You've said many silly things Kennard but at times the odd bit of truth finds its way in...

Edited in places:

nx wrote:

Bit like Graeme Capill and others of that ilk

Unnlike those who are nos supporters who scurry like rats to complain to the moderators aye cybernana, why did you wait a week before complaining It was most unfortunate (or was it providential) that Trademe told who complained in their warning to me.

I have complained to Trademe about personal abuse that crossed the line from nostalia-nz in his many incarnations. But I have not felt the need to complain about others to sink to their level. For the benefit of nostaligia-nz I do not drink Does that make me better than you nostalgia-nz? No it doesn't, what makes me better is that I don't feel the need to intimidate anyone. I don't feel the need to resort to abuse on a blog. If I have a comment to make about something to voice my opinion I do it to the persons face or directly to the person as I have to DC Pope and Paul Davison QC and the words I wrote were facts not "honestly held opinion" I do not need to hide behind weasel words on anonymous blog sites, or behind false names in emails.
I know no facts in the matter of R V Bain as I have never studied the case that closely

Edited by linz4me at 10:51 pm, Fri 24 Dec

First of all linz4me. Cybernana didn't complain about you and has said so. You have no proof that she complained about you but you post it as 'truth' anyway.

Secondly, you claim to have complained about me in the past and in the next sentence say that you haven't complained about others. That might make sense to you but not to me. Overall, who cares. I know that there was a campaign launched by the hate-sites against me on TM and elsewhere, the proof of that remains on the internet. You wanted me shut up. Further you and others, named yesterday have made false complaints about me to the authorities. Despite attempting to distance yourself from the hate-sites now the reality is that the record holds otherwise. You also accused me of emailing you, something else which is completely false and you use this false accusation in an effort to make purchase against myself and others. You used a lie, just as here above, you lie about cybernana and have the temerity to not post the proof. As it prevails I know why you were warned by TM and frankly I am somewhat amazed you haven't been permanently banned for a number of issues not just those including myself and family.

The purpose of the blog is fairly clear linz4me and one of those purposes is to name people such as yourself, Christine Williams, Glenda OBrien, and a host of others who have lied about others and encouraged stalking of them or their families. It is all on record. You squeal too loudly linz4me, you take personal offence when it is you involved but sit back with both pleasure and encouragement when it is others. You did a particular distasteful thing to another poster who offered you wise counsel, and that is recorded as well. Of course the new year will hopefully resolve a lot of these issues because they have taken on an importance of their own, an attempt to manipulate Justice linz4me, that began before the retrial and which eventually personalised itself into threats, intimidation and stalking - honest people with an interest in Justice don't do those things linz4me. Honest people don't make the truth, the truth is as it exists and as it is understood.

Which brings me to probably the most significant point of all, you said above 'I know no facts in the matter of R V Bain as I have never studied the case that closely' That much rate as one of the most frightening things you've ever written, despite not knowing the 'facts' you happily joined hate-sites and enjoyed attention as a legal 'expert' of sorts. Not only that you've encouraged personal attacks against members of the public in order to silence them, you've done this without understanding the case. That's a very common feature with hate-sites members, I have yet to engage with one who has a truthful interest in the case, at every opportunity platitudes are used and sweeping statements employed to justify persecution. How you can so casually dismember your own position beggars belief.

Just one quick parallel here. I've never claimed an understanding of the Watson case that is comprehensive, there are certainly things which are disturbing about some of the evidence and the arrival of the evidence, but not knowing the situation fully I've never condemned the man or the Police inquiry because to use your words 'I know no facts.' But the salient point is consistency, something that is merely a throw away line with you despite the people you and others from the hate-sites have done to hurt others.