The following was received today from Linda Thompson:

From iquest.net!lindat Sun Jul 7 09:57:26 1996
Received: by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
id m0ucx9A-000FrMC; Sun, 7 Jul 96 09:57 PDT
Received: from iquest.net (iquest4.iquest.net) by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ; 7 JUL 96 09:57:09 PDT
Received: from ind-002-236-101.iquest.net by iquest.net with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0ucx3w-0049IoC; Sun, 7 Jul 96 11:52 EST
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 96 11:52 EST

I just re-visited your webpage, to find that you are now using my posts to you, requesting that you remove references to me from your list of supposed nazis and racists, as a further vehicle to defame me with fabrications, to wit:

I first wrote to you on July 4, at 12:35 a.m. and due to a problem in sending which indicated the first post may not have gone to you, I resent this same post on July 4 at 1:27 a.m. I have both original posts with the time stamps.

Ms. Thompson provides examples of apparent confusion over time zones, standard, and daylight time, and reaches an interesting conclusion:

Notice your supposed "reply" to my first post has an automated reference to my first post that says you are replying on July 3, to a message I wrote on July 4. Looking at the times, there is a 24 hour difference. Your "reply" supposedly pre-dates my original message to you by 24 hours. Hmmmm.

Thus, Ms. Thompson claims a 24-hour difference exists between 01:08 Eastern Standard Time and 23:14 Pacific Daylight Time. "Hmmmm", indeed.

[See original text - material deleted here]

From this fascinating relevelation, Ms. Thompson thus concludes:

You have again manually changed the date in the first line to July 3, but you are shown to be a two-fold liar by the automated time stamp that shows this supposed "response" was written earlier than the post you put up as my "first" letter. Neither your "July 3" reply, nor this supposed "response" to the "July 3" reply, are what you claim, easily shown by the real time stamps.

I wrote the same message to you on July 4, twice, about 30 minutes apart, solely to insure that you did, in fact, receive it.

You did not reply until the 5th, but you changed the timestamp, manually, to July 3 (as shown above) and attempted to alter the header on the timestamps of the messages from me so you could claim I wrote you on July 3, and you replied asking for more details on July 3, but all you got was a second copy of the same original message on July 4.

You are a liar and you are altered messages to make the "proof" fit your lies. I show the proof above, and you will see it again, in court.

It is obvious that you have an agenda and that you are attempting to promote yourself at my expense and that you will stoop to republishing lies and fabricating defamatory comments about me yourself.

Further comments from me will be in court documents to follow.

Mr. McVay's response pointed out that there appeared to be some confusion on Ms. Thompson's part with regard to time zones, as evidenced in the methodology above.

Were we to apply this methodology to Ms. Thompson's message today, we would be forced to conclude that it does not exist, since it was received before it was sent.

Ms. Thompson's reply, after Mr. McVay pointed out her confusion over timezone differences, was this:

"Right. So, to wriggle out of it, you claim you didn't change the time stamps and blame automation, but you also claim that you knew all this all along? Uh-huh.

"That means you lied and were deceitful when you claimed otherwise on your webpage and attempted to use this false "issue" to smear me again.

"Your methods and purpose are quite clear.."

"Er...sure, Ms. Thompson, sure."

The fulltext of Ms. Thompson's email is available by ftp.

The fulltext of Mr. McVay's response is available by ftp as well.

[ Index ] [an error occurred while processing this directive]