>>
Well "Rich" it had lots to do with what you sent them.
> >>
I sent them an e-mail asking them if they could verify the things you
assured me they could verify.
> >
It was the WAY you asked Rich. NOBODY would answer somebody who came
off as a complete NUT! And you did!
>
Here's what I asked of "Dan Toomey", a detective whom you invited me
to
contact:
>
>
I participate in a few internet discussion groups which have been
perpetuated by an odd "flamewar". One of the principals is a man going
by the name of Kenneth Pangborn. Basically there were a lot of
postings made which were inflammatory, and in which it was made to
appear that other people had written them. Last year I observed where
this Pangborn appeared
to have accidentally sent his own post through an anonymous remailer,
then followed it by resending the same post through his own address.
Several people have observed this stuff occurring for a few years
across the newsgroups, but the man denies it. He claims that this is
all an elaborate scheme concocted by a man named "David Moore"
(although Mr. Pangborn seems unclear on the man's name, sometimes
referring to him as "Dan" and other times as "Dennis".) Mr. Pangborn
invited me to contact you, stating that you can verify 1) that you
presently have "David Moore" under investigation and 2) that you can
vouch with absolute certainty that Pangborn has never used one of these
remailers. He's claiming that you (or other LEOs, he is somewhat vague
on this) have been monitoring his (Pangborn's) internet> connection for
years with his permission.
>
I am somewhat skeptical of these claims for many reasons: According
to
Google which archives the activity on these groups, this odd war has
been
going on for at least seven years, with Pangborn constantly making
reference to such an investigation. Not a legal expert here, but I
would
have to think that either some form of arrest or charge would have
been
filed in that time, or the investigation would have eventually closed
for
lack of evidence. I also don't suspect that you could even give out
information regarding an open investigation.
>
I know this is probably trivial and you are a busy person, but again,
I confronted Mr. Pangborn with some pretty clear cut evidence that we
knew he was behind at least some of this nonsense, and offered him the
opportunity
to defend himself, upon which he implored me to ask you.
>
>
>
>
> *********
And here is your e-mail where you invited me to contact Toomey:
>
Okay Rich - let's see. You can contact Detective Dan Toomey of the
city of Bolingbrook, Illinois police department. He's ONE of the
detectives in several jurisdictions working on the Moore situation.
There have been several detectives from the Pinellas County Sheriff's
department who have worked the case as well. I am not free to pass out
their names. But Toomey
has worked the case with Moore for years. He can confirm some things
to you.
>
> ******
>
Now, you want to show me where I came off as a "NUT"? How should I
have worded my request to the detective?
>
Rich
You didnt' come off as a "NUT" Rich. Pangborn's over reaction to
your contacting Toomey was the insane part of this tale.