Ken Smith wrote:
> Again, according to Ted's line of argument (see below).
>
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good Lord! 1,350 posts, on THIS topic?!? I'm glad I gave this
>>>>>>> sort of nonsense up. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean, "gave up"? You're here, aren't you?
>>>>>
>>> And I was right and you were prevaricating. Because here you are
>>> again.
>
> A cameo appearance is not a starring role, and I have no intention
> of staying very long.
>>
>>>>> Your reader must have a flaw in it.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>
>>>>> It snipped the bulk of Ken's post, [...]
>>>>
>>>> No, I did that. Because Ken was basically prevaricating (like you
>>>> always do) and equivocating (which you're not smart enough to do).
>>>> Why waste my time responding to such blather?
>>>
>>> Translated, Ted has no answer. [...]
>>
>> More prevarication. The issue has been adequately answered.
>
> Why? Because Stalker Ted says so?!? See below for crucial issues
> you have yet to address.
>>
>>>> It's already been established beyond question that you are a
>>>> convicted felon and a liar,
>>>
>>> Just as it has been "established beyond question" that Cameron John
>>> Brown is a cold-blooded psychopathic baby-killer.
>
>>> Your "evidence" has been questioned, Dr. Hayes.
>>
>> It ain't "my" evidence. The answers are out there. But birds of a
>> feather flock together. And prevaricators defend prevaricators.
>
> More evidence that CaMORON Brown is a cold-blooded baby-killer, as
> you have been caught lying on numerous occasions. :)
>
>>> Certain facts need to be proven and also, certain objections need
>>> to be addressed. By way of example (as my post is still out there):
>>
>>> How do you *know* that "N-class" on Delta is what you claim it is?
>>
>> See: <http://cwsi.net/delta.htm>
>
> Fair enough. See below.
>
>>> At Qantas
>
> [edited material restored]
> _________________________________________________
>
> (one of its SkyMiles partners), N-class is for Internet bookings
> (http://www.unisa.edu.au/fin/travel/Qantasfares.pdf);
my first guess
> is that the designation is consistent within their system (as I fly
> United mostly, I don't know). I can book via the Internet and use FF
> miles to upgrade. United has a different system (Star Alliance),
> though I don't know whether their codes are different (I would expect
> they are not). For you to claim that what Kent has claimed here is
> impossible, you have to meet that minimal threshold burden of proof.
> [...] _________________________________________________
>
>> Kent doesn't claim to have flown Qantas, he _FALSELY_ claims to have
>> flown Delta.
>
> My point is that "N-class" isn't uniform throughout the airline
> world, which is why you have to present specific evidence
> demonstrating that on Delta, "N-class" is what you claim it is. The
> evidence you present here would never stand up in court, but it is
> adequate for our purposes.
>
> As for whether Kent falsely claimed to have flown in first class on
> a given flight, or falsely claimed to travel to Aruba, those are two
> very different questions. While one piece of evidence should be
> dispositive with respect to the first question (it is proven to my
> satisfaction, and I do know the truth of the matter), it is not
> necessarily dispositive of the other (which you are light-years from
> proving). And therein lies your problem.
>
>>> On what basis and with what evidence do you claim that Kent forged
>>> his name on the boarding pass? [...]
>>
>> Kent is a convicted felon in Iowa currently on probation until
>> January of '09. He currently resides in Rogers, Arkansas; and his
>> probation is being supervised by the Arkansas Department of
>> Corrections compact office. As such, it is a virtual certainty that
>> he is unable to travel internationally.
>
> Conversely, if Kent is able to travel internationally, it is a
> virtual certainty that he is not a convicted felon.
An utterly false assertion.
>Ted, you do know
> the logical fallacy of petitio principii, do you not?
Based on your utterly false assertion.
>
>> Moreover, it is PATENTLY OBVIOUS that the ticket has been forged to
>> indicate a different seat assignment and class of service than that
>> for which it was originally issued.
>
> Why don't you tell your audience the whole story, Stalking Ted?
> About how you were spelunking on Kent's UNPUBLISHED website
Do tell what is an "unpublished" www site?
Are you claiming Ted broke computer access laws and hacked into
a system without authorization?
> in your
> desperate search for dirt to use against him? If Kent doctored the
> boarding pass for his own private purposes, and did not intend to
> deceive his audience on the Internet, how can you accuse him of lying
> to that audience?
If Kent is so pathological that he prevaricates and lies "in private" to
himself, he needs some serious mental health treatment.
>That you purloined the scan from his website is
> hardly his fault.
Inevitable discovery.
>
>> Given that Kent altered that information, it is EMINENTLY
>> reasonable to suppose that he forged his own name as well.
>
> Which is why Los Angeles District Attorney Craig Hum had every right
> to paint CaMORON Brown as a murderous scum-bunny. If he asked Sarah
> to abort Lauren, fought the child support order, was looking for ways
> to beat the burden of paying for Lauren's support, and cared for her
> in an incredibly reckless manner (especially, letting her run around
> loose on Inspiration Point, where any sane parent would be amazingly
> vigilant), then it is reasonable for a jury to conclude that he had
> the requisite intent to commit second-degree murder.
Yet I can't find a conviction record for Cameron anywhere in
the California system, yet a felony conviction record for Kent Wills
is clearly visible in the Iowa DOC database.
Go figure.
>
> Everything you have said in defense of your precious CaMORON was
> just flushed down the toilet in that one sentence.
>
> That having been said, it is not eminently reasonable to suppose
> that Kent had forged his name on the boarding pass.
Correct. However the evidence of the seat assignment and boarding
class conflicts is quite clear.
> First off,
> whiting out a number on a document is pretty simple; whiting out a
> name written over a logo and replacing it with your own is
> painstaking work, and hard to get right.
Unless someone is pathologically prevaricating with an almost
compulsive bent.
> Second, there is the matter
> of how he got that boarding pass, as those documents are usually
> trashed during the trip.
Yet why would someone not only save a boarding pass, but go to
the trouble of scanning the image and storing it on their computer?
Why would someone do that Ken?
> Third, there is the evidence of the postcard
> sent to me (I am told Kent sent one to you, but I have no personal
> knowledge of this).
Quite odd behavior, sending postcards from trivial tourist
destinations to one's usenet enemies, eh Kent?
> You can't pick up postcards from Aruba at a
> local Seven-Eleven.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200123356652
> Suffice it to say that your supposition that
> Kent must have forged his name on the documents in question (I have
> received written material from Kent before) is wholly unsupported by
> the evidence;
Yet you haven't even begun to explain the seating anomaly.
> your entire argument relies solely on the verity of
> Iowa court records (which may or may not be accurate; assuming that
> they are begs the question).
LOL! Riiiiiiiiiight. The Iowa DOC database is questionable, as is
the corresponding West's North Western Reporter publication of the
Appellate
decision.
>
> And as we all know, we can trust the government implicitly, isn't
> that right, Detective Leslie? :)
Is West's North Western Reporter a branch of the government now?
>
>>> And then, there is the matter of Kent's postcard to me, [...]
>>
>> You've shown yourself to be a mendacious prevaricator before. For
>> all I know, you're just covering for him.
>
> Now, you are saying that I was the one who sent a postcard to
> myself? But as seeing that you have falsely 'tracked' me to Tahiti,
> I suppose it is possible that you will find some 'evidence' saying
> that I was also in Aruba at the time. Uh, Ted, if you can, make sure
> you get it right for a change? :)
>
>> You resent this assertion? Go find me
>> substantive proof -- that I can INDEPENDENTLY verify myself -- of
>> any of the claims Kent has made about himself (as for example, a
>> record of his marriage, or of his pilot's licence).
Name Inquiry
Contact Airmen Branch
About
FAA REGISTRY
Name Inquiry - List Results
No records were found with KENT WILLS
Total Names found for K WILLS is 8
KARLA PATRICIA WILLS
KATHERINE IRENE WILLS
KEDRICK RAY WILLS
KEITH K WILLS
KENNETH EDWARD WILLS
KENNETH EDWARD WILLS
KENNETH JOHN WILLS
KENNETH O WILLS
>
> As you have demonstrated yourself to be a psychopathic stalker who
> has stalked your opponents on the Net -- going to one victim's house
> to take pictures of it, and taking pictures in my neighborhood to
> show that 'you could drop by at any time' -- there is no way that I
> would ever divulge personal information about Kent to you. You are
> mentally ill, Ted, and if Patty has any sense, she will see to it
> that you receive psychiatric care.
Well maybe Kent's wife, Lindsay the "psychologist" could offer some Tx
to Ted ...
|
