Finally Clearing Up Old Issues - John Pelan's Lie

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c8d4dbf6?hl=en

Haunted River wrote:

Although O'Brien and Pelan are about to be exposed independently as
liars, O'Brien has just blundered into another quite stunning gaffe,
pre-empting said expose.

He said:

"I never said the headers were faked; Mr. Maulding confirmed to me
that
the headers were accurate. What he said was that you changed his
message in the body of the email that went with the headers. That
itself is very easy to do. Once you copy and paste the email into a
text editing program, you can then change any part of it you want to.
You did not change the headers but you did change the message itself.
That has been confirmed by Mr. Maulding to me."

Well, aside from the fact that O'Brien never thought to mention this
new piece of information until now, he has once again shot himself in
the foot.


ROTFLMAO!!! Barker, you sanctimonious twit, I told you SEVERAL TIMES
already!


I never published the headers to the emails he references. Therefore,
it would be impossible for him to forward them on to any third party,
least of all Barry Maulding at Isomedia.


LOL! I never said that, you bare-faced liar. The only headers you
ever published were for the only email from Mr. Maulding you ever
published, the one you quote below. As I have stated over and over
again, it was that email, complete with headers, I sent to Mr.
Maulding, no others.


How many embarrassing gaffes does O'Brien need to commit before he
decides to leave newsnet gracefully?


LOL! I did not make this gaffe, you did.


I very clearly recall only quoting excerpts from Barry Maulding's
emails on newsnet, no headers. In response to this quotation of
comments, O'Brien claimed to have then liaised with Mr Maulding, and
obtained statements from him disputing my claims, and denying having
ever sent those earlier emails. O'Brien referred to these alleged
email
exchanges with Barry M in at least two newsgroups as the archives
will
prove.


LOL! More bare-faced lies. I never said Mr Maulding denied sending
you emails; I stated he denied reprimanding John Pelan.


In response to this, I emailed Barry M and asked him to comment on
O'Brien's highly dubious claim to have received an email response
from
Isomedia. In response Barry M replied:

"Mr. Barker,

Regarding your email of Dec. 29, you are authorized to publish any
emails I sent you and this email.

I do not deny and have not denied that I warned Mr. Pelan to stop
making false claims about being an owner of ISOMEDIA.

Barry Maulding
General Counsel"

Thus clearly refuting O'Brien's version of events, and denying that
O'Brien had even been in contact with him.


LOL! No, this is the message Mr. Maulding said you forged.


It was only at this point in time that I opted to post the last email
received from Isomedia - with full headers - in newsnet groups. Thus
O'Brien's new claim to have copied the headers from earlier messages
is
completely unfounded.


LOL! I made no such claim on this newsgroup; it resides only in your
delusional mind.


Of additional interest is the fact that Kevin O'Brien now also claims
that Barry Maulding long ago told him that Isomedia weren't bothered
about suing me for supposedly faking quotes by them on the internet.


LOL! Yet another bare-faced lie. I did not say Mr. Maulding told me
this "long ago"; I said he told me this after I sent him a copy of the
email you posted. That was back in January.


If this is the case, if O'Brien knows full well that Isomedia have no
interest in pursuing people who willingly misquote them, then why he
is
so unwiling to actually publish the emails he claims to have received
from Barry Maulding? If Isomedia aren't bothered about suing me for
inventing fake quotes, why on earth should O'Brien be worried about
publishing actual ones?


Because they expressly forbade me to publish them. Mr. Maulding
himself admitted that he had errored granting you permission to publish
his email, but he never expected you to alter his message. He said it
wasn't worth suing you over one incident. But if I were to publish the
several emails he sent me, that would be far more serious and they
would sue.


No, this is all very fishy indeed. The logic just doesn't stack up
properly.


Only in your delusional mind.


It won't be long before Pelan and O'Brien's duplicitous behaviour is
confirmed by an independent party. I wonder how their friends will
react? I personally think it is a damning indictment of how
supposedly
mature adults act when posting messages onto the internet, in that so
many people willfully encourage their lying and abusive practises.

However, I do hope that several group regulars - the independents
amongst us - finally have the decency to come forward and condemn
Pelan
and O'Brien for having lied and for having contributed so
significantly
to group acrimony. They should put aside their concersn about
offending
a HWA official, and source any Midnight House books they might want
from a third party source, rather than keep quiet for such reasons.
Those that don't are cowards, and I personally think less of each of
you for implicitly condoning his actions.

Pelan owes an important apology to a great many people, not just me.
If
he isn't urged to make one, no matter how damning or conclusive the
evidence against him, then the majority of you *are* craven
sycophants,
and you have no right whatsoever to ever question my integrity.


LOL! And once again, in Barkerville roaring crowds cheer the mighty
Barker as he once again declares victory over His Hated Enemies!

Kevin L. O'Brien

Haunted River wrote:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c8d4dbf6?hl=en


And nowhere in that post does he say I or John lied. As always, you
read into it what isn't there, just what your delusional mind fools you
into thinking what's there.

Kevin L. O'Brien

wrote:
Haunted River wrote:

Although O'Brien and Pelan are about to be exposed independently as
liars, O'Brien has just blundered into another quite stunning
gaffe,
pre-empting said expose.

He said:

"I never said the headers were faked; Mr. Maulding confirmed to me
that
the headers were accurate. What he said was that you changed his
message in the body of the email that went with the headers. That
itself is very easy to do. Once you copy and paste the email into a
text editing program, you can then change any part of it you want
to.
You did not change the headers but you did change the message
itself.
That has been confirmed by Mr. Maulding to me."

Well, aside from the fact that O'Brien never thought to mention
this
new piece of information until now, he has once again shot himself
in
the foot.


ROTFLMAO!!! Barker, you sanctimonious twit, I told you SEVERAL TIMES
already!


I never published the headers to the emails he references.
Therefore,
it would be impossible for him to forward them on to any third
party,
least of all Barry Maulding at Isomedia.


LOL! I never said that, you bare-faced liar. The only headers you
ever published were for the only email from Mr. Maulding you ever
published, the one you quote below. As I have stated over and over
again, it was that email, complete with headers, I sent to Mr.
Maulding, no others.


No, this is demonstrably untrue. This is the chain of events as per
usenet archives:

1. I branded Pelan a liar by quoting selectively from two emails sent
to me by Barry Maulding.

2. You dismissed those emails as fakes and said that you had been in
contact with BM yourself. Furthermore, you said that BM had denied ever
have communicated with me.

3. I then emailed BM and asked him to comment on your claims. He denied
categorically ever having heard from you. He also gave me permission to
quote any of his emails.

4. I published this last email complete with headers. You responded
with generalized evasions and smokescreens, but you most certainly did
not say that you had then received later emails from BM, and you most
certainly did not say that BM had accused me of faking the text of his
email(s).

5. Several months later, when pushed to cough up new evidence
validating your preposterous claims, you suddenly inform us that BM had
apparently dismissed by earlier emails as doctored fakes. Apparently
you'd been sitting on this info all this time, but you decide to only
inform us when several other people had started to question both your
motive and your sanity.

6. You also decide to reveal that BM had said that Isomedia were
disinterested in pursuing anyone for allegedly faking their emails. Yet
this doesn't sit comfortably with your claim that they had required you
to not publish their emails to you. In fact, it's a whopping great
contradiction. You appear to be suggesting that they are happy for
people to go around misquoting them, but that they object to being
accurately quoted. Very odd. Very odd indeed.

But this is all redundant now. Kate aka Wagga Wagga has stated that
Isomedia confirmed to her that John Pelan did lie. Logically, if Pelan
lied, then everything you have said in his defence is a lie.

CB
http://hauntedriver.co.uk

PS. All this rolling-about-laughing to yourself and the weird
references to me being the devil - seriously, you are a sick man,
O'Brien, and you need help. The only saving grace is that you don't
appear to have children. Speaking as a parent, I am deeply glad about
that.

The People's Poet wrote:

No, this is demonstrably untrue. This is the chain of events as per
usenet archives:

1. I branded Pelan a liar by quoting selectively from two emails sent
to me by Barry Maulding.


That's never been in dispute.


2. You dismissed those emails as fakes . . .


Liar; prove it.


. . . and said that you had been in contact with BM yourself.


This is true, I did contact him.


Furthermore, you said that BM had denied ever
have communicated with me.


Liar; prove it.


3. I then emailed BM and asked him to comment on your claims. He
denied
categorically ever having heard from you. He also gave me permission
to
quote any of his emails.


Liar; you changed the message he actually sent you.


4. I published this last email complete with headers. You responded
with generalized evasions and smokescreens, but you most certainly
did
not say that you had then received later emails from BM, and you most
certainly did not say that BM had accused me of faking the text of
his
email(s).


I said nothing at the time because Mr. Maulding asked me to just drop
the issue. It has only been recently that I have said anything about
this and that is because of your continued attacks.


5. Several months later, when pushed to cough up new evidence
validating your preposterous claims, you suddenly inform us that BM
had
apparently dismissed [m]y earlier emails as doctored fakes.


Liar; prove it.


Apparently
you'd been sitting on this info all this time, but you decide to only
inform us when several other people had started to question both your
motive and your sanity.


Liar; you are the only one who has questioned either, no one else has.
And I revealed this information because you keep making unprovoked
attacks in your obsessed delusional quest for revenge.


6. You also decide to reveal that BM had said that Isomedia were
disinterested in pursuing anyone for allegedly faking their emails.


Liar; I said they were not interested in pursuing YOU. Prove I said
otherwise.


Yet
this doesn't sit comfortably with your claim that they had required
you
to not publish their emails to you.


Liar; they told me not to publish the emails they sent to John Pelan,
which they sent copies of, as I explained on numerous occasions; they
said nothing about not publishing the emails they sent to me. Prove I
said anything different. However, those emails simply said, here are
the emails we sent to John Pelan. That's it; no sense in publishing
them.

Besides, it's a completely different issue, Barker; you are arguing an
apples and organges fallacy.


In fact, it's a whopping great contradiction.


Only in Barkerville, not in the real world.


You appear to be suggesting that they are happy for
people to go around misquoting them, but that they object to being
accurately quoted. Very odd. Very odd indeed.


The way you describe it, yes, but you are deliberately describing a
distorted version to suit your own delusional puposes.


But this is all redundant now. Kate aka Wagga Wagga has stated that
Isomedia confirmed to her that John Pelan did lie.


Liar; she said no such thing. Prove it; quote where she said "Isomedia
confirmed to me that John Pelan lied."


Logically, if Pelan
lied, then everything you have said in his defence is a lie.


But since John did not lie, your syllogism is false.


PS. All this rolling-about-laughing to yourself and the weird
references to me being the devil - seriously, you are a sick man,
O'Brien, and you need help. The only saving grace is that you don't
appear to have children. Speaking as a parent, I am deeply glad about
that.


LOL!

Kevin L. O'Brien

You've called me a liar eight times in your above post. But how does
that sit with the fact that you were yourself outed independently as a
serial liar as per below?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ad11eed04746e8

I think it's pretty obvious that you are projecting guilt at your own
nefarious habits upon me.

Switch off your pc, go visit a doctor, try and make some real friends.
Everyone can see that you've prostituted your arse to John Pelan. I'm
amazed that you have no self-dignity.

Haunted River wrote:

You've called me a liar eight times in your above post. But how does
that sit with the fact that you were yourself outed independently as
a
serial liar as per below?


Simple: accusations by a man who lied about me to third parties and
forged email messages does not constitute proof. But then his behavior
emulates your own, so it is no wonder you idolize his unsupportable
opinion.

I called you a liar 8 times because you lied 8 times; that's just plain
common sense.

Kevin L. O'Brien