Re: Private Eye - false information
Posted by BB on 5/18/08
Correction. It does not appear you altered the appearance of educator's post. Good,
good, good. My mistake. On 5/18/08, BB wrote:
> Really? Time will tell.
>
> And now you are altering the appearance of educator's post. Making your words look
> like his/hers. Bad bad bad. You never learn.
>
> On 5/18/08, Sharon wrote:
>> Dear Educator,
>>
>> I could not agree with you more. That is why I rarely even bother to read the
>> posts by "BB". It always ends up in some frivilous diatribe. However, I did
>> respond to this one on behalf of other board posters. It is absurd that one
>> who posts under a pseudoname would imply threat of libel for defamation of
>> character. Still, there are those that may be intimidated by this. They need
>> to know that BB is just blowing smoke, as usual. They have nothing to fear
>> from this entity.
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/08, educator wrote:
>>>> 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 are both acting like a bunch of 2 year olds in a sand box ; Neither of
>>> you have said or written anything that important that a detective or anyone
>>> else would spend the time or energy trying to break into or even steal for
>>> that matter ; Neither of you are conducting reseacha at a level that would
>>> contribute to science nor do your medical records warrent the time or energy
>>> to read them. It is therfore suggested that you both move on to more
>>> important things. The cost of a detective seeking out and even looking at
>>> someone's medical records who has been exposed and treated for mold does not
>>> merit the time money or energy you both suggest nor has scoiety deemded
>>> either of you that imortant to even want to know . You both need to spend
>>> time and energy on more eimportant pursuits if you think you are that
>>> important in the area of endeaver then prove it with time being spent in a
>>> appropiate area of research and then say or post something that will add to
>>> the conversation instead of Hot air
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.