Mark is once again continuing with his tirade of stalking and actually
believes that I would waste my time suing him. I've said multiple
times that he is not worth suing because he doesn't have anything of
value. He is a pauper at best. I would be better off litigating
against a homeless person, at least they can pan handle and obtain
some kind of income. Nevertheless, we see how Mark is a man of his
words, he tells me to take down my blog (which I did, but not because
he said) and to not post about him, which I didn't, yet here he is, as
usual he proves.....well you know.

And since he started this for today, I had to laugh when I saw one of
his posts begging everyone to come over on his boring blog and post
some comments, he sounds like Lloyd. He is so needy isn't he. He was
so needy for attention he even sent me an email to my gmail account.
What a joke.

Dloyd.

On Mar 27, 8:18?pm, wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:07:00 -0700, "Dloyd Lavies"
wrote:

Mark is once again continuing with his tirade of stalking and actually
believes that I would waste my time suing him.

"In consideration of the recent situation on RRAM and RRAP, and
threats of death and blackmail received by me. I was advised to
archive my two blogs pending possible further litigation and approval
of protectionary "John Doe" status before proceeding in this matter.
So at this time I have suspended my blogs until further notice"

I supose you do have apoint I was indeed silly to believe you might
ever tell the truth about anything

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com
stealing data from my wifes accounts is unaccaptable
Dloyd Lavies renagade cyber theif and terroist

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Mark's pathetic plea for attention is not granted

Being married to an alleged woman while lusting after men
is unacceptable, Mark Morgan Bi-Sexual Cyber Stalker
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com

On Mar 27, 8:55?pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:33 pm, "Dloyd Lavies" wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:18?pm, wrote:

Being married to an alleged woman while lusting after men
is unacceptable, Mark Morgan Bi-Sexualhttp://kb9rqz.blogspot.com

unacceptable to whom? you you are not even a real person just a card
board cut out

one Id like to use for target practice, sadly the law would never
allow that. It would and oes allow me to simply kill under a number of
circumstances, circumstances that I do hope come to pass, as I would
indeed enjoy it

well at least you are coming out the closet as a gay bashing bigot as
opposed to denying that obvious fact about yourself

Well at least you finally admited that your are in fact gay.

Nevertheless, I like gay's just fine, its those screwed up bi-sexuals
like you who are an enigma. "but if you don't like this treatment you
know what you can do"

I tell you what, do you want to really want to have person to person
conflict. Find a place where it is legal, and we can have it out. I
have no problems handling firearms, been shooting almost weekly for
the past 25+ years. So if your really want to prove your valor,
reseach the possibilities, and I will give it serious consideration.

On Mar 27, 9:09?pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 27, 9:05 pm, "Dloyd Lavies" wrote:





On Mar 27, 8:55?pm, "
wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:33 pm, "Dloyd Lavies" wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:18?pm, wrote:

Being married to an alleged woman while lusting after men
is unacceptable, Mark Morgan Bi-Sexualhttp://kb9rqz.blogspot.com

unacceptable to whom? you you are not even a real person just a card
board cut out

one Id like to use for target practice, sadly the law would never
allow that. It would and oes allow me to simply kill under a number of
circumstances, circumstances that I do hope come to pass, as I would
indeed enjoy it

well at least you are coming out the closet as a gay bashing bigot as
opposed to denying that obvious fact about yourself

Well at least you finally admited that your are in fact gay.

No Dloyd stalker and teroist I admit you claim I am gay

Nevertheless, I like gay's just fine,

an obvious lie you post just up the page on google (in other
Newsreader YMMV) that find it it unacactable for me to be involed with
someone you claim is a man

if you truly had no problem with gay youd have no problem with the
alleged she male I married- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never said I ever had a problem with who you marrried. I even
commited at one time that I thought that she seemed to be a well
adjusted individual, but odd that she ended up with a wacko like you.
She must of been hard up, though her biological clock was ticking
away. BTW its others that call her a she-male, not I, I just said
alleged because you have never clarified with so many posters bringing
it into question.

On Mar 27, 9:24�pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 27, 9:18 pm, "Dloyd Lavies" wrote:

On Mar 27, 9:09?pm, "
wrote:

I never said I ever had a problem with who you marrried.

"Being married to an alleged woman while lusting after men
is unacceptable, Mark Morgan Bi-Sexual "
liar
Dloyd Lavies cyber terorist theif and biphobe extraorfidnary

*it is amazing how much you do sound like Robeson

if it wee not for the fact I know BiPhobes are *comon
and general more screwed than mere Gay bashers
*you might indeed convince to go after Robeson for
*your entertainment

OTOH ifyou had truly obtained the advice of conseul
*as you alege on you revived blog he would have told
*you to stay away from me, lest you **** up your chances in court

I know you are a theif. a coward, and truely a mad man, and liar

I have no reason to stay away from you, albeit YOU started up with
today's session. Nevertheless, the possible litigation has very
little to do with you. You are yet just one vehicle of many that may
provide the basis of possible litigation, and yet you may even reap
some benefits from a possible action. However, at this time it is
very premature and these types of actions can multiple years to
complete.

On Mar 27, 9:38?pm, wrote:
would you consider doing a favor and point out what this is at some
point? I am mild curious from an acedemic PoV

Not at this time, the firm I have employed meets at the end of next
month to discuss this issue and at that time will determine the
validity of filing an action. However, I have one of the junior
partners on board thus far.

On Mar 27, 10:03�pm, wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 19:01:38 -0700, "Dloyd Lavies"
wrote:

On Mar 27, 9:38?pm, wrote:
would you consider doing a favor and point out what this is at some
point? I am mild curious from an acedemic PoV

Not at this time,

I see *with go for it

BTW did anyone disabuse you of the ntion that merely mentioning your
chosen nickname on USENET is not a criminal act

I know that Mark, but I believe that the terms that you used in
indicating your intent to carry out my death were excessive.

and You realy expect any milage out of posting a fake death threat on
your blog?

I did not know it was fake. Someone emailed that to me through
blogger at my gmail account and it appeared to have came from one of
your valid email addresses. I am not an IT forensics analyst, I leave
that up to the professionals. As you know there are many forgers on
here, you even have one post on your blog that did not come from me
(the one that said you will never catch me), but there always will be
people who want to inflame a situation if they can.

"Dloyd Lavies" wrote:

I've said multiple
times that he is not worth suing because he doesn't have anything of
value.

Doesn't he have a cool cookbook, and Steven Segal videos?

On Mar 27, 10:38�pm, wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 19:22:28 -0700, "Dloyd Lavies"
wrote:





On Mar 27, 10:03?pm, wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 19:01:38 -0700, "Dloyd Lavies"
wrote:

On Mar 27, 9:38?pm, wrote:
would you consider doing a favor and point out what this is at some
point? I am mild curious from an acedemic PoV

Not at this time,

I see 7ith go for it

BTW did anyone disabuse you of the ntion that merely mentioning your
chosen nickname on USENET is not a criminal act

I know that Mark............

then you were lying when you claimed that my mentioning your name was
stalking you in violation of Michigan stalking laws

That is not what I claimed, what I claimed was your continued posting
to my blog implying that you were going to cause me harm, after I had
told you to stop posting is a violation of Michigan law. One of the
parameters of Michigan anti-stalking laws is you have to make it clear
that you have demanded the party to STOP the harrassing behavior. I
have clearly asked you to stop the behavior yet you persisted, in
violation of your own states law.


............., but I believe that the terms that you used in
indicating your intent to carry out my death were excessive.

possiblly but I don't. nor does my friend the sheriff here but
analysing the rresult of various senarios is not an expression of
intent you reading are really poor Dloyd

No, I think your writing skills are also not the best.



and You realy expect any milage out of posting a fake death threat on
your blog?

I did not know it was fake.

did not know? does this mean you NOW know it is fake.

I am willing to take your word.

frankly I am shocked you have not receieved dozens of such emailI have
received at least 40 of them claiming to be from from YOU promising my
death at your hands

I have never e-mailed you. You may find this hard to believe but I do
have standards. As far as your wifes account is concerned I never
hacked into anything, all of the information came up on a routine
search on google, if anything I would be mad at Amazon for not
securing the information if you deemed it so personal.

such things are part and parcel of the stalker that seek to provoke
combat on RRAP for their entertainment

I agree.


a faction that you are either part of or a tool of

I am nethier a part of or a tool, everything I have posted has been on
my own accord in response from what I percieve is attacks/harrassment
by you.

*Someone emailed that to me through
blogger at my gmail account and it appeared to have came from one of
your valid email addresses.

again the question stands do you now accept it as a fraud?

I will have to take your word if you deny sending the email, it is
still in my gmail account.

*As you know there are many forgers on
here, you even have one post on your blog that did not come from me
(the one that said you will never catch me), but there always will be
people who want to inflame a situation if they can.

not sure which you are referring to I do recall clearing a post
perporting to you that I added a further sugesting I belived it likely
a forgery

I also submit you have alose admitted you know there are many forgers
trying to inflame RRAP

Indeed that is one reason I can never acced to your stated demand that
refrain from replying to your posts since if I agreed to such I rather
suspect every one of the RRAP forgers would suddenly be "Dloyd Lavies"
and I could not post any replies at all

I agree, but attacking me at will is something that I will not sustain
for your entertaiment purposes.

another being I often don't look at who is posting but resrict my
comentary to meat of the post

But can you conceed that renaming every thread is not really
accomplishing anything, it only makes the NG hard to read for people
like me who read directly through google, I would never subscribe too
much spam.

thrid of course being Principle as I see it any demand I refrain
excerising my free speech right esp by means of a threat as you is
extrotionate attack on my civil rights

But also under the same principle, I should also have the right to
post without being deluged with boilerplate posts that state "stalking
thread" or woger this or dloyd that.

If you accept the email as fraud I demen that either remove at once,

I will remove the email, if in fact it is fraud but of course I am
maintaining a copy in my email for possible future reference.

No more posting tonight CU

wrote:

more proof of the crimial nature of your actions against Dloyd that
you provided futher blood in the water

This sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


this BTW Dloyd the reason it ****es me off so I am tried of the
stlaker like Mike I am replying to continuing to harras e with such
inane postings

I wasn't talking to you.