snipped-for-privacy@NRismykicktoy.pacbell.net (Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball) wrote in news: email@example.com:
>>>Again, show where I changed my story. I'm calling you two out. Mike
>>>had a chance to come get me but he turned into a little twatmuffin
>>Why would I go down to Sacramento after you said that Linux Guru/Aflac
>>Steve Chaney wasn't you?
> Excuses, excuses. You're such a Cranft! midget welch boy. I told you I
> was coming to see you. Is your head so hard that you can't comprehend
> that there'd be TWO Steve Chaneys there - some Aflac dude and then also
> me? Is that so hard to grasp?
No, but is very hard to believe that there are two Steve A Chaney's that claim to be unix guru's living in the same area, especially when the only "proof" is coming from a habitual liar that has gone to great lengths to prevent anyone from knowing his real location.
You usually side with retards. I wonder why that is.
That one always stings.
Yes, I do.
Now now Kim. Exactly where did I make fun of this person? All I did was ask Steve Chaney to give his honest opinion about her SMV. You seem to be even more retardeder than usual today. Why is that? Would it help to knock down a margarita or five?
What is the joke? Where is the joke?
You seem to be Steve's friend even after he used Enialle's daughter in a manner far worse than the manner you claim I am using this woman's picture. Why is that?
The laws probably vary by state. I'm not interested enough to look it up.
I don't know. You seem pretty wound up so far as I can tell.
Maybe it's one of the several people whose pictures Steve posted back when he was calling Mindyloo "Parachute Panties?" You do remember those pictures, don't you? Back when he was forging Jackie?
Actually it's not one of those pictures. However, feel free to ask Steve who it is. I'm not going to tell you.
Asking Steve to give his opinion of her is not making fun of her.
Or maybe she poisons dogs. How about that?
LOL. You learned nothing from Jackie or Doctor Dan. Your SMV learning curve is Y=0.
Is that what it was when you and Nil=0 were poking Ledford?
Yes, please do.
And I should feel compelled to respond precisely why?
Why do you think I am asking Steve about her SMV? And why do you think Steve has failed to respond?
What do you think about her SMV?
Did he stop after Crash asked him to? No. Did he stop after Enialle asked him to? No.
Steve stalked Enialle's minor daughter on myspace and posted all sorts of shit about her. A minor girl. A total noncombatant. He persists even after everyone tells him what an asshole he is being, but stops about a few weeks later after he's run out of steam. He didn't stop because anybody asked him to stop. He stopped because he wasn't getting any more mileage out of it.
I post a link to a picture of a woman and ask Steve what he thinks of this woman.
You compare this unfavorably with Steve's behavior.
Could you possibly be any stupider? I don't think so. You haven't learned anything over the years. Every time you jump to Steve's defense, you find yourself defending the indefensible. Yet you still do it, like the proverbial flat-nosed polish dog chasing a parked car.
You are a complete idiot, Kim.
LOL. See above.
Yes, you and George W. Bush have a lot in common in that respect.
Yes but did I ever say "I'm coming to Monrovia to meet you"? No. Did I post anything other than publicly posted and available stuff? No. Did I claim to call ... er, ROTFLMAO!! did I ever claim my "spies" called around and asked about her? No.
On the other hand you posted the name and address of a total noncombatant - Tammy Chaney - and OPENLY called for her to be harassed over the phone. Something else I haven't done to Ondrea or her family. You've done SO MUCH MORE real lifing than me in that comparison.
You agree with my characterization of your behavior. Take note of that kimkunt.
Everything that follows your admission of "yes" is utterly irrelevant to kimkunt's point and my response.
You stalked a 16 year old girl on myspace like some pedo freak. Maybe MSNBC will be doing a show about you soon. Remember when you picked up that third grade boy at the bus stop to take him to "school?"
You correctly surmised that this was a rhetorical question. Congratulations.
Another retard zinger.
Well then let me refresh your recollection. I kept the pictures, and I've prepared a nice little slideshow for you.
These were all pictures that Steve used while forging Jackie, claiming that Jackie was sexually involved with them or found them sexually desirable.
How do you feel about Steve's use of these women, Kimkunt?
It's no spin at all, you dolt.
Tell that to the 20 or so women Steve used while trying to get back at Jackie.
What you might find desirable or undesirable has negligible effect on the concept of sexual market value. A person with high SMV will be sexually attractive to a high percentage of members of the opposite/appropriate gender. A person with low SMB will be sexually attractive to a low percentage of members of the opposite/appropriate gender.
Being nice to animals, being a good cook, and having a nice smile do not translate into inspiring members of the opposite/appropriate gender to want to jump their bones. They might, however, be relevant to such questions as whether this person would serve as a good pet sitter or whether you might want to attend a dinner party he or she hosted.
As I may have mentioned previously, you are quite stupid.
The interesting thing about this comment is that it follows so closely after your histrionic outrage concerning my posting the picture of some woman who happens to be named Teresa Chaney. Almost immediately following your display of moral outrage over my use of a non-combatant to get at Steve, you bring up another non-combatant -- Leanne -- to get at me.
I'm quite sure you can't even begin to contemplate the hypocritical idiocy of your action. It's almost bewildering how stupid you are.
I'm sure you'll offer some sleazy rationalization about how Leanne was once a player in the soc.wars. What was that, 6 years ago?
He could pay someone to stand next to him. Oh wait, no he couldn't... nevermind.
Not guilty by reason of insanity. Anyone dating Cranston automatically makes that legal saving throw.
BTW it's funny how you have NOTHING to say, as usual, about your buddy's latest round of real lifing and subsequent welching. What's your excuse du jour this time? This should be good. Of course this is typically when you dive back into the hole for a few months in hopes that my challenge to you will be forgotten. What with you being such a phenomenal chickenshit and hypocrite, and all.