Folks,

I've written before about this problem. This "person"'s access to
usenet was removed by aol for some time, (a matter of days) and then was
apparently restored. I again complained when she again posted to
the newsgroup which my list gates. (No, the post was not about
me.) When I complained, (s)he disappeared again. Now (s)he is back.
No, (s)he is not posting about me, but (s)he is back.

What I want to know is this: What is aol's policy on matters like
this? Is that it -- a couple of days without usenet access and
you're back? In other words, a slap on the wrist with no accountability?

Let me tell you what this "person" did.

This "person" suggested in a message about me that someone should
*again* hit me in the head at a concert.

This is something that *did* happen to me. It was done on purpose
by a thug, and it was no joke. It was terrifying.

(S)he knows it, knows I was injured and yet *chose* to post this.

What is aol's policy? Is it to remove "its" access for short portions
of time until I hopefully "forget" that I was punched in the head
from behind, and that she urged that it would be a good thing for
it to happen again?

I have never received anything resembling an apology from the
"person" and in fact received something closely resembling
hate mail from "it" instead.


AOL: This stinks. I'm not going to forget.

My list is on hold, and I am looking and waiting for answers.



Maureen LeBlanc
HWY61-L

cc'd to:
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]


>   Title: Re: Why aren't you in Bournemouth?
>   Author: [log in to unmask] (Roserut)
>   Date: 6 Oct 1997 19:25:19 GMT
>
>Maureen LeBlanc threatening you.  You let a women threaten you - what kind
>of a man are you.  Buying a dog because your scared of Maureen - go track
>down Dylan and borrow his and sic them on her.  Better yet get someone to
>knock in the back of the head again at a concert.
>

(This post was made to usenet. The "person" is not a subscriber.)