-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?



mike

m II wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?

Perhaps you might elaborate on how such a thing could occur.

"m II" wrote in message
news:Q7jAc.48510$Ds.9055@clgrps12...
-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it
serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?

Yup, ratting to someones employer about some Usenet BS would warrant an ass
kicking. Beware people, what comes around goes around.

m II wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?

The facts are, and remain, that Bryant was NOT fired from Louisville Technical
Institute.

Why he posted here that I had cost him his job, and indeed called me on the
phone indicating that he'd lost his job is beyond me.

So, I called Louisville Tech the next day and inquired if he was still employed
there, and indeed he was.

Subsequent posts from Michael W. Bryant also indicate that he is still employed
by Louisville Tech.

One further phone check indicated that he is still employed there.

And not surprisingly enough, Michael W. Bryant had the nerve to try and tell me
that I'd never made the call.

So, if one wants lies, distortions and fabrications, just look to Michael W.
Bryant.

Boggling.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:23:50 -0400, dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?

The facts are, and remain, that Bryant was NOT fired from Louisville Technical
Institute.

Why he posted here that I had cost him his job, and indeed called me on the
phone indicating that he'd lost his job is beyond me.

So, I called Louisville Tech the next day and inquired if he was still employed
there, and indeed he was.

Subsequent posts from Michael W. Bryant also indicate that he is still employed
by Louisville Tech.

One further phone check indicated that he is still employed there.

And not surprisingly enough, Michael W. Bryant had the nerve to try and tell me
that I'd never made the call.

So, if one wants lies, distortions and fabrications, just look to Michael W.
Bryant.

Boggling.


Only you care 'tard. You need to get out of the house and spend some
of that settlement money. What a maroon

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:23:50 -0400, dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?

The facts are, and remain, that Bryant was NOT fired from Louisville Technical
Institute.

Why he posted here that I had cost him his job, and indeed called me on the
phone indicating that he'd lost his job is beyond me.

So, I called Louisville Tech the next day and inquired if he was still employed
there, and indeed he was.

Subsequent posts from Michael W. Bryant also indicate that he is still employed
by Louisville Tech.

One further phone check indicated that he is still employed there.

And not surprisingly enough, Michael W. Bryant had the nerve to try and tell me
that I'd never made the call.

So, if one wants lies, distortions and fabrications, just look to Michael W.
Bryant.

Boggling.


what's really boggling is what a complete fool you make of yourself from day to day.
who do you think cares about any of your assertions?

RSMTMN wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:23:50 -0400, dxAce wrote:



m II wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?

The facts are, and remain, that Bryant was NOT fired from Louisville Technical
Institute.

Why he posted here that I had cost him his job, and indeed called me on the
phone indicating that he'd lost his job is beyond me.

So, I called Louisville Tech the next day and inquired if he was still employed
there, and indeed he was.

Subsequent posts from Michael W. Bryant also indicate that he is still employed
by Louisville Tech.

One further phone check indicated that he is still employed there.

And not surprisingly enough, Michael W. Bryant had the nerve to try and tell me
that I'd never made the call.

So, if one wants lies, distortions and fabrications, just look to Michael W.
Bryant.

Boggling.


what's really boggling is what a complete fool you make of yourself from day to day.
who do you think cares about any of your assertions?

You do! You took the time and trouble to fabricate a totally bogus, brand new ID just to
respond to my post.