Follow us!

    Re: End of subject for me

    Posted by ff on 6/27/03


    Unless numbers of people post and express a legitimate interest in the subject
    previously exhausted, I would like to end this for their sake. I would suggest you
    revert back to your criticisms, and the criticisms of others, where incessant
    rambling, bickering, and argument, is not wanted.

    In the absence of such interest, email me. If you think you hit something
    significant, then by all means, post it.

    My apologies go to the readers.


    On 6/27/03, ff wrote:
    > johncodie:
    > First, I asked that you email any questions you want me to answer. I don't want
    > to get kicked off the board or continue to bore, consuime space, and consume
    > time. Nevertheless, you once again post, and once again, YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR
    > FACTS STRAIGHT. Mr. Codie, you should be a defense attorney, the way you can
    > screw up a story and twist it into line with your imagination.
    > On 6/27/03, johncodie wrote:
    >> On 6/27/03, ff wrote:
    >>> Johncodie:
    >>> Would you please provide the name of the attorney you reference, if this is
    >>> recent? (Above)
    >>> My first post on this board referenced false assumptions you made based on
    >>> fragmented information. I believe Dr. Hudnell also pointed this out. This
    >>> is understandable and not a criticism. In reviewing your posts, you have
    >>> combined several separate events into one. The one that I am familiar with
    >>> needs to be extracted from your combination. Once you understand that, if
    >>> you have any questions, may we can clear it up, provided you don't ramble on
    >>> into more false assumptions.
    >> Did Dr. Shoemaker ever come to Florida to give CVS test to evaluate toxins
    >> witin the State of Florida.
    > Ask Dr. Shoemaker, not me, and why your obsession?
    > You state he came to your property concerning
    >> Dupont product spraying.
    > I never stated that, you imagination runs wild again, I lknw you have to be
    > smarter than that, so what's up?
    > Huddell states he has never been in Florida
    >> concerning Dupont.
    > I would have to see the statement, because I cannot rely on your regurgitation.
    > Jacksonville FL reporter quoted Shoemaker as saying that
    >> Florida residents should not conclude Dupont was responsible as it may be other
    >> sources. My point is he should have remained neutral if he had not been in the
    >> state and was not an attending physician of any of the individuals of that
    >> state.
    > Again, you are regurgitating, that's the best word I can think of, sorry. Note
    > that changing a few words may change meaning. You need to recognize, that Dr.
    > Shoemaker was remaining neutral, not blaming DuPont or anyone/any cause until the
    > work was done. If this approach did not bother me, why are you so obsessed with
    > it.
    >>> A couple of things in particular, regarding one event:
    >>> 1.) You keep implying Dr. Shoemaker was working for me and/or DuPont.
    >> I pointed out that Dr. Shoemaker has commented concerning Dupont and per the
    >> pervious post of the Sally that you know will now not comment on his treatment
    >> with regard to Dupont.
    > By what authority do you, anonymous board-named johncodie request that a medical
    > doctor discuss such information with you? I know Sally, but do not know what
    > doctor/s she used, it's none of my business. If you are obsessed with Sally,
    > call her up and talk to her.
    >> You apparently reached this conclusion after reading a quote in a Delaware
    >>> newpaper. No it was a Jacksonville Florida Quote that I posted.
    >> Not the case Mr. Codie, Dr. Shoemaker was hired by FDEP. Ok, My understanding
    >> is that the investiation, (money) has been closed.
    >> I knew Dr. Shoemaker prior to this, ok
    >> and my relationship was completely independent of the FDEP event in which a
    >> neighborhood coincidentally read about Dr. > Shoemaker's work, symptoms
    >> associated with environmental exposures, and contacted him directly.
    >> Eventually FDEP was called in to investigate, and
    >>> also contacted Dr. Shoemaker.
    > ok
    > I don't need your OK, am I missing something here, are you really some
    > authoritative entity with police/regulatory/judicial power?
    >> So was Dr Shoemaker ever on your land which was being tested for exposure to
    >> dupont chemicals.
    > Again, you wrap too many subjects into one, having reached false conclusions
    > based on fragmented information. You apparently do not know enough to ask
    > questions. When I try to help you and explain, you just screw it up worse. If
    > this is just a game or ploy, I can take it, trust me. Contact FDEP ro Dr.
    > Shoemaker if you are so obsessed, it was their investigation not mine.
    >>> 2.) VCS Testing in that event was conducted locally by local physicians that
    >>> the neighborhood residents visited.
    > ok
    > These were VCS test that Dr.
    >> Shemaker had developed for the local Doctors.
    > Perfect example, there you go again, reaching conclusions without basic facts. I
    > thought you had a lawsuit, and were reasonably familiar with the process of
    > extracting facts rather than clouding and reaching conclusions, without facts?
    >> I was not a part of this, so that's all
    >>> I know, and it is their business, not mine or yours.
    > Respect Dr. Client Priv.
    > No you don't, you respect yourself, and have appointed yourself as an imaginary
    > figure of authority to ramble on, speculating, reching false conclusions, I call
    > it mouthing off.
    >>> If you have any (appropriate) questions for events of which I have knowledge,
    >>> feel free to contact me via email. If you have questions regarding other
    >>> events, please go to the appropriate source. Above all, we can save a lot of
    >>> time and space, and return to meaningful discussion, if you will simply get
    >>> the facts straight rather than to speculate and confuse.
    >>> I hope this clears up the confusion.
    >> I have already posted Sally's account and some of the accounts from Dr.
    >> Shoemaker. She went to a man's house to be tested rather than an attending
    >> physican and they called in Dr. Shoemaker for a treatement.
    > Simple, Mr. Codie, you again jump to conlusion. Get the facts straight. If you
    > want to know about Sally, call Sally. It is creepy that you are so obsessed with
    > others' lives.
    > She identifies her
    >> self as well educated, and your recollection of her as having links with the
    >> govermnets activities of the polution there. My most recent reading from the
    >> associated press story another town where a settlment is being reached with
    >> dupont, where the people retain the right to sue if they get cancer. Under the
    >> clean water act, I believe all the citizens of Florida have a right to know
    >> better what politics is working against them.
    > That is exactly what I was trying to tell you, to "make a difference." You can
    > do that by setting aside your anxious jumps/leaps into false conclusions and
    > focus on the problem. As for your belief, I do not disagree, but the reality of
    > it, well, just go back to my first make-a-difference post.
    > Please, don't waste any more time or space, get the facts first, and climb down
    > from your self appointed position of which you are uncompetent to handle.
    > ff
    >>> ff
    >>> On 6/27/03, johncodie wrote:
    >>>> State of Florida should take note of recent court rulings. Local plantiff
    >>>> attorney has come forward with his political contributions because it is
    >>>> good for the public to know. If local politicians would take note, it
    >>>> might put an end to the suppression/repression bias. Are there any
    >>>> individuals that won't agree that Wingate was telling the truth. Why
    >>>> should a man telling the truth have to lose his family and become a high
    >>>> school chemistry professor? I think it has something to do with the fear
    >>>> of losing control as a middle man, and thus be outside the money flow. I
    >>>> will leave the term "attending physicain" alone until a better place and
    >>>> time.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.

The Counsel.Net ChatBoardsm. All Rights Reserved.