In the following post to usenet, Ken Pangborn implies that he has seen my credit report.  Of course, unless I had requested a loan from Mr. Pangborn, it would be illegal for him to pull my credit report.  Thus, Ken has basically confessed to commission of a felony with this post.

Ironically, in addition to his claims that I have a subpar credit rating, Ken also claims to have proof that I recently purchased a $100,000 home. One can see the obvious inconsistency.

This post is also another prime example of Pangborn misattributing a post to me.  I was not the author of the original post in the thread.

From:        pangk@aol.com (PangK)
Newsgroups:  soc.men
Subject: Re: PANGBURN STARTS NEW HATE WAR
Message-ID: <1998052210173700.GAA03039@ladder03.news.aol.com
 NNTP-Posting-Host:  ladder03.news.aol.com
Date:  22 May 1998 10:17:37 GMT
Organization:  AOL http://www.aol.com

x-no-archive: yes

From: "PHILIP LEWIS" <xmp88@dial.pipex.com
Newsgroups: soc.men

to David Moore:

Many claims but not a shred of proof to back it up - in the UK I believe what
you have just written is libellous and you could be sued for it.

     He could be sued over here too. Sad part is that the creep is JUDGEMENT
PROOF. It'd cost a fortune to sue him and oyu
couldn't get the price of some french fries or a small coke at McDonalds's out
of the asshole. He doern'tr have a thing to go after. His retail credit file
looks sort of like Hirsoshima on September, 1945.