Print

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

[anyman]

Like many people I don't care what you think. What matters is the truth and it doesn't emanate from you.

Thank you for proving my reasons for not giving you the specifics.

Significant and sufficient.

[Bob Pickle]

Like many people I don't care what you think. What matters is the truth and it doesn't emanate from you.

Thank you for proving my reasons for not giving you the specifics.

Significant and sufficient.

Again, I call your bluff. If you have the facts, then lay them out.

Otherwise, don't make the accusations.

[anyman]

No. I don't need to. Those who need to know the truth do and they know it doesn't come from you.

I will, because they are true.

[Bob Pickle]

Now you're sounding like Danny.

So, since you are accusing me of not telling the truth, but are refusing to give even one single example, let me ask, are you suggesting that the subpoenas upon MidCountry weren't dated Dec. 6 and 12, 2007? Or that the opposition's motions weren't filed on Dec. 18, 2007, and around June 25, 2008? Or that Simpson never said the Tommy allegations weren't relevant? Or that Simpson hasn't now admitted that Danny's cover up of the child molestation allegations were part of the original basis for the lawsuit?

If you simply refuse to answer, I think people aren't going to think you very reasonable. Except maybe for folks like Danny and Simpson. But then, that really isn't a compliment.

[Cindy]

Posted by myself in an unedited form elsewhere... and then copied and pasted for a rebuttal and reply here...

Title: Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies #1
by Synthian » Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:11 pm UTC

Bob Pickle can't handle the truth.  He can't be trusted to tell the whole truth, nor to even hear, see it or accept it from those who point it out. What he can be consistently counted on to do is to justify himself and his claims and quibble and argue endlessly regardless of the facts, documents and evidence; and to accuse others of what he himself does and is guilty of. That is very sad. The only thing sadder in my book is those who he deceives and those who continue to defend him and his deceptions and misrepresentations.


For example In regards to the confidentiality and protection issues concerning discovery in the now dismissed lawsuit...

Bob Pickle posted and claimed on Adventtalk to anyman this past weekend

Now you're sounding like Danny.

So, since you are accusing me of not telling the truth, but are refusing to give even one single example, let me ask, are you suggesting that the subpoenas upon MidCountry weren't dated Dec. 6 and 12, 2007? Or that the opposition's motions weren't filed on Dec. 18, 2007, and around June 25, 2008? ...

If you simply refuse to answer, I think people aren't going to think you very reasonable. Except maybe for folks like Danny and Simpson. But then, that really isn't a compliment.

I'll call your bluff. I think you're lying.

You've been at this for three years now, and while you're good at assertions, you can't back up what you say with real facts.

That's the way the lawsuit has been. Simpson claimed in his last filing that we were frustrated by the court's delays over the confidentiality order and the motion to limit the scope of discovery, and thus got a subpoena from Minnesota to serve on MidCountry.

But the facts are that according to the opposition's own filings, we got that subpoena from Minnesota 6 days before their filed their motion for a confidentiality order, and 6 months 13 days or so before they filed their motions to limit the scope of discovery.

The assertion sounded good an plausible, but it was a lie. And it has been a lie every time the opposition has told it.

Folks,
THAT IS NOT A LIE. The facts and evidence is documented and plain to see for anyone looking for that, and for those who are it is quite obvious that the only one misrepresenting things and not telling the truth is Bob Pickle.

2 B Cont.

Title: re: Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies #1
by Synthian  » Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:43 pm UT

While it is true that 3ABN was forced to file a  Motion for a Protection order on Dec 18, it is not true that this proves Pickle didn't engage in an end run around those issues just because his  3rd party subpoena was issued on Dec 12. As always he misrepresents the facts and leaves out much to make his false claims and justifications, and accuses others of lying while the only lies which can proven to be lies are his own.


As Simpson recounted:

To circumvent the discovery delays and limitations they encountered in this forum as these issues worked their way to a conclusion, Defendants served at least six third party
subpoenas seeking more or less the same information as was requested from the Plaintiffs. (See Mag. Judge Hillman’s order , Doc. 106 at p. 2). The information they sought in other courts was largely information that they could have obtained directly from the Plaintiffs. [/u]For example, they sought Plaintiff Shelton’s personal bank records dating back to 1998 from his bank. (See Subpoena on Mid-Country Bank, attached as Exhibit 6 to Kingsbury Affidavit, Doc. 76). They sought information on Shelton’s royalties from the publication of his books directly from the publisher. (See Subpoena on Remnant Publications, attached as Exhibit 3 to Kingsbury Affidavit, Doc. 76). They sought all financial and accounting records for both 3ABN and Shelton from their accountants. (See Subpoena on Gray, Hunter, Stenn, LLP, attached as Exhibit 4 to Kingsbury Affidavit, Doc. 76). They sought records regarding an employee who had filed a charge of discrimination against 3ABN, which was later dismissed, directly from the employee. (See Subpoena on Kathi Bottomley, attached as Exhibit 7, Doc. 76).

All of this information could have been obtained directly from the Plaintiffs by use of authorization forms or otherwise, but Defendants sought to circumvent any limitations that this Court might place on their factual foraging by using third party subpoenas issued by other courts. Plaintiffs resisted the end-run around this Court, and participated in motions to quash or limit the scope of the subpoenas in Minnesota and Illinois, in which they persuaded the courts to transfer the issue of relevance to this Court for resolution.
(See Kingsbury Aff. ¶¶ 11, 16 and 17). [b]The Defendants thus greatly increased the
expense of the litigation for everybody, which was manifestly not necessary to the litigation but rather to investigate every aspect of Plaintiffs’ activities throughout 3ABN’s
existence for purposes of reporting negative information to the public.[/b]

And also as Jerrie Hayes filed:

Two matters related to confidentiality and discovery have already been heard by the Massachusetts Court in this matter, including a motion for impoundment heard on May 10, 2007 and June 21, 2007 and a motion concerning production of electronically stored information (e-discovery motion) heard on August 9, 2007. [Hayes Aff., ¶ 5].

On November 29, 2007 and December 7, 2007, Defendant Pickle served written Requests for Production of Documents upon 3ABN and Danny Shelton, respectively. Defendants’ written Requests for Production specifically included the following demand: Request No. 38: From January 1, 1998, onward, for Plaintiff Shelton, D&L Publishing, DLS Publishing, or any DBA or corporation over which you have exercised control (other than 3ABN), all financial statements and accounting records, all bank statements or records (including without limitation statements or records for any investment accounts, savings accounts, or insurance accounts, or any other accounts which give such detail as amount(s) deposited or withdrawn, or an ongoing statement of value), and all credit or charge account statements or record (including without limitation statements or records for any credit cards, charge cards, loans, mortgages, or collateral arrangements, or any other statements or records which give such detail as amount(s) withdrawn, purchase(s) or payment(s) made, or an ongoing statement of amount owed).

[Hayes Aff., Ex. C]. Around this same time,1 Defendant Pickle caused to issue four, third-party subpoenas, all of which sought, in whole or in part, Plaintiffs’ sensitive, confidential or proprietary business, financial and operational records. [Hayes Aff., Exs.D, E, F and G].

In direct response to defendant Pickle’s discovery efforts, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order on December 18, 2007, seeking to preclude discovery of 3ABN’s confidential donor information and seeking to preclude the disclosure, dissemination or publication of the parties’ confidential or proprietary financial, business and operational information to third-parties. [Hayes Aff., Ex. H]. Additionally, on January 9, 2008, Plaintiff Shelton served his responses to Pickle’s Requests for Production and specifically objected to Request No. 38 on the grounds that it sought information neither temporally nor substantively relevant to the underlying dispute and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that it sought highly confidential, personal financial information, and that it was unduly burdensome, harassing and embarrassing. [Hayes Aff., Ex. I]. Plaintiff Shelton refused to produce the temporally and substantively irrelevant documents sought by Pickle and would agree to produce relevant, non privileged documents only upon the parties’ execution of a mutual confidentiality agreement or the Court’s issuance of a protective order. Id. Though the parties  have engaged in discussions concerning that discovery dispute, the matter has not been heard by the Court in the underlying action, nor has the issue of the relevance or confidentiality of Plaintiff Shelton’s personal financial records been resolved. [Hayes Aff., ¶ 10].

The instant Subpoena was signed and issued by the Clerk of this Court on December 12, 2007 to MidCountry Bank, a non-party to the underlying litigation. [Hayes Aff., Ex. J].[size=150] MidCountry confirmed that it received the subpoena on January 18, 2008.[/size] [Hayes Aff., ¶ 12]. The Subpoena, in an Exhibit A attachment strikingly similar to Defendant Pickle’s Request for Production No. 38, demands that MidCountry produce to Defendant Pickle, by February 10, 2008, bank statements from 1998 onward for accounts owned by Shelton, D&L Publishing, and DLS Publishing. [Hayes Aff., Ex. J].

The confidentiality and protection of private or trademark and propriatory information was an issue from day one in the lawsuit. Pickle knows that very well.

    http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/

 

 [size=200]  07/20/2007  [/size]  18     REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. [by](Pucci, John) (Entered:07/202007):
   Page 1 of 7
    Having been unable to secure agreement as to the contents and information for a Joint 26(f) Report, the parties are filing separate Rule 26(f) reports. This report is submitted on behalf of Plaintiffs 3ABN and Danny Shelton.

     pp 2-3 of 7
    Despite the filing of the instant action, Pickle and Joy’s campaign of orchestrated disparagement continues. Plaintiffs anticipate the instant case will require considerable discovery, as Pickle and Joy’s defamation and trademark infringement are ongoing, and that there will be numerous, contentious discovery disputes. Defendants have already stated their intention to refuse Plaintiffs original-source access to electronically stored information, they have already challenged Plaintiffs’ right to discoverable information based on an alleged “reporter’s privilege,” and they have already raised an allegation that Plaintiffs have engaged in the destruction of evidence, yet refused to provide Plaintiffs with supporting information that Plaintiffs would need to investigate the charge.

    Additionally, Plaintiffs’ concerns about Defendants using the pleadings in this matter, both as a forum to disparage Plaintiffs and as a source of material Defendants will mischaracterize, editorialize, sensationalize and publish to misinform the public, have come to fruition since the lifting of the impoundment order. In fact, since the Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Impoundment, Defendants have directed visitors to the infringing “Save3ABN” website to the Court’s PACER system, clearly evidencing their intent to use this Court’s own document repository and the pleadings and submissions contained therein, as a platform to continue publishing defamatory and derogatory statements about the Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs’ also anticipate the case will require substantial attention to the protection of various discovery materials and case submissions.

    Page 4 of 7:
    

(c) Discovery Limitations
    ...
   Plaintiff proposes a Stipulated Protective
    Order (proposed Order attached hereto)
    to govern discovery

[size=200]07/20/2007 [/size]  19     First JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 (d) by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle.(Heal, Laird) (Entered: 07/20/2007):

Defendants reassert their constitutional right pursuant to the US Constitution and the First Amendment thereto to continue to investigate and to report on the conduct of the Plaintiffs. Further, by their written statements the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel clearly intended the filing of this action to result in the silence of the press and as such would be a misuse of process pursuant to the Defendants’ right to freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech inherent in the US Constitution. Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs’ proposed STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONFIDENTIALITY is a contempt of the Honorable Court and a veiled effort to impound discovery grossly violating the clear order of the court as the Plaintiffs continue their efforts to sidestep local rule 7(a) in an effort to avoid full disclosure to the contributing public.

Affidavit of Jerrie Hayes case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 46:

3.    In November of 2007, Defendant Pickle, now represented pro se, attempted to
informally obtain discovery in the case, including the informal scheduling of depositions
and the informal inspection of documents described in Plaintiffs' 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures.  Understanding Pickle was represented pro se, Plaintiff and counsel on their behalf made every effort to reasonably accommodate Pickle's informal requests.

4.   When Pickle insisted on learning the date of 3ABN's January Board meeting, for the purpose of scheduling Board member depositions at or near the time of the meeting, I
informed Pickle that such a schedule would be logistically and procedurally inappropriate
and I asked him to provide me with a list of deponents and proposed dates for their
deposition. When Pickle insisted on obtaining the date of the January Board meeting, I
ended efforts to informally schedule those depositions.

5.  When Pickle insisted on informally inspecting, reviewing and copying Plaintiffs' highly sensitive trade secret, financial and business information, Plaintiffs refused to informally provide that information without a mutually negotiated Confidentiality Agreement in Place. Defendent Pickle refused to acknowledge the sensitive nature of the confidential information and refused outright to attempt to negotiate a mutually agreement Confidentiality Order.

Letters between JH and Bob Pickle referred to above are dated Nov 2007, and include the following: (and can be accessed here in full:
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-37.htm)

Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 37-2 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 24 of 39

November 20, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE/ U.S. MAIL
Mr. Robert Pickle
1354 County Highway 21
Halstad, MN 56548
Re: Three Angels BroadcastingNetwork,Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton vs.
Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle
Court Docket No.07-40098-FDS
Our File No.24,681-D-002

Dear Mr. Pickle:

I am in receipt of your correspondence of November 16 and 19, 2007 and I write in
response thereto.

As to the 26(a)(1) documents, all materials held by Siegel, Brill are duplicates of the
materials held by Plaintiffs and by Massachusetts counsel. You may perform an in-person
inspection at any of the three locations, but it would not be necessary to do an inspection at more than one. All Plaintiffs' 26(a)(1) materials are in hard-copy, paper form. Not including the printed pages of the various websites upon which statements about Plaintiffs have been published-all of which are publicly available and would undoubtedly be less expensive for you to access and print yourself than to obtain as copies from our offices-the total volume of 26(a)(1) materials is less than 500 pages. These materials, however, include extremely sensitive and confidential business information and will not be disclosed by Plaintiffs without a protective order in place.

Plaintiffs circulated a proposed protective order as part of their proposed 26(f) Report.
Please review it and let me know if you are in agreement as to its terms and will stipulate to it governing this case. If not, we will need to negotiate a mutually agreeable protective and confidentiality order prior to your inspection of and prior to Plaintiffs' disclosure of the materials at issue. Please let me know if you no longer have a copy of Plaintiffs' proposed Protective Order and I will forward another for your review.


Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 37-2 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 27 of 39

JERRIEM.HAYES
*** *** ****
j****@****
November 28, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE / U.S. MAIL
Mr. Robert Pickle
1354 County Highway 21
Halstad, MN 56548
Re: Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton vs.
Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle
Court Docket No. 07-40098-FDS
Our File No. 24,681-D-002

Dear Mr. Pickle:

I am writing in response to your correspondence of November 21, 2007. First, the only plaintiffs in this case are Danny Shelton and 3ABN, which is an Illinois non-profit corporation. 3ABN’s Board Members are not “litigants against” you. To the extent any Board Member has knowledge of the facts and circumstances underlying the Complaint or your Answer thereto, they may be witnesses in the case, and potentially subject to deposition, but they are decidedly not parties to this lawsuit.

Second, as I have previously stated, the dates of 3ABN Board Meetings are irrelevant and
not necessary to the scheduling of the various depositions in this matter. I do not intend to
disclose to you the dates and times of my client’s private board meetings and you need not repeat your request for the information. Since it appears you will not provide me with the names and proposed dates and locations of the Board Members you wish to depose, I will discontinue my efforts to facilitate the informal scheduling of those depositions and will simply await your formal Depositions Notices.

Third, Plaintiffs will not authorize either the inspection or production of the extremely
sensitive, confidential business and commercial information which constitutes the bulk of their 26(a)(1) disclosures without a Protective Order in place that maintains the confidentiality of that information. If you are unwilling to agree to the terms of the Protective Order that Plaintiffs have already proposed and are unwilling to alternatively negotiate an otherwise mutually agreeable Protective Order, Plaintiffs will await the Court’s ruling on the Protective Order that was submitted to it as part of Plaintiffs’ 26(f) Report. There is no need to appear at my office for document inspection on December 7,2007, or to discuss any details concerning copying of materials, unless this matter has been resolved.

Finally, as Plaintiffs have been granted relief from the automatic stay in Joy’s bankruptcy
matter, I will take your last correspondence as written authorization that facsimile service upon you may be made through Mr. Joy’s facsimile (*** ** ****) and will send all future facsimiles to you at that number until notified otherwise.

Sincerely,
JMH/cg

Case 0:08-mc-00007-RHK-AJB Document 4 Filed 02/07/2008 Page 3 of 4
Affidavit of Jerrie Hayes

8. Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed Protective Order to govern the production of
documents and information in the underlying case. True and correct copies of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Protective Order and Proposed Order, accompanied by the Affidavit of Danny
Shelton in support thereof, are attached hereto as Exhibit H.

9. On January 9, 2008, Plaintiff Shelton responded to Defendant Pickle’s Request for Production of Documents and specifically objected to the demand for bank account information in Request No. 38 on the grounds that it was irrelevant, sought highly personal and confidential information and was unduly burdensome, harassing and embarrassing. A true and correct copy of page 19 of Plaintiff Shelton’s Response to Defendant Pickle’s Request for Production of Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

10. Plaintiffs have engaged in discussions with Defendants regarding the discovery dispute concerning Request for Production No. 38, but the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to hear the matter. The parties have been thus far unable to resolve the issues of relevance or confidentiality in relation to Plaintiff Shelton’s personal financial records.

11. Defendant Pickle caused the clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to issue a subpoena duces tecum, dated December 12, 2007, to nonparty MidCountry Bank, demanding production by February 10, 2008 of bank records from 1998 onward for Danny Shelton, D&L Publishing, DLS Publishing and Crossbridge Music, Inc. A true and correct copy of the subpoena duces tecum is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

DS' response to Pickle/Joy request for his bank records:

edited for format purposes - to delete spaces.

[Artiste]

Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies

Pickle's sewing???

Is he making quilts, taking up dressmaking, or what?

[Nosir Myzing]

Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies

Pickle's sewing???

Is he making quilts, taking up dressmaking, or what?

That is really beyond pathetic, Artiste.

Do you honestly expect people to accept that you are too dense and unable to address the documented evidence here that this is your only thoughts or reaction and answer to what was posted?

Bob Pickle can't handle the truth.  He can't be trusted to tell the whole truth, nor to even hear, see it or accept it from those who point it out. What he can be consistently counted on to do is to justify himself and his claims and quibble and argue endlessly regardless of the facts, documents and evidence; and to accuse others of what he himself does and is guilty of. That is very sad. The only thing sadder in my book is those who he deceives and those who continue to defend him and his deceptions and misrepresentations....

[Nosir Myzing]

But now that Simpson has admitted that the lawsuit was originally based on Danny's cover up of the Tommy allegations, then he has also basically admitted that he did obstruct discovery when he claimed that the Tommy allegations weren't relevant.

Don't be obtuse. We aren't. Your claim that Danny Shelton and 3ABN covered up allegations of sexual abuse of children was just one of the MANY false allegations which you made and which were enumerated in the lawsuit and were defamation per se. You can try and drum up and find allegations against TS to your dying day or judgment day (whichever comes first) but whether they are true or false that doesn't prove one single thing as far as your claims that DS and 3ABN covered them up as far as the  lawsuit is concerned, they just aren't relevant!

You are obsessed with the issue and justice? Fine! then let the police and the social workers and Tommy's church handle it, and help them find the truth and do so, that is their job, and it is your moral job to help them, but don't pretend your witch hunt against D.S, and 3ABN helps any children or stops any sexual crimes! It doesn't! They acted on what they knew, not what you claim to!

You are helping NONE, and hurting MANY. And no matter what you argue, the ends just don't justify the means.

[Bob Pickle]

Do you honestly expect people to accept that you are too dense and unable to address the documented evidence here that this is your only thoughts or reaction and answer to what was posted?

What documented evidence? You didn't provide any, did you?

Apparently you are trying to explain how our subpoenas of December 6 and 12, 2007, really could be issued after the plaintiffs' motions of Dec. 18, 2007, and June 25, 2008. Lots of luck.

By the way, you quote above where Jerrie Hayes refers to a proposed protective order she submitted "as part of Plaintiffs’ 26(f) Report." Could you please provide a link to where one can actually read that document as it was sumitted to the court with that report? Hint: see Doc. 18 at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/. Then quote for us the actual text of that proposed order.

Hint: Jerrie never submitted any such proposed protective order with the 26(f) report.

If the state of Washington felt like it had to make sure that 3ABN wasn't deceiving it in regards to the charitable gift annuity debacle up there, then certainly we have been justified in maintaining that we must be allowed to challenge any document Danny or 3ABN produces.

What does that mean? That means we have to be allowed to get the documents from collateral sources, not just the dishonest plaintiffs. We have to be allowed to make sure that any bank statements given to us by Danny and 3ABN are the same as the ones MidCountry or any other bank has.

But back to the main point: Simpson explicitly stated, "Frustrated by delays they encountered as this Court considered what sort of protective order and limits on the scope of discovery would be appropriate, Defendants circumvented this Court and obtained subpoenas from sister courts in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan ...."

• On December 12, 2007, when the court in Minnesota issued that second subpoena, the court in Massachusetts wasn't considering any such things, since the plaintiffs hadn't filed their motions yet.
• There were no delays at that point, other than the Rule 26(a)(1) materials, since Danny and 3ABN didn't respond to my requests to produce until January.
• Judge Saylor had already explicitly ruled that there would be no stay of discovery while such motions were being crafted, filed, and ruled upon.
• While the date of the first subpoena, Dec. 6, 2007, is important, it doesn't tell you how early we were thinking about going after the bank records.

In going through some correspondence, looks like I started giving thought to subpoenas by October 29, 2007, which would be before I went pro se. I had started drafting one by Nov. 12, 2007.

How much earlier do we need to go before you are convinced that Atty. Greg Simpson lied to the court on that point?

[Bob Pickle]

But now that Simpson has admitted that the lawsuit was originally based on Danny's cover up of the Tommy allegations, then he has also basically admitted that he did obstruct discovery when he claimed that the Tommy allegations weren't relevant.

... You can try and drum up and find allegations against TS to your dying day or judgment day (whichever comes first) but whether they are true or false that doesn't prove one single thing as far as your claims that DS and 3ABN covered them up as far as the  lawsuit is concerned, they just aren't relevant!

False.

Before one can prove that someone covered them up, you have to prove that there was something to cover up. And one needs to know just how many allegations Danny unethically and reprehensibly and irresponsibly covered up.

Simpson has admitted that all of that was part of the original basis for the lawsuit. He lied a year and a half ago when he claimed it wasn't relevant.

[Daryl Fawcett]

And the point you are trying to make? 

Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies

Pickle's sewing???

Is he making quilts, taking up dressmaking, or what?

[Murcielago]

And the point you are trying to make? 

Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies

Pickle's sewing???

Is he making quilts, taking up dressmaking, or what?

Just a guess, but it looks like Artiste was making a play on words with the mis-spelling that she quoted.

[quaddie47]

And the point you are trying to make? 

Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies

Pickle's sewing???

Is he making quilts, taking up dressmaking, or what?

Just a guess, but it looks like Artiste was making a play on words with the mis-spelling that she quoted.

Nice attempt at a save George.  Do you think the explanation would apply if i went back and found the last similar post by Artiste?

[Murcielago]

And the point you are trying to make? 

Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies

Pickle's sewing???

Is he making quilts, taking up dressmaking, or what?

Just a guess, but it looks like Artiste was making a play on words with the mis-spelling that she quoted.

Nice attempt at a save George.  Do you think the explanation would apply if i went back and found the last similar post by Artiste?

A save from what? Its a joke based on the difference between "sewing" and "sowing," and comes with a chuckle at the thought of Pickle sewing quilts and dresses.

[Cindy]

And the point you are trying to make?  

Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies

Pickle's sewing???

Is he making quilts, taking up dressmaking, or what?

Just a guess, but it looks like Artiste was making a play on words with the mis-spelling that she quoted.

Nice attempt at a save George.  Do you think the explanation would apply if i went back and found the last similar post by Artiste?

A save from what? Its a joke based on the difference between "sewing" and "sowing," and comes with a chuckle at the thought of Pickle sewing quilts and dresses.

hmmm, well for what it's worth as I am the one who wrote it I didn't misspell anything, George.  I wasn't talking about Pickle "sowing confusion" as in planting seeds of doubt, I really meant "sewing confusion" as in patching together his half truths...That thought does not cause me to chuckle, and I fail to understand why Artiste found that so funny as you say, and why she can't ever reply to the actual subject matter, when any who are not you, post. I did follow up the title of the post which she quoted with an example of what I was talking about, but whatever...