Re: Private Eye - false information
Posted by Sharon on 5/18/08
BB, What on earth are you talking about? What exactly do you mean that It doesn't
have to be a "big thing" and that I shouldn't make it one? Am I to take that as
a Threat from an anonymous poster who says they are not involved in a Chicago
mold case? Why is this such a big deal to you? On 5/17/08, Sharon wrote:
> BB,
>
> I'm sorry, what did you say your real name was? If, as you say, internet
> postings are not truly annonymous and you feel your identity is known to
> the point that you would make threatening remarks for one writing they
> think a cartoon character of "BB" may have something to do with a Chicago
> mold case, then why do you even bother posting under a pseudoname?
>
> And how would I know you are not involved in the Chicago case if I don't
> know your real name?
>
> You don't get it both ways. Either you are annonymous or you are not
> annonymous. Choose one. But don't try to choose one and ridiculously
> threaten with the other.
>
> I am not the one who indicated you were involved in the Chicago mold case.
> That was another poster awhile back. I merely indicated that this appears
> it may be true to me.
>
> To quote myself:
> "I think it is looking more and more like BB does have something to
> do with the Chicago mold case that has been discussed on this board."
>
> The way to prove my suspecion wrong, is to let me know your real name.
> Simple as that. And why wouldn't you want to do that since you are claiming
> your annonymous posts are not really anonymous? Again, very dumb argument -
> circular logic on your part.
>
> BTW, Me thinks thou protests too much on this one. What's up, "BB"? Hit a
> nerve? What kind of new car did you say you bought after you ripped the
> lungs out of some unprepared plaintiffs?
On 5/17/08, BB wrote:
> Sharon,
>
> It was a chevy Malibu. I like it.
>
> I've previously informed you, on three prior occasions, that I have no
> knowledge of a chicago mold case. Or even an illinois case. Stop suggesting
> that I do, as you are deliberately dessiminating FALSE INFORMATION and may
> incur liabilities for doing so. Is that clear? This doesn't need to be a big
> thing, just don't make it one.
>
>
>
> On 5/17/08, Sharon wrote:
>> BB,
>>
>> I'm sorry, what did you say your real name was? If, as you say, internet
>> postings are not truly annonymous and you feel your identity is known to
>> the point that you would make threatening remarks for one writing they
>> think a cartoon character of "BB" may have something to do with a Chicago
>> mold case, then why do you even bother posting under a pseudoname?
>>
>> And how would I know you are not involved in the Chicago case if I don't
>> know your real name?
>>
>> You don't get it both ways. Either you are annonymous or you are not
>> annonymous. Choose one. But don't try to choose one and ridiculously
>> threaten with the other.
>>
>> I am not the one who indicated you were involved in the Chicago mold case.
>> That was another poster awhile back. I merely indicated that this appears
>> it may be true to me.
>>
>> To quote myself:
>> "I think it is looking more and more like BB does have something to
>> do with the Chicago mold case that has been discussed on this board."
>>
>> The way to prove my suspecion wrong, is to let me know your real name.
>> Simple as that. And why wouldn't you want to do that since you are claiming
>> your annonymous posts are not really anonymous? Again, very dumb argument -
>> circular logic on your part.
>>
>> BTW, Me thinks thou protests too much on this one. What's up, "BB"? Hit a
>> nerve? What kind of new car did you say you bought after you ripped the
>> lungs out of some unprepared plaintiffs?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/08, BB wrote:
>>> Sharon,
>>>
>>> You and I both know that internet posting is not truly anonymous. This is
>>> extremely well established. Therefore, I repeat, for your benefit, what I
>>> have now told you on two prior occasions:
>>>
>>> I have no knowledge of a chicago mold case. Or even an illinois case. Stop
>>> suggesting that I do, as you are deliberately dessiminating FALSE
>>> INFORMATION and may incur liabilities for doing so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/17/08, Sharon wrote:
>>>> BB,
>>>>
>>>> Deliberately dissiminating false information about WHO? What potential
>>>> liabilities may incur? From Annonymous Plaintiff BB? You are such a
>>>> joke.
>>>>
>>>> Now back to some serious stuff. Oh never mind. You are waste of my
>>>> time. Back to not reading your diatribes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/08, BB wrote:
>>>>> Dear Sharon,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've previously informed you I have no knowledge of a chicago mold
>>>>> case. Or even an illinois case. Stop suggesting that I do, as you are
>>>>> deliberately dessiminating FALSE INFORMATION and may incur liabilities
>>>>> for doing so. Is that clear?
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I'm curious what case you are talking about. What is it?
>>>>> Have a name or identifier?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/08, Sharon wrote:
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is looking more and more like BB does have something to
>>>>>> do with the Chicago mold case that has been discussed on this board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/08, BB wrote:
>>>>>>> That is your 'admission' huh? Looks like you are trying to defame
>>>>>>> me. You are on notice to cease. Have a nice weekend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/17/08, David wrote:
>>>>>>>> Deborah, here's the info that was posted recently about
>>>>>>>> wiretapping.
>>>>>>>> ***************************************************
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Posted by BB on 4/04/08
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My pleasure. Have a good weekend.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/04/08, Marcus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BB, thanks for the written admission regarding the wiretaps
>>>>>>>> and secret
>>>>>>>>> videos. I have passed it on to the attorneys.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/04/08, BB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Marcus,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any chance you can post the key documents that defense
>>>>>>>> might want to
>>>>>>>>>> see? We don't need any of the wiretaps or secret videos,
>>>>>>>> because they
>>>>>>>>>> are case specific, but anything that identifies the
>>>>>>>> plaintiff experts
>>>>>>>>>> or there silly testimony would be appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Look outside. Who's in that car? Smile!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *************************************************
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/17/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have link to this article?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where did someone admit wiretapping, do you have a copy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the last 6 months I had, once again, my mail tampered
>>>>>>>> with,
>>>>>>>>> and odd problems with my phone service. Also, someone
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> tried to get into my medical records. Tracking it down and
>>>>>>>>> proving it is almost impossible due to constraints of man
>>>>>>>>> power and access.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I get a bit anxious when this sort of stuff happens in
>>>>>>>>> proximity of place or time after what I have been through.
>>>>>>>>> The additional insult of having your privacy violated, mail
>>>>>>>>> tampering, phone tampering, burglaries, etc... after having
>>>>>>>>> the audacity to stand up for yourself in a civil arena after
>>>>>>>>> having had chemical assaults on your person, in your own
>>>>>>>> home,
>>>>>>>>> by persons who regularly made unauthorized entries into your
>>>>>>>>> home is just SOOO CREEPY. Then to have some ignorant buffoon
>>>>>>>>> suggest you are paranoid because you get jumpy when odd
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> begin to occur is the ultimate irony.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/08, David wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> To the person on this chatboard who recently admitted
>>>>>>>>>> wiretapping...here's a news article that may be of
>>>>>>>>>> interest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "A Hollywood private investigator was convicted Thursday
>>>>>>>>>> on federal racketeering and other charges for digging up
>>>>>>>>>> dirt for his well-heeled clients to use in lawsuits,
>>>>>>>>>> divorces and contract disputes..."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He was accused of wiretapping and running names through
>>>>>>>>>> law enforcement databases to help clients.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The jury found (him) guilty of racketeering and
>>>>>>>>>> racketeering conspiracy, along with wire fraud, identity
>>>>>>>>>> theft, conspiracy to intercept or use wire communications
>>>>>>>>>> and manufacture or possession of a wiretapping device, 76
>>>>>>>>>> counts in all."
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/16/08, by David.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Deborah.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Deborah.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by David.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by David.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Deborah.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/17/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/17/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/17/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by BB.
- Re: Theater of the Absurd, 5/18/08, by Myco X.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by educator.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by BB.
- Re: Theater of the Absurd, 5/20/08, by v.
|
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.