....according to the laws in...

....well let's use Indiana!

"Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute

Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents that
involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would
cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and actually causes such
distress."

I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?

:-)

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> ...according to the laws in...
>
> ...well let's use Indiana!
>
> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>
> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents that
> involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would
> cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and actually causes such
> distress."
>
> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
>
> :-)

OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?

On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> ...according to the laws in...
>>
>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>
>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>
>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
>> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
>> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
>> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
>> actually causes such distress."
>>
>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
>>
>> :-)
>
> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
> your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?

You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
posted yesterday...

....except this one:

"Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"

Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> ...according to the laws in...
> >>
> >> ...well let's use Indiana!
> >>
> >> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> >>
> >> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
> >> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
> >> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
> >> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
> >> actually causes such distress."
> >>
> >> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> > OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
> > your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
> posted yesterday...
>
> ...except this one:
>
> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
> harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
> basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
>
> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
> same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?

Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are by not telling the whole truth, you lying little shit.

On 2022-11-28 10:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> ...according to the laws in...
>>>>
>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>>>
>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>>>
>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing
>>>> or intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more
>>>> incidents that involves repeated or continuing harassment of
>>>> another person that would cause him or her to suffer emotional
>>>> distress and actually causes such distress."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant
>>>> statute?
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress
>>> with your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that
>>> record?
>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you
>> last posted yesterday...
>>
>> ...except this one:
>>
>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your
>> own harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to
>> somewhere basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest
>> & petty?"
>>
>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much
>> the same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little
>> Shit?
>
> Never saw that one.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, Lying Little Shit.

You saw every post except that one.

LOL!

> I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are by
> not telling the whole truth, you lying little shit.

What part of the whole truth haven't I told, you Lying Little Shit?

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > >> ...according to the laws in...
> > >>
> > >> ...well let's use Indiana!
> > >>
> > >> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> > >>
> > >> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
> > >> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
> > >> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
> > >> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
> > >> actually causes such distress."
> > >>
> > >> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
> > >>
> > >> :-)
> > >
> > > OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
> > > your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
> > You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
> > posted yesterday...
> >
> > ...except this one:
> >
> > "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
> > harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
> > basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
> >
> > Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
> > same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
>
> Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are by not
> telling the whole truth, you lying little shit.

And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering this “never saw it”
question now that it has been specifically highlighted and acknowledged…

…how about it?

-hh

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> ...according to the laws in...
> >>
> >> ...well let's use Indiana!
> >>
> >> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> >>
> >> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
> >> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
> >> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
> >> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
> >> actually causes such distress."
> >>
> >> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> > OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
> > your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
> posted yesterday...
>
> ...except this one:
>
> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
> harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
> basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
>
> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
> same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?

BTW, does your employer know you are trolling USENET during working hours?

On 2022-11-28 10:28, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>>>>
>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>>>>
>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
>>>>> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
>>>>> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
>>>>> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
>>>>> actually causes such distress."
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
>>>> your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
>>> posted yesterday...
>>>
>>> ...except this one:
>>>
>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
>>> harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
>>> basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
>>>
>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
>>> same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
>>
>> Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are by not
>> telling the whole truth, you lying little shit.
>
> And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering this “never saw it”
> question now that it has been specifically highlighted and acknowledged…
>
> …how about it?

What's the over/under on him not seeing this post, do you suppose?

:-)

On 2022-11-28 10:28, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> ...according to the laws in...
>>>>
>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>>>
>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>>>
>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
>>>> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
>>>> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
>>>> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
>>>> actually causes such distress."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
>>> your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
>> posted yesterday...
>>
>> ...except this one:
>>
>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
>> harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
>> basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
>>
>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
>> same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
>
> BTW, does your employer know you are trolling USENET during working hours?

More non-threat threats, you Lying Little Shit?

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:28:03 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > >> ...according to the laws in...
> > > >>
> > > >> ...well let's use Indiana!
> > > >>
> > > >> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> > > >>
> > > >> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
> > > >> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
> > > >> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
> > > >> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
> > > >> actually causes such distress."
> > > >>
> > > >> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
> > > >>
> > > >> :-)
> > > >
> > > > OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
> > > > your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
> > > You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
> > > posted yesterday...
> > >
> > > ...except this one:
> > >
> > > "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
> > > harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
> > > basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
> > >
> > > Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
> > > same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
> >
> > Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are by not
> > telling the whole truth, you lying little shit.
> And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering this “never saw it”
> question now that it has been specifically highlighted and acknowledged…
>
> …how about it?
>
> -hh

I am going to back off a bit. However, I am not being dishonest. Alan is. So be it.

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-11-28 10:28, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> ...according to the laws in...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
> >>>>
> >>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> >>>>
> >>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
> >>>> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
> >>>> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
> >>>> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
> >>>> actually causes such distress."
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
> >>>>
> >>>> :-)
> >>>
> >>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
> >>> your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
> >> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
> >> posted yesterday...
> >>
> >> ...except this one:
> >>
> >> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
> >> harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
> >> basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
> >>
> >> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
> >> same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
> >
> > BTW, does your employer know you are trolling USENET during working hours?
> More non-threat threats, you Lying Little Shit?

Alan, I need to school you in privacy rights and social media. The principle is "reasonable expectation of privacy".

When you publish or post on social media, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Usenet, etc. do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? No, you have made that content public.

As one site explains:

"But blaming social media for diminished privacy may be a little like blaming a nudist colony for diminished privacy. It’s not so much the destination, as the participant’s choices of where to go and what to do there."

"Consider an individual’s postings on Facebook. A Facebook user may view his or her personal Facebook page as his or her domain, a little like his or her home. But a Facebook page is just one link in a colossal voluntary worldwide computer network. Except with the most stringent privacy settings, postings you make on Facebook can readily become known to many others.."

"Many courts have concluded, essentially, that once you post something viewable by anyone else on Facebook, you have forfeited any privacy interest in it. In one early social media privacy case, involving MySpace, a court noted, “Cynthia's affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and thus opened it to the public eye. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person would have had an expectation of privacy regarding the published material.”

<snip>

"And contrary to the prevailing belief in social media exceptionalism, social media activity isn’t really treated differently under the law. A basic principle of privacy law for years has been that your privacy rights depend upon whether you have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The reasonableness of your expectations has always been judged from a common-sense totality-of-the circumstances approach, regardless of the physical or virtual area of activity."

"You may have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to a diary you keep at your bedside, but not to papers you leave visible in your workplace. Your activities in an isolated, fenced, and tree-shielded home create a stronger expectation of privacy than your activities in a high-rise apartment with the curtains open."

"Social media privacy cases simply apply that long-standing “reasonable expectation of privacy” principle to Internet situations. Looking at the way Facebook and other social media sites work, most courts have concluded that once something is voluntarily posted on Facebook, it no longer carries a reasonable expectation of privacy. You give up your privacy by posting something on accessible Facebook pages."

What I have cited is all material you have posted on various social media places. As for the address of your condo building, you made that available at some point and Google Maps/Google Earth shows it by searching "bakerMEDIA Vancouver". bakerMEDIA is known to be your company via LinkedIn and postings elsewhere, including FaceBook at one time. Google Earth even shows your phone number and a closing time of 8pm.

Your condo number at your address is from a "whois" domain query some years back. You now have the record protected. To my knowledge I have never put that detail in any posts.

With the building's street address it is possible to find easily available information on your building and the area around it. That's one step removed, but the information is generic and public and anyone with a Vancouver street number can easily find it.

Now for a fuzzy example. Not fuzzy really it's probably over the line. Using information on your condo number there is public information available from certain public government websites that could be considered very sensitive. While public, publishing this very specific information could be considered a breach of privacy. I'll not be going there.

Anything public facing we put on Facebook, LinkedIn, UseNet, TikTok, Instagram etc. is fair game if not protected. If you want privacy you need to make it private. On Facebook you have blocked your posts and pictures from my view, and I presume others too. BUT, your 632 Facebook friends are still public. I am free to browse those. But, if I were to send Alan McColl embarrassing information about you then that is an issue. I would never do that. It's just not right. If I were to hack your Facebook account, a feat I know how to accomplish, then viewing posts you made private would be a clear violation of the expectation of privacy principle. All I need to do is get one of your friends that you have not blocked to friend me. The motive for doing that is a clear problem.

If I were to use your employer information in LinkedIn to send your company the very sensitive information mentioned above that could be an issue, even though the company can look it up themselves. )I do wonder if they know you are posted on social media during working hours.)

Bottom line is that you have published or otherwise made available information that is, by definition, public. Anyone is free to access it. In my case my home address and lots of other interesting information is available because I until recently had it on my company site.

Asking questions like why you state on LinkedIn you were in high school from 1975-1980 is fair game. Or, why you were in college for only one year. You certainly don't have to answer, but you made those statements. And, if you decide to change the info, I have screen shots.

So go ahead and make empty threats.

On 2022-11-28 15:38, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-11-28 10:28, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as
>>>>>> knowing or intentional course of conduct consisting of two
>>>>>> or more incidents that involves repeated or continuing
>>>>>> harassment of another person that would cause him or her to
>>>>>> suffer emotional distress and actually causes such
>>>>>> distress."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant
>>>>>> statute?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional
>>>>> distress with your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I
>>>>> send that record?
>>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since
>>>> you last posted yesterday...
>>>>
>>>> ...except this one:
>>>>
>>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop
>>>> your own harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts
>>>> to somewhere basically irrelevant because you’re just being
>>>> dishonest & petty?"
>>>>
>>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty
>>>> much the same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying
>>>> Little Shit?
>>>
>>> BTW, does your employer know you are trolling USENET during
>>> working hours?
>> More non-threat threats, you Lying Little Shit?
>
> Alan, I need to school you in privacy rights and social media. The
> principle is "reasonable expectation of privacy".

You really don't, you Lying Little Shit.

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:13:08 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-11-28 15:38, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-28 10:28, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as
> >>>>>> knowing or intentional course of conduct consisting of two
> >>>>>> or more incidents that involves repeated or continuing
> >>>>>> harassment of another person that would cause him or her to
> >>>>>> suffer emotional distress and actually causes such
> >>>>>> distress."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant
> >>>>>> statute?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional
> >>>>> distress with your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I
> >>>>> send that record?
> >>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since
> >>>> you last posted yesterday...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...except this one:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop
> >>>> your own harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts
> >>>> to somewhere basically irrelevant because you’re just being
> >>>> dishonest & petty?"
> >>>>
> >>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty
> >>>> much the same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying
> >>>> Little Shit?
> >>>
> >>> BTW, does your employer know you are trolling USENET during
> >>> working hours?
> >> More non-threat threats, you Lying Little Shit?
> >
> > Alan, I need to school you in privacy rights and social media. The
> > principle is "reasonable expectation of privacy".
> You really don't, you Lying Little Shit.

Apparently, you do need schooling. I'll not be contacting your employer, but legally I could send a few snips with time stamps to Digital Financial.

BTW You really should change your LinkedIn photo to the one on your company's site. The LinkedIn version is downright scary.

So Alan, it was you who harassed me on certain student pilot logbook entries that I made public. Right? You stridently claimed, based on no relevant experience or factual foundation, that I could not do 15 touch and goes in an hour. This despite the fact that I did not make the logbook entries. Those were done and signed by my flight instructor. I did not count landings. I was way too busy flying the airplane. I trusted the instructor to make the entries. If questioned I would have deferred to him.

In your case I just asked a few questions based on material you made available. Same thing, right? But, unlike you. I answered the questions. Nothing to hide here. What are you hiding?

Just tell us why you are now a full-time employee. Absent your answer people will assume the worst about the financial viability of bakerMEDIA.

On 2022-11-29 07:06, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:13:08 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-11-28 15:38, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-28 10:28, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as
>>>>>>>> knowing or intentional course of conduct consisting of
>>>>>>>> two or more incidents that involves repeated or
>>>>>>>> continuing harassment of another person that would
>>>>>>>> cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
>>>>>>>> actually causes such distress."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the
>>>>>>>> relevant statute?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional
>>>>>>> distress with your unfounded accusations of lying. Where
>>>>>>> do I send that record?
>>>>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made
>>>>>> since you last posted yesterday...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...except this one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to
>>>>>> stop your own harassment, or are you going to try to move
>>>>>> goalposts to somewhere basically irrelevant because you’re
>>>>>> just being dishonest & petty?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty"
>>>>>> pretty much the same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit",
>>>>>> you Lying Little Shit?
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, does your employer know you are trolling USENET during
>>>>> working hours?
>>>> More non-threat threats, you Lying Little Shit?
>>>
>>> Alan, I need to school you in privacy rights and social media.
>>> The principle is "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>> You really don't, you Lying Little Shit.
>
> Apparently, you do need schooling. I'll not be contacting your
> employer, but legally I could send a few snips with time stamps to
> Digital Financial.
>
> BTW You really should change your LinkedIn photo to the one on your
> company's site. The LinkedIn version is downright scary.
>
> So Alan, it was you who harassed me on certain student pilot logbook
> entries that I made public. Right? You stridently claimed, based on
> no relevant experience or factual foundation, that I could not do 15
> touch and goes in an hour. This despite the fact that I did not make
> the logbook entries. Those were done and signed by my flight
> instructor. I did not count landings. I was way too busy flying the
> airplane. I trusted the instructor to make the entries. If questioned
> I would have deferred to him.

Finding you to be dishonest isn't harassment, you Lying Little Shit.

YOU provided the logbook entries.

I didn't go looking for them.

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:32:00 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:28:03 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > >> ...according to the laws in...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ...well let's use Indiana!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
> > > > >> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
> > > > >> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
> > > > >> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
> > > > >> actually causes such distress."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
> > > > > your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
> > > > You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
> > > > posted yesterday...
> > > >
> > > > ...except this one:
> > > >
> > > > "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
> > > > harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
> > > > basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
> > > >
> > > > Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
> > > > same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
> > >
> > > Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are by not
> > > telling the whole truth, you lying little shit.
> >
> > And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering this “never saw it”
> > question now that it has been specifically highlighted and acknowledged…
> >
> > …how about it?
> >
> >
> I am going to back off a bit. However, I am not being dishonest. Alan is. So be it.

That’s not answering the question posed.

Insofar as dishonesty, I see the seeking out and posting of public information
which were not posted here by their owner as constituting harassing actions,
particularly when their owner objected to agreeing to have them republished in
a new location/medium/etc.

And heartening way back to student flight records, please refresh my recollections,
as I don’t feel like looking it up right now: I thought the point was that those “15 in
an hour” was represented as timestamped accurately, but upon retrospective
examination, didn’t appear particularly plausible to be what was being claimed.

-hh

On 2022-11-29 11:20, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:32:00 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:28:03 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
>>>>>>> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
>>>>>>> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
>>>>>>> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
>>>>>>> actually causes such distress."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
>>>>>> your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
>>>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
>>>>> posted yesterday...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...except this one:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
>>>>> harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
>>>>> basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
>>>>> same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
>>>>
>>>> Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are by not
>>>> telling the whole truth, you lying little shit.
>>>
>>> And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering this “never saw it”
>>> question now that it has been specifically highlighted and acknowledged…
>>>
>>> …how about it?
>>>
>>>
>> I am going to back off a bit. However, I am not being dishonest. Alan is. So be it.
>
> That’s not answering the question posed.
>
> Insofar as dishonesty, I see the seeking out and posting of public information
> which were not posted here by their owner as constituting harassing actions,
> particularly when their owner objected to agreeing to have them republished in
> a new location/medium/etc.
>
> And heartening way back to student flight records, please refresh my recollections,
> as I don’t feel like looking it up right now: I thought the point was that those “15 in
> an hour” was represented as timestamped accurately, but upon retrospective
> examination, didn’t appear particularly plausible to be what was being claimed.
>
> -hh

And those records were explicitly made available by him in order to
discuss them:

'June 8, 2015, 8:11:20 PM

Just FYI, this is what it takes to get to that first solo, and safely.'

So the Lying Little Shit put them into CSMA and thus, up for discussion.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-11-29 11:20, -hh wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:32:00 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:28:03 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as knowing or
> >>>>>>> intentional course of conduct consisting of two or more incidents
> >>>>>>> that involves repeated or continuing harassment of another person
> >>>>>>> that would cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
> >>>>>>> actually causes such distress."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the relevant statute?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional distress with
> >>>>>> your unfounded accusations of lying. Where do I send that record?
> >>>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made since you last
> >>>>> posted yesterday...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...except this one:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to stop your own
> >>>>> harassment, or are you going to try to move goalposts to somewhere
> >>>>> basically irrelevant because you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty" pretty much the
> >>>>> same as saying he is a "Lying Little Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
> >>>>
> >>>> Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are by not
> >>>> telling the whole truth, you lying little shit.
> >>>
> >>> And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering this “never saw it”
> >>> question now that it has been specifically highlighted and acknowledged…
> >>>
> >>> …how about it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I am going to back off a bit. However, I am not being dishonest. Alan is. So be it.
> >
> > That’s not answering the question posed.
> >
> > Insofar as dishonesty, I see the seeking out and posting of public information
> > which were not posted here by their owner as constituting harassing actions,
> > particularly when their owner objected to agreeing to have them republished in
> > a new location/medium/etc.
> >
> > And heartening way back to student flight records, please refresh my recollections,
> > as I don’t feel like looking it up right now: I thought the point was that those “15 in
> > an hour” was represented as timestamped accurately, but upon retrospective
> > examination, didn’t appear particularly plausible to be what was being claimed.
> >
> > -hh
> And those records were explicitly made available by him in order to
> discuss them:
>
> 'June 8, 2015, 8:11:20 PM
>
> Just FYI, this is what it takes to get to that first solo, and safely.'
>
> So the Lying Little Shit put them into CSMA and thus, up for discussion.

Liar! There is no set minimum number of landings required for solo. You have to satisfy your CFI that you are ready, and the weather has to be OK too. I have known pilots who took 10-20 hours and more than a hundred landings to solo. Others, like me, 7-10 hours. A major factor is how often you take those first lessons. I flew almost every week for 2 months and my instructor recorded about 60 landings. Those who take longer between lessons lose muscle and sight picture memory.

After my solo I did one more short lesson then flew nothing but take offs and landings almost weekly from April 12 to June 8 1967. I would work at the airport on the weekend, and when my shift was over I would go fly before heading home. By the time I graduated to cross country I had over 125 landings, more dual hours other than landings, and was ready for the next step.

As for your documented facts, those were also published by you and up for discussion. Example, you gave out your company address as your home address. That makes you easy to find. Google Earth. Example, your posts on race results, problems with your old Kent engine, your LinkedIn info, FaceBook's favorite quote, etc.

Precisely what have I discussed that was not first obtained from you?

BTW, you are all welcome to drop in on my infant YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcvZXi-36GQkeHr0FdB4cTg
Still learning how to work with video, I'm not very good at it, yet.

On 2022-12-05 14:40, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-11-29 11:20, -hh wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:32:00 PM UTC+1, Thomas E.
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:28:03 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E.
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as
>>>>>>>>> knowing or intentional course of conduct consisting
>>>>>>>>> of two or more incidents that involves repeated or
>>>>>>>>> continuing harassment of another person that would
>>>>>>>>> cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
>>>>>>>>> actually causes such distress."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the
>>>>>>>>> relevant statute?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional
>>>>>>>> distress with your unfounded accusations of lying.
>>>>>>>> Where do I send that record?
>>>>>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made
>>>>>>> since you last posted yesterday...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...except this one:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to
>>>>>>> stop your own harassment, or are you going to try to move
>>>>>>> goalposts to somewhere basically irrelevant because
>>>>>>> you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty"
>>>>>>> pretty much the same as saying he is a "Lying Little
>>>>>>> Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here,
>>>>>> you are by not telling the whole truth, you lying little
>>>>>> shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering
>>>>> this “never saw it” question now that it has been
>>>>> specifically highlighted and acknowledged…
>>>>>
>>>>> …how about it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I am going to back off a bit. However, I am not being
>>>> dishonest. Alan is. So be it.
>>>
>>> That’s not answering the question posed.
>>>
>>> Insofar as dishonesty, I see the seeking out and posting of
>>> public information which were not posted here by their owner as
>>> constituting harassing actions, particularly when their owner
>>> objected to agreeing to have them republished in a new
>>> location/medium/etc.
>>>
>>> And heartening way back to student flight records, please refresh
>>> my recollections, as I don’t feel like looking it up right now: I
>>> thought the point was that those “15 in an hour” was represented
>>> as timestamped accurately, but upon retrospective examination,
>>> didn’t appear particularly plausible to be what was being
>>> claimed.
>>>
>>> -hh
>> And those records were explicitly made available by him in order
>> to discuss them:
>>
>> 'June 8, 2015, 8:11:20 PM
>>
>> Just FYI, this is what it takes to get to that first solo, and
>> safely.'
>>
>> So the Lying Little Shit put them into CSMA and thus, up for
>> discussion.
>
> Liar! There is no set minimum number of landings required for solo.

Where did I say there was a set minimum, you lying little shit. I just
quoted

This was about the fact that you're comparing you offering up
information for anyone who reads CSMA to peruse as equivalent to you
deciding to my any and all personal information of mine you care to find
here.

<snipping your complete deflection>

> As for your documented facts, those were also published by you and up
> for discussion. Example, you gave out your company address as your
> home address. That makes you easy to find. Google Earth. Example,
> your posts on race results, problems with your old Kent engine, your
> LinkedIn info, FaceBook's favorite quote, etc.

I didn't offer them up here, Lying Little Shit.

There is a difference between someone saying "Here: take a look at these
things about me" and you scouring the net for my personal information
and offering up here.

>
> Precisely what have I discussed that was not first obtained from
> you?

Irrelevant, Lying Little Shit.

<further irrelevancies snipped>

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 9:19:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-12-05 14:40, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-29 11:20, -hh wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:32:00 PM UTC+1, Thomas E.
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:28:03 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E.
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as
> >>>>>>>>> knowing or intentional course of conduct consisting
> >>>>>>>>> of two or more incidents that involves repeated or
> >>>>>>>>> continuing harassment of another person that would
> >>>>>>>>> cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
> >>>>>>>>> actually causes such distress."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the
> >>>>>>>>> relevant statute?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional
> >>>>>>>> distress with your unfounded accusations of lying.
> >>>>>>>> Where do I send that record?
> >>>>>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made
> >>>>>>> since you last posted yesterday...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ...except this one:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to
> >>>>>>> stop your own harassment, or are you going to try to move
> >>>>>>> goalposts to somewhere basically irrelevant because
> >>>>>>> you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty"
> >>>>>>> pretty much the same as saying he is a "Lying Little
> >>>>>>> Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here,
> >>>>>> you are by not telling the whole truth, you lying little
> >>>>>> shit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering
> >>>>> this “never saw it” question now that it has been
> >>>>> specifically highlighted and acknowledged…
> >>>>>
> >>>>> …how about it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I am going to back off a bit. However, I am not being
> >>>> dishonest. Alan is. So be it.
> >>>
> >>> That’s not answering the question posed.
> >>>
> >>> Insofar as dishonesty, I see the seeking out and posting of
> >>> public information which were not posted here by their owner as
> >>> constituting harassing actions, particularly when their owner
> >>> objected to agreeing to have them republished in a new
> >>> location/medium/etc.
> >>>
> >>> And heartening way back to student flight records, please refresh
> >>> my recollections, as I don’t feel like looking it up right now: I
> >>> thought the point was that those “15 in an hour” was represented
> >>> as timestamped accurately, but upon retrospective examination,
> >>> didn’t appear particularly plausible to be what was being
> >>> claimed.
> >>>
> >>> -hh
> >> And those records were explicitly made available by him in order
> >> to discuss them:
> >>
> >> 'June 8, 2015, 8:11:20 PM
> >>
> >> Just FYI, this is what it takes to get to that first solo, and
> >> safely.'
> >>
> >> So the Lying Little Shit put them into CSMA and thus, up for
> >> discussion.
> >
> > Liar! There is no set minimum number of landings required for solo.
> Where did I say there was a set minimum, you lying little shit. I just
> quoted
>
> This was about the fact that you're comparing you offering up
> information for anyone who reads CSMA to peruse as equivalent to you
> deciding to my any and all personal information of mine you care to find
> here.
>
> <snipping your complete deflection>
> > As for your documented facts, those were also published by you and up
> > for discussion. Example, you gave out your company address as your
> > home address. That makes you easy to find. Google Earth. Example,
> > your posts on race results, problems with your old Kent engine, your
> > LinkedIn info, FaceBook's favorite quote, etc.
> I didn't offer them up here, Lying Little Shit.
>
> There is a difference between someone saying "Here: take a look at these
> things about me" and you scouring the net for my personal information
> and offering up here.
> >
> > Precisely what have I discussed that was not first obtained from
> > you?
> Irrelevant, Lying Little Shit.
>
> <further irrelevancies snipped>

Ah, I missed the single quotes in what you posted.

On 2022-12-07 09:27, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 9:19:32 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-12-05 14:40, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 3:13:35 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-29 11:20, -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:32:00 PM UTC+1, Thomas E.
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:28:03 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:19:24 PM UTC+1, Thomas E.
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-11-28 06:50, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...according to the laws in...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...well let's use Indiana!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Criminal Stalking under Indiana Statute
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1, stalking is defined as
>>>>>>>>>>> knowing or intentional course of conduct consisting
>>>>>>>>>>> of two or more incidents that involves repeated or
>>>>>>>>>>> continuing harassment of another person that would
>>>>>>>>>>> cause him or her to suffer emotional distress and
>>>>>>>>>>> actually causes such distress."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if anyone else here has checked out the
>>>>>>>>>>> relevant statute?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OH Alan, for over 10 years you have caused me emotional
>>>>>>>>>> distress with your unfounded accusations of lying.
>>>>>>>>>> Where do I send that record?
>>>>>>>>> You replied to every post made to you / about you made
>>>>>>>>> since you last posted yesterday...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...except this one:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Well Tom? Is this a sufficient explanation for you to
>>>>>>>>> stop your own harassment, or are you going to try to move
>>>>>>>>> goalposts to somewhere basically irrelevant because
>>>>>>>>> you’re just being dishonest & petty?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now... ...isn't saying someone is "dishonest & petty"
>>>>>>>>> pretty much the same as saying he is a "Lying Little
>>>>>>>>> Shit", you Lying Little Shit?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Never saw that one. I'm not the one being dishonest here,
>>>>>>>> you are by not telling the whole truth, you lying little
>>>>>>>> shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And here I thought the dishonesty was in avoiding answering
>>>>>>> this “never saw it” question now that it has been
>>>>>>> specifically highlighted and acknowledged…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> …how about it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am going to back off a bit. However, I am not being
>>>>>> dishonest. Alan is. So be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s not answering the question posed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Insofar as dishonesty, I see the seeking out and posting of
>>>>> public information which were not posted here by their owner as
>>>>> constituting harassing actions, particularly when their owner
>>>>> objected to agreeing to have them republished in a new
>>>>> location/medium/etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> And heartening way back to student flight records, please refresh
>>>>> my recollections, as I don’t feel like looking it up right now: I
>>>>> thought the point was that those “15 in an hour” was represented
>>>>> as timestamped accurately, but upon retrospective examination,
>>>>> didn’t appear particularly plausible to be what was being
>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh
>>>> And those records were explicitly made available by him in order
>>>> to discuss them:
>>>>
>>>> 'June 8, 2015, 8:11:20 PM
>>>>
>>>> Just FYI, this is what it takes to get to that first solo, and
>>>> safely.'
>>>>
>>>> So the Lying Little Shit put them into CSMA and thus, up for
>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Liar! There is no set minimum number of landings required for solo.
>> Where did I say there was a set minimum, you lying little shit. I just
>> quoted
>>
>> This was about the fact that you're comparing you offering up
>> information for anyone who reads CSMA to peruse as equivalent to you
>> deciding to my any and all personal information of mine you care to find
>> here.
>>
>> <snipping your complete deflection>
>>> As for your documented facts, those were also published by you and up
>>> for discussion. Example, you gave out your company address as your
>>> home address. That makes you easy to find. Google Earth. Example,
>>> your posts on race results, problems with your old Kent engine, your
>>> LinkedIn info, FaceBook's favorite quote, etc.
>> I didn't offer them up here, Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> There is a difference between someone saying "Here: take a look at these
>> things about me" and you scouring the net for my personal information
>> and offering up here.
>>>
>>> Precisely what have I discussed that was not first obtained from
>>> you?
>> Irrelevant, Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> <further irrelevancies snipped>
>
> Ah, I missed the single quotes in what you posted.

You are good at excuses, Lying Little Shit.