From kmcvay Sun Jul 7 11:07:12 1996 Subject: Re: CAUGHT IN YOUR OWN LIE To: email@example.com (Linda Thompson) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 11:07:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Kenneth McVay OBC"
In-Reply-To: from "Linda Thompson" at Jul 7, 96 11:52:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 5391 You wrote: > I just re-visited your webpage, to find that you are now using my posts to > you, requesting that you remove references to me from your list of supposed > nazis and racists, as a further vehicle to defame me with fabrications, to wit: Which "list of supposed nazis and racists" is that, Ms. Thompson? Nizkor maintains no such lists, and invites you to produce one. > I first wrote to you on July 4, at 12:35 a.m. and due to a problem in > sending which indicated the first post may not have gone to you, I resent > this same post on July 4 at 1:27 a.m. I have both original posts with the > time stamps. When you _sent_ the files is not the same as when I _receive_ the files, unless you wish to claim that British Columbia and Indiana are in the same time zone? > On your webpage, you now claim the following: > The following message was received on July 3, 1996, by electronic mail: Correct - the message was received on July 3, at 23:14 hours PDT, as indicated in the message header. > Message-Id: > Date: Thu, 4 Jul 96 01:08 EST <---------------------------Note this date That date was from the flat file, and is correct. > This is what you have posted on your webpage. Yup > Note that in the header on the page, you claim: > > "The following message was received on July 3, 1996, by electronic mail:" > > Yet the reference that follows says: > > > Message-Id: > Date: Thu, 4 Jul 96 01:08 EST <---------------------------------- > Message was sent July 4. Yup. > Following the "link" you provide, a person then sees the full message with > the following header: > > >From iquest.net!lindat Wed Jul 3 23:14:16 1996 <------------- Date > changed manually by you > Return-Path: > Received: by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Smail220.127.116.11 #8) > id m0ubhg6-000SMpC; Wed, 3 Jul 96 23:14 PDT > Received: from iquest.net (iquest4.iquest.net) by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ; 3 > JUL 96 23:14:03 PDT > Received: from ind-000-236-42.iquest.net by iquest.net with smtp > (Smail18.104.22.168 #5) id m0ubhay-0049EnC; Thu, 4 Jul 96 01:08 EST <---- > Date you were too > Message-Id: > stupid to change > Date: Thu, 4 Jul 96 01:08 EST ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ yup :-) > which proves you X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org > lie. Nope :-) > [NOTE THIS PART:] > In-Reply-To: from "Linda Thompson" at Jul 4, 96 > 01:08:00 am Yup, but you deleted part of it. Why would someone want to do that, Ms. Thompson? > Notice your supposed "reply" to my first post has an automated reference to > my first post that says you are replying on July 3, to a message I wrote on > July 4. Looking at the times, there is a 24 hour difference. Your "reply" > supposedly pre-dates my original message to you by 24 hours. Hmmmm. Let me make certain I understand this. You are claiming that the time and date of receipt on nizkor, 23:14 PDT, is 24-hours-apart from the date the message was sent, July 4, 01:08 EST? Is this the claim you intend to make in court? That should be enlightening. > You then claim that in "response" to your "reply," I only sent you another > copy of the same post. The first copy was received here at 23:14. The next copy was received here at 23:43. > Examining the header on that post, it has an earlier time stamp than my > first post: I am not interested in when you sent them. I am interested in when they arrived. You seem confused about that. Two assumptions here are incorrect. First, because the second message was received 29 minutes after the first, I assumed it was sent after the first. Second, because you sent the second message 52 minutes before the first, you assumed it would arrive earlier. In fact, as the record shows, it did not. > You have again manually changed the date in the first line to July 3, but Look up "time zones" and "daylight time." > you are shown to be a two-fold liar by the automated time stamp that shows > this supposed "response" was written earlier than the post you put up as my > "first" letter. Neither your "July 3" reply, nor this supposed "response" > to the "July 3" reply, are what you claim, easily shown by the real time stamps. > > I wrote the same message to you on July 4, twice, about 30 minutes apart, > solely to insure that you did, in fact, receive it. > > You did not reply until the 5th, but you changed the timestamp, manually, to > July 3 (as shown above) and attempted to alter the header on the timestamps Look up "time zones" and "daylight time." > of the messages from me so you could claim I wrote you on July 3, and you > replied asking for more details on July 3, but all you got was a second copy > of the same original message on July 4. > You are a liar and you are altered messages to make the "proof" fit your > lies. I show the proof above, and you will see it again, in court. Now that you have looked them up, you will be able to explain them to the judge. I'm certain he will find it enlightening. -- Nizkor (Canada) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Network ftp://www.nizkor.eye.net/pub/nizkor/ Europe: ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/ http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently)
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor