Regarding your claim concerning Jeremy Reimer: Nothing of the sort happened. Reimer's ISP politely told you to get stuffed.

Regarding Jay Little: I don't have all the facts, but it now appears that--much as I suspected--what happened was that you spammed and crapflooded his personal site until he changed to a different hosting provider that could block you. I'm sure that I'll stumble across evidence of this sooner or later, just as I stumbled across evidence that you lied about what happened between you and Jeremy.

UPDATE: Still haven't seen any evidence that APK got Reimer's and Little's sites taken down, but I did find Reimer's version of events (and a whole lot more), which seems to tell a rather different story. See how I happened across this info, here.

Nice try, but the cat's already out of the bag.

UPDATE: No need for me to do this now.

Although I might still send him a mail and see if he remembers me from that conference. And let him know how much I appreciated his many excellent posts at WindowITPro.com.

Speaking of Jeremy Reimer... I just posted this tidbit in another thread, but that one's getting kind of deep, so I'll re-post the best part of it right here lest it be buried by and thus go unnoticed in your crapflood over there:

Having fun yet, Sparky? I sure as hell am. :D

Why do you keep referring to Ars Technica as my "backers"?

I've no special relationship with the site's owners. I'm a member of Ars, but so are lots of people. It's true that I know a couple of people who work there, but I've not cited anything in our discussions here that's not available on the public areas of the site to anyone who cares to look, even non-members. Available even to folks like you who've had their Ars accounts banned multiple times.

And how many times do you have to be reminded that linking to a copy of the same unproven claim does not make the claim true?

Provide some actual evidence that this happened.

Since you keep going on and on about about WindowsITPro.com... Let's see what you did there...

*types "WindowsItPro Forums APK troll" into Google...*

Here's the first hit from that site:

http://windowsitpro.com/window...

The very next hit is a Slashdot story from 4 years ago in which you're caught stalking a Slashdot user named clone53421 (much as you've been stalking me):
http://slashdot.org/story/10/0...

Oh dearie me, it just gets better and better... Here you are trolling 4chan:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog...

But I've saved the best for last. Brace yourselves for this one, which features--guess who?--none other than Jeremy Reimer saying, and I quote,

Looks like another APK mystery has been solved.

Speaking of "creepy"...

APK, we're in the midst of a discussion based on facts and logic.

How could this involve you in any way, size, shape, or form?

The point being that if they'd given the entire project to Oracle, then the entire project would in fact be Oracle's responsibility. But they didn't, and so it isn't.

Actually, I posted this a bit hastily. What I should have said was something more like, "If they'd walked off the job as you advocate, they'd very likely be opening up Oracle to a lawsuit for breach of contract, and themselves to getting fired by Oracle for doing so."

Then the consultants were doing their jobs.

But it was not the consultants' job to do this. In fact, if they'd walked off the job as you advocate, they'd very likely be opening themselves up to a lawsuit for breach of contract.

Surely I'm not the only one who finds this ... well... a bit creepy?

APK, you really seem to believe that no-one can see that you (NOT some random ACs--YOU) are merely posting the same 3 or 4 trolls over and over again.

IOW, once again, you try to "prove" things by crapflooding.

And once again I remind you that I've no need to make AC responses to your trolls.

BTW, do you have some logical reason for targeting my most highly rated posts for your biggest crapflood attacks?

Especially since you've claimed that a higher moderation score makes a post less valid--in which case there's really no need for you to try to refute it, right?

You apparently don't understand how logic works.

Let's say you post something that makes some claim A.

I post a response which proves that A is false.

You then post B which is merely a copy of A.

Guess what? B is also false, and there's no need for me to repeat my response in order to prove that it is false.

IOW, repeating a falsehood does NOT make it true.

As I've already said: You have not yet offered the slightest, thinnest shred of evidence that this ever even happened.

Linking to your own previous claims about this does not provide such evidence.