Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > microsoft.public.test > #81 > unrolled thread

Apd said ....

Back to article view | Back to microsoft.public.test

Contents

  Apd said .... David <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-04-28 14:48 +0100
    Re: Apd said .... David <David@indavid.invalid> - 2025-05-15 19:12 +0100
      Re: Apd said .... Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-05-18 09:23 +0000
        Re: Apd said .... David <David@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-18 12:35 +0100

#81 — Apd said ....

The facts I know are that a case record for a charge amounting to
stalking was once available, it was dismissed for reasons unknown
after about 10 months of "scheduling events" (whatever they were for)
and is no longer available, also for reasons unknown. Another unknown
is who the subject of the alleged stalking was.

The existence of evidence for the case has been denied but you, me,
and some others have seen evidence which we know to be from the gov
lookup site. An interesting thing I noticed when I said "Here's snit
saying az.gov didn't have the records" and gave a MID, he said "What I
actually said: there is no evidence of az.gov having such records".
That caused me to get the shovel out and do some digging. He's been
consistent in saying there's no evidence but I haven't found a
statement denying the case ever existed.

Given the citation and other records concerning a divorce, it's not
surprising that the question "Why did you stalk her?" was asked, and
since there's been no response about the circumstances of the case and
its "unknowns", it's also not surprising that opinions about what
really happened will be formed. When those opinions are met with
contradictions or denials but still the events concerning the case go
unexplained, the opinions can become more hardened and some can appear
to look more like statements of fact.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#98

On 28/04/2025 14:48, David wrote:
> The facts I know are that a case record for a charge amounting to
> stalking was once available, it was dismissed for reasons unknown
> after about 10 months of "scheduling events" (whatever they were for)
> and is no longer available, also for reasons unknown. Another unknown
> is who the subject of the alleged stalking was.
> 
> The existence of evidence for the case has been denied but you, me,
> and some others have seen evidence which we know to be from the gov
> lookup site. An interesting thing I noticed when I said "Here's snit
> saying az.gov didn't have the records" and gave a MID, he said "What I
> actually said: there is no evidence of az.gov having such records".
> That caused me to get the shovel out and do some digging. He's been
> consistent in saying there's no evidence but I haven't found a
> statement denying the case ever existed.
> 
> Given the citation and other records concerning a divorce, it's not
> surprising that the question "Why did you stalk her?" was asked, and
> since there's been no response about the circumstances of the case and
> its "unknowns", it's also not surprising that opinions about what
> really happened will be formed. When those opinions are met with
> contradictions or denials but still the events concerning the case go
> unexplained, the opinions can become more hardened and some can appear
> to look more like statements of fact.

Just testing my ability to post!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99

On May 15, 2025 at 11:12:00 AM MST, "David" wrote
<m8mp3gF8t9hU2@mid.individual.net>:

> On 28/04/2025 14:48, David wrote:
>> The facts I know are that a case record for a charge amounting to
>> stalking was once available, it was dismissed for reasons unknown
>> after about 10 months of "scheduling events" (whatever they were for)
>> and is no longer available, also for reasons unknown. Another unknown
>> is who the subject of the alleged stalking was.
>> 
>> The existence of evidence for the case has been denied but you, me,
>> and some others have seen evidence which we know to be from the gov
>> lookup site. An interesting thing I noticed when I said "Here's snit
>> saying az.gov didn't have the records" and gave a MID, he said "What I
>> actually said: there is no evidence of az.gov having such records".
>> That caused me to get the shovel out and do some digging. He's been
>> consistent in saying there's no evidence but I haven't found a
>> statement denying the case ever existed.
>> 
>> Given the citation and other records concerning a divorce, it's not
>> surprising that the question "Why did you stalk her?" was asked, and
>> since there's been no response about the circumstances of the case and
>> its "unknowns", it's also not surprising that opinions about what
>> really happened will be formed. When those opinions are met with
>> contradictions or denials but still the events concerning the case go
>> unexplained, the opinions can become more hardened and some can appear
>> to look more like statements of fact.
> 
> Just testing my ability to post!

You can.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100

On 18/05/2025 10:23, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 15, 2025 at 11:12:00 AM MST, "David" wrote
> <m8mp3gF8t9hU2@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On 28/04/2025 14:48, David wrote:
>>> The facts I know are that a case record for a charge amounting to
>>> stalking was once available, it was dismissed for reasons unknown
>>> after about 10 months of "scheduling events" (whatever they were for)
>>> and is no longer available, also for reasons unknown. Another unknown
>>> is who the subject of the alleged stalking was.
>>>
>>> The existence of evidence for the case has been denied but you, me,
>>> and some others have seen evidence which we know to be from the gov
>>> lookup site. An interesting thing I noticed when I said "Here's snit
>>> saying az.gov didn't have the records" and gave a MID, he said "What I
>>> actually said: there is no evidence of az.gov having such records".
>>> That caused me to get the shovel out and do some digging. He's been
>>> consistent in saying there's no evidence but I haven't found a
>>> statement denying the case ever existed.
>>>
>>> Given the citation and other records concerning a divorce, it's not
>>> surprising that the question "Why did you stalk her?" was asked, and
>>> since there's been no response about the circumstances of the case and
>>> its "unknowns", it's also not surprising that opinions about what
>>> really happened will be formed. When those opinions are met with
>>> contradictions or denials but still the events concerning the case go
>>> unexplained, the opinions can become more hardened and some can appear
>>> to look more like statements of fact.
>>
>> Just testing my ability to post!
> 
> You can.

I can *NOW*! The owner of Individual.net stopped me from posting because 
I inadvertently broke the server rules.

I apologised and and changed my nym/address.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | microsoft.public.test

csiph-web