Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GrandmaNettie]

Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away.

Since Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle have made such an issue of "transparency" and "openness" it would seem that when the same question, request, demand is put to them that they would have no problem publishing their receipts, itineraries, and anything else that can show a true and accurate accounting of their expenditure of the funds that have been provided them.

If you truly believe the veracity and integrity of these two, rather than trying to point at 3ABN or Danny, why don't you encourage them to be "open and transparent" to remove all doubt?

As for phishing for information about 3ABN or Danny you might be interesting in the courts latest actions in regards to Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle's phishing expeditions. Seems as if their current one is caught in the doldrums with no bait and no wind in sight.

And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?

Has anyone noticed how much like Ian's writing Anyman's has become in the past few days?

Rather strange that it's taken on such a different tone in regard to sentence structure etc.

It even has a lot of stuff that looks like it's been taken from Pacer documents. You know, a lot of leagalease?     

Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian.  Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such.  Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?

However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective.  The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies.  I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.

I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's  statements.  Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.

[anyman]

Your commentary Mr. Pickle is misleading - but then that isn't a surprise.

The documents filed make it perfectly clear that you have not complied with the Local Rules. The question is did you do so knowingly or were you unaware of the Local Rules?

Sorry, I don't believe that you haven't received the document. Did you turn off your fax machine so you could make this claim? Did the power go out? Quite frankly I have no reason to doubt Atty. Simpson, but tons of reasons not to trust you.

As for the decision in the Illinois court, it doesn't matter what you think as the documents are rather clear. The Court sided with Atty. Simpson on each point he made and ordered you to make your case on or before July 9th. In case you didn't receive that document it is available for you to read, even download at no cost, from 3ABNDefended, go get yourself a copy.

Your commentary is incorrect, anyman.

Gregory Simpson said he faxed a document on June 6, and he said he mailed it too. I still haven't received either one.

Local Rule 7.1(g) concerns motions to reconsider. I did not file a motion to reconsider.

I do not believe the court in Illinois found any such thing.

[guide4him]

anyman's quote.

"Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away."

This reminds me of a political tactic that was used by both Bushes that eventually got them elected. They both said the same thing of each of their candidates they were running against. Something about the oposing candidate waffled back and forth.

 No truth to the statement but said enough times everyone believes the lie. (running for cover since this sounds like an anti-republican statement. I stand on Independent thinking not just blanket republican voting or blanket democrat voting.)

[Johann]

I stick to my guns as long as they keep repeating the same misinformation. Anything wrong with that?

[Ozzie]

Has anyone noticed how much like Ian's writing Anyman's has become in the past few days?

Rather strange that it's taken on such a different tone in regard to sentence structure etc.

It even has a lot of stuff that looks like it's been taken from Pacer documents. You know, a lot of leagalease?     

Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian.  Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such.  Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?

However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective. 

Hadn't you noticed how alike their posts are GrandmaNettie? I would have thought that you'd be more astute than that, as anyman is quoting from what looks like Pacer documents, over at Ian's new site. Maybe, he's just plagiarising the information, without quoting the source? 

But then... you do raise an intersing question about rule violation. I hadn't thought about that, but now you mention it... I might have a yarn with the Moderators about it. Thanks for mentioning that. It had gone right over the top of my head.

The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies.  I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.

I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's  statements.  Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.

I'm sure that it would have to be a coincidence, as there is but one 'Ozzie' here, although I realise that more folk from the land of Oz have joined recently. 

I've had some people from down-under (the land of Oz) ask me if this is a 'safe' Forum to come to, and at times, it difficult to answer that question. 

[Ozzie]

anyman's quote.

"Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away."

This reminds me of a political tactic that was used by both Bushes that eventually got them elected. They both said the same thing of each of their candidates they were running against. Something about the oposing candidate waffled back and forth.

 No truth to the statement but said enough times everyone believes the lie. (running for cover since this sounds like an anti-republican statement. I stand on Independent thinking not just blanket republican voting or blanket democrat voting.)

Oh dear. No polotics please!  You'll either have people running for cover, or else there will be a free-for-all, and gracious me. It's coming up to Sabbath hours, so can't have that there 'ere.

[guide4him]

  when you find a good cover let me know I will be joining you...

[anyman]

You can knit all night with that yarn Ozzie and still come up with nothing to wear - kinda like the emperor.

Your suggestion of plagiarism is just another weak and ineffective attempt at misdirection or an attempt to minimize the impact of the truth upon your chosen perspective. Go have a look at the documents - do I use verbiage from them? Yes. Do I make the same points as they do? Yes - and thank you for proving my points. The fact of the matter is this, legal writing is rather formulaic and to discuss it one must do so in the terms appropriated to it. Now maybe it's different down under - but I am thinking not since the US and Aus. court systems both derive, to some significant extent, from the legal tradition of the United Kingdom.

Now you can continue the weak attempts at misdirection (you must be using Johann's play book) by trying to confuse people about anyman and Ian . . . but . . . no, go ahead, check. Ian is Ian and is many, many miles and bodies of water from me. You might want to take the time you would be wasting checking and head on over to 3ABNDefended and read the legal documents, you know, the ones that are written in "leagalease (sic)".

Has anyone noticed how much like Ian's writing Anyman's has become in the past few days?

Rather strange that it's taken on such a different tone in regard to sentence structure etc.

It even has a lot of stuff that looks like it's been taken from Pacer documents. You know, a lot of leagalease?     

Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian.  Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such.  Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?

However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective. 

Hadn't you noticed how alike their posts are GrandmaNettie? I would have thought that you'd be more astute than that, as anyman is quoting from what looks like Pacer documents, over at Ian's new site. Maybe, he's just plagiarising the information, without quoting the source? 

But then... you do raise an intersing question about rule violation. I hadn't thought about that, but now you mention it... I might have a yarn with the Moderators about it. Thanks for mentioning that. It had gone right over the top of my head.

The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies. I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.

I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's  statements.  Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.

I'm sure that it would have to be a coincidence, as there is but one 'Ozzie' here, although I realise that more folk from the land of Oz have joined recently. 

I've had some people from down-under (the land of Oz) ask me if this is a 'safe' Forum to come to, and at times, it difficult to answer that question. 

[Bob Pickle]

Sorry, I don't believe that you haven't received the document. Did you turn off your fax machine so you could make this claim? Did the power go out? Quite frankly I have no reason to doubt Atty. Simpson, but tons of reasons not to trust you.

And yet you have great difficulty documenting how I can't be trusted.

The fax never arrived. Neither did the copy he claimed he stuck in the mail. It has nothing to do with a fax machine being off, for if it was off, then Simpson's fax machine couldn't indicate that the fax had been sent!

It doesn't seem like you are trying at all to be fair.

As for the decision in the Illinois court, it doesn't matter what you think as the documents are rather clear. The Court sided with Atty. Simpson on each point he made and ordered you to make your case on or before July 9th.

I disagree. How could the court side with Simpson when it hadn't heard our side at all? And if it sided with Simpson on every point, why didn't it quash the subpoena?

[Michael Kopper]

even a idiot could see that is what you just did gramma.  who you tryin to kid?

Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian.  Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such.  Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?

However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective.  The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies.  I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's  statements.  Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.

[GrandmaNettie]

Only all of us kidders, Michael Kopper.  It wasn't meant to be subtle.   But please note that I didn't mention the member ID that seemed so similar to Ozzie's.

even a idiot could see that is what you just did gramma.  who you tryin to kid?

Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian.  Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such.  Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?

However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective.  The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies.  I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's  statements.  Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.

[Snoopy]

I think it is quite obvious that someone other than the original anyman is using the anyman ID.  And it is my opinion that it sounds quite a bit like Ian who is being fed information from someone with a legal background...BTJM...

Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian.  Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such.  Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?

However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective.  The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies.  I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.

I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's  statements.  Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.

[Snoopy]

Aren't there legal consequences for using confidential information that was obtained illegally?

Only all of us kidders, Michael Kopper.  It wasn't meant to be subtle.   But please note that I didn't mention the member ID that seemed so similar to Ozzie's.

even a idiot could see that is what you just did gramma.  who you tryin to kid?

Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian.  Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such.  Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?

However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective.  The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies.  I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's  statements.  Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Thanks for the clarification, Bob.  I re-read the thread and see that discovery costs is exactly where you said the donations were needed and would be used.  I posed part of my post on the Topic title, Defence Fund Needed.

I still maintain that it would be wise to detail where the donations have been spent.  Fran stated "Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency."  What about potential donors who would like to be confident that their donations would be spent as advertised?

To those who perceive my posts as phishing for facts to see the amount of support received, while you are partially incorrect in your conclusion I do believe that one's perception becomes one's reality so I do not see the value in attempting to change your minds.  Where you are correct is that I am, indeed, "phishing" for facts, as I always have been.

... to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit ...

Sounds nice, but we haven't advertised it that way. We said it was going to go to pay for discovery costs rather than preparing our defense, the latter which could cover a wider range of expenses.

More to come.

Not that I consider your concerns genuine, Grandma, and in fact wish to make clear I do NOT, but I do believe openness and transparency is in order. Donor names will be protected, but the expenses are simple enough and will be reported soon enough. On te other hand, if you are "contemplating" support, I am sure Bob could give you an impromptu statement.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Snoopy]

Then that would be a private matter between the potential donor and the donee.  Nobody else's business, including yours!!  Why are you so interested in their business since you obvious do not support them?  GAJ/BP do not claim to be a tax-exempt organization, a charity, a religious organization, a private foundation or any such legal entity, and they owe no one an explanation except donors who ask, IMO.

Thanks for the clarification, Bob.  I re-read the thread and see that discovery costs is exactly where you said the donations were needed and would be used.  I posed part of my post on the Topic title, Defence Fund Needed.

I still maintain that it would be wise to detail where the donations have been spent.  Fran stated "Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency."  What about potential donors who would like to be confident that their donations would be spent as advertised?

To those who perceive my posts as phishing for facts to see the amount of support received, while you are partially incorrect in your conclusion I do believe that one's perception becomes one's reality so I do not see the value in attempting to change your minds.  Where you are correct is that I am, indeed, "phishing" for facts, as I always have been.

... to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit ...

Sounds nice, but we haven't advertised it that way. We said it was going to go to pay for discovery costs rather than preparing our defense, the latter which could cover a wider range of expenses.

More to come.