Cheryl Sellner and Lyn Glover, Usenet Stalkers

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On Sun 04 Sep 2005 08:27:53p, Trish wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
):


"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
Archiving more harassment under my own name.



snipped

Cheryl,

This is not a threat because I could care less about you, but
aren't you concerned that your workplace will become aware of
your accessing Usenet sites on their time, wasn't there a
mandate forbidding this sometime last year. All that will come
forward in any investigation.



Trish, so far this has nothing to do with you. I don't post from
work, so this means nothing. If you care to involve yourself in the
ugly history of someone you only just met online in the last
several months, keep it up. As I say, this has nothing to do with
you.


So now you're reduced to threatening Trish, eh? Well, you know as
well as she knows that you did indeed post from work and that
you were warned to stop, Cheryl. This is why we rarely now
see you post during the day. But you did post during the day.
For a long time.

As for ugly posting histories, does it get much uglier than
alt.flame.****** and alt.hackers.malicious? I don't think so
and I don't think Daddy will think so either. Or Daddy's
colleagues and other persons of interest.

You had better build a pretty good case against a woman
who simply ****ed you off in a cat group. You are documented
as sending the first harassing post, after all. Which just happens
to be full of false and defamatory information. Usenetserver.com?
You should have known better than that.

Let's definitely get the authorities involved. I think that's a wonderful
idea.

On Sun 04 Sep 2005 09:32:15p, Drew wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

So now you're reduced to threatening Trish, eh?

Mary/Marilyn/Nancy/Drew/SaSha/Celeste/Shiva, I didn't threaten
Trish.

Well, you know
as well as she knows that you did indeed post from work and that
you were warned to stop, Cheryl.

I was? Why wasn't I informed of this? I don't post from work out of
common sense. And because I'm too damn busy to barly take a glance
at Usenet. Some lunch breaks let me take a peak, but other than
that, no.

This is why we rarely now
see you post during the day. But you did post during the day.
For a long time.

No, I sure never did. Prove it, Nancy, er Mary, er, Drew, er,
Marilyn, er Celeste, er, Shiva, er, et al.

As for ugly posting histories, does it get much uglier than
alt.flame.****** and alt.hackers.malicious? I don't think so
and I don't think Daddy will think so either. Or Daddy's
colleagues and other persons of interest.

Debunked. As a matter of fact, my dad would laugh at you if he even
read any of this. In fact, I think I'm going to tell him so he can
save me the trouble of figuring out the best way to have you
investigated.

You had better build a pretty good case against a woman
who simply ****ed you off in a cat group.

****ed me off? Oh Nancy, it goes way beyond ****ing me off.
You've libeled me. You lie left and right. You make up stories. For
2 or 3 years now.

You are documented
as sending the first harassing post, after all. Which just
happens to be full of false and defamatory information.
Usenetserver.com? You should have known better than that.

You still haven't proven your claims.

Let's definitely get the authorities involved. I think that's a
wonderful idea.

It is coming. Stay tuned. Or move. That might help.

--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited
breath."
- W.C. Fields

On 4 Sep 2005 21:00:18 GMT, Cheryl
wrote:

I'm not playing your games any more. If you continue to stalk me,
I'll be getting in touch with NC LEA.

Bah. I tried for weeks to ignore your taunts and innuendo, and you
would have none of it. If you hound some LEA into taking an interest
in this group, they will see that you are a quarrelsome fool.

Charlie

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On Sun 04 Sep 2005 09:32:15p, Drew wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

So now you're reduced to threatening Trish, eh?

Mary/Marilyn/Nancy/Drew/SaSha/Celeste/Shiva, I didn't threaten
Trish.

Well, you know
as well as she knows that you did indeed post from work and that
you were warned to stop, Cheryl.

I was? Why wasn't I informed of this? I don't post from work out of
common sense. And because I'm too damn busy to barly take a glance
at Usenet. Some lunch breaks let me take a peak, but other than
that, no.

This is why we rarely now
see you post during the day. But you did post during the day.
For a long time.

No, I sure never did. Prove it, Nancy, er Mary, er, Drew, er,
Marilyn, er Celeste, er, Shiva, er, et al.

As for ugly posting histories, does it get much uglier than
alt.flame.****** and alt.hackers.malicious? I don't think so
and I don't think Daddy will think so either. Or Daddy's
colleagues and other persons of interest.

Debunked. As a matter of fact, my dad would laugh at you if he even
read any of this. In fact, I think I'm going to tell him so he can
save me the trouble of figuring out the best way to have you
investigated.

You had better build a pretty good case against a woman
who simply ****ed you off in a cat group.

****ed me off? Oh Nancy, it goes way beyond ****ing me off.
You've libeled me. You lie left and right. You make up stories. For
2 or 3 years now.

You are documented
as sending the first harassing post, after all. Which just
happens to be full of false and defamatory information.
Usenetserver.com? You should have known better than that.

You still haven't proven your claims.

Let's definitely get the authorities involved. I think that's a
wonderful idea.

It is coming. Stay tuned. Or move. That might help.


Now that is funny. This is going to be good.

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On Sun 04 Sep 2005 09:32:15p, Drew wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

So now you're reduced to threatening Trish, eh?

Mary/Marilyn/Nancy/Drew/SaSha/Celeste/Shiva, I didn't threaten
Trish.

Well, you know
as well as she knows that you did indeed post from work and that
you were warned to stop, Cheryl.

I was? Why wasn't I informed of this? I don't post from work out of
common sense. And because I'm too damn busy to barly take a glance
at Usenet. Some lunch breaks let me take a peak, but other than
that, no.

This is why we rarely now
see you post during the day. But you did post during the day.
For a long time.

No, I sure never did. Prove it, Nancy, er Mary, er, Drew, er,
Marilyn, er Celeste, er, Shiva, er, et al.

As for ugly posting histories, does it get much uglier than
alt.flame.****** and alt.hackers.malicious? I don't think so
and I don't think Daddy will think so either. Or Daddy's
colleagues and other persons of interest.

Debunked. As a matter of fact, my dad would laugh at you if he even
read any of this. In fact, I think I'm going to tell him so he can
save me the trouble of figuring out the best way to have you
investigated.

Daddy might be too busy explaining what his little girl was doing
hanging at alt.hackers.malicious.

But we shall see.

On Sun 04 Sep 2005 09:50:35p, Drew wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

Daddy might be too busy explaining what his little girl was doing
hanging at alt.hackers.malicious.

Since you only saw AHM from a troll's perspective, you wouldn't
understand that regulars actually tried to learn security. Many regs
are admins and network gurus that specialize in Windows servers.
Windows servers are easy to maintain, but hard to secure. Many times
there were war games. "Come hack my Windoze server that I just set
up. It has only the latest patches on it, no OS tweaking yet. Help me
figure out what I need to tweak". Of course Usenet to you is just to
see who you can help to kill themselves.

--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited
breath."
- W.C. Fields

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On Sun 04 Sep 2005 09:50:35p, Drew wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

Daddy might be too busy explaining what his little girl was doing
hanging at alt.hackers.malicious.

Since you only saw AHM from a troll's perspective, you wouldn't
understand that regulars actually tried to learn security. Many regs
are admins and network gurus that specialize in Windows servers.
Windows servers are easy to maintain, but hard to secure. Many times
there were war games. "Come hack my Windoze server that I just set
up. It has only the latest patches on it, no OS tweaking yet. Help me
figure out what I need to tweak". Of course Usenet to you is just to
see who you can help to kill themselves.


Now, you see, there you go again. Libel. And you committed it first
by reposting the Karma post. But I do love this affirmation.

You are not a very bright "girl," Cheryl. Not bright enough to find out
if the **** you spread is true before you begin to gleefully spread it.
At least half the posts attributed to Mary in the Karma post were never
made by her and this indeed can be proved.

You can beat your head against the wall as much as you want--you
****ed up. You crossed the line into criminal behavior.

Now let's see our tax dollars at work.

On Sun 04 Sep 2005 09:58:49p, Drew wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):


"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On Sun 04 Sep 2005 09:50:35p, Drew wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

Daddy might be too busy explaining what his little girl was
doing hanging at alt.hackers.malicious.

Since you only saw AHM from a troll's perspective, you wouldn't
understand that regulars actually tried to learn security. Many
regs are admins and network gurus that specialize in Windows
servers. Windows servers are easy to maintain, but hard to
secure. Many times there were war games. "Come hack my Windoze
server that I just set up. It has only the latest patches on
it, no OS tweaking yet. Help me figure out what I need to
tweak". Of course Usenet to you is just to see who you can
help to kill themselves.


Now, you see, there you go again. Libel. And you committed it
first by reposting the Karma post. But I do love this
affirmation.

You keep writing that but fail to prove your allegations. I
challenge you. Prove it.

You are not a very bright "girl," Cheryl. Not bright enough to
find out if the **** you spread is true before you begin to
gleefully spread it. At least half the posts attributed to Mary
in the Karma post were never made by her and this indeed can be
proved.

I really don't give a ****.

You can beat your head against the wall as much as you want--you
****ed up. You crossed the line into criminal behavior.

Now let's see our tax dollars at work.

We sure will.






--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited
breath."
- W.C. Fields

On Sun 04 Sep 2005 10:04:12p, Cheryl wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav (news:Xns96C7E086C8E57shads@
130.133.1.4):

On Sun 04 Sep 2005 09:58:49p, Drew wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav ):

Now, you see, there you go again. Libel. And you committed it
first by reposting the Karma post. But I do love this
affirmation.

Ok, you just proved that I didn't fully read your comment.
Reposting the Karma post is not libel. It was reposting something
written that was found about your trolling history that was written
by you, proven to be written by you. Sue me, I misread it.

You keep writing that but fail to prove your allegations. I
challenge you. Prove it.


--
Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited
breath."
- W.C. Fields

"Cheryl" wrote

Now, you see, there you go again. Libel. And you committed it
first by reposting the Karma post. But I do love this
affirmation.

You keep writing that but fail to prove your allegations. I
challenge you. Prove it.

Um. Genius? It's right there in the archives. Are you on drugs, too?


You are not a very bright "girl," Cheryl. Not bright enough to
find out if the **** you spread is true before you begin to
gleefully spread it. At least half the posts attributed to Mary
in the Karma post were never made by her and this indeed can be
proved.

I really don't give a ****.

When you start talking libel, you should indeed give a ****.
Because just last week you reposted what is an untrue
exercise in defamation. In your own name, with your own
IP hanging out. That is already in process, so you had better
take the offense, though it is a bit late now.


You can beat your head against the wall as much as you want--you
****ed up. You crossed the line into criminal behavior.

Now let's see our tax dollars at work.

We sure will.

Poor spanky. Foiled again. You began the Googlefest,
and now that you are ending up on the ugly end of it, you
are making an even bigger fool of yourself by screaming
about illegality where there is none, except your initial
harassing posts.

You need to learn that you may not censor anyone in
a free and unmoderated public forum by engaging in
defamatory smear campaigns. That is indeed
harassment. And that in indeed something that you
initiated. I am more than happy to help you learn this,
Cheryl. Through legal channels, of course.

Meanwhile, if I might make a suggestion: find a new
hobby. You suck at intimidation.