Follow us!

    Re: Another Mold Settlement

    Posted by Mike B. on 11/21/07

    You must be seething with shame and embarrasment. You've posted at least 5 responses to my
    last comments. In your frenzied efforts to cast the spotlight off you, you're even posting
    responses in MY NAME!(more on that in a direct response to that post).

    Your second paragraph below says it all. To paraphrase you: "neener, neener, ha, ha. I
    wasn't even talking about that post, silly; I was talking about some other post I can't
    identify because I'm so mad right now." You're sounding like Jon Lovitz character on
    Saturday Night Live, only you ain't funny.

    Then, your third paragraph tries to relate back to yet another post in this thread where I
    qualified (i.e. limited) my response therein to "the statement below." Man, you're
    stretching your credibility to the point of transparency.

    I knew you couldn't justify your comments from the beginning of this thread to now. How
    could you? You can't. On the one hand, you pontificate that only honest, meaningful and
    positive posts should be allowed on here. In the next breath, you claim you "set me up"
    with some "test." You need to change your identity on here to fickledf.

    Again, I presented 2 articles regarding successful mold litigation. You went off on a
    tangent maligning the character of the plaintiffs, plus spouting your insidious beliefs
    about conspiracies by everybody else.

    Oh, yeah; stop posting in my name.

    On 11/21/07, ff wrote:
    > Mike B.:
    > Again, is that a refusal on your part? Also, again, go back and read my posts, the two
    > opposing scenarios, one OR the other, did not represent my thinking, that would be an
    > impossibility as written. Therefore, your intentional misreprentation as "remarks", is
    > not applicable. In fact, you question as to "where I came up with them", reveals that
    > you know neither of the two opposing scenarios does represent my opinion, but only a
    > test for you, that you flunked.
    > I will tell you that it was not that specifc post of yours that I set you up on, but the
    > others, in which you behaved in exactly the same manner you now display. You were the
    > same before, and after, I set you up. My, how you pout and fume, rather than confess.
    > My, how you twist, spin, attack, restate, misinterpret...
    > Rather selective of you, isn't it, what you choose to use, and what you leave out.
    > Now, do you have anything of a contributory nature regarding mold to discuss, or are you
    > here for some other purpose?
    > ff
    > On 11/21/07, Mike B. wrote:
    >> I'm going to give YOU an opportunity to see if you can weasel out of your jealous, and
    >> what I consider racist, remarks to my original post. You tell the world, based on the
    >> information that existed in my original post (which is re-posted below for your
    >> convenience), where you came up with the 2 scenarios you espoused:
    >> What are ya'll doing wrong with your litigation?
    >> Apartment Mold
    >> Oakland, CA: (Nov-18-07) Twelve immigrant families who
    >> lived in a dilapidated, unheated, mold and cockroach
    >> infested apartment, brought charges against their landlord,
    >> Roosevelt Owyang, accusing him of not providing a habitable
    >> dwelling at the complex. The suit also alleged breach of
    >> contract. The former tenants stated that rain water leaked
    >> into their apartments from windows and ceilings so the
    >> apartments were constantly damp and mold was thick.
    >> Cockroaches were everywhere, and stairway railings and
    >> floorboards were often broken. Several plaintiffs claimed
    >> that they developed asthma along with the 39 former and
    >> current residents who are party to the suit. Several others
    >> claimed that they suffered from chronic sinusitis and upper-
    >> respiratory problems as a result of staying at the
    >> apartment. The complaint was filed in state Superior Court
    >> in Alameda County. As part of a settlement reached, the
    >> twelve immigrant families received a $1.3 million payout,
    >> resolving the lawsuit. [INSIDE BAY AREA: APARTMENT MOLD]
    >> Go ahead, now.....tell us what was contructive and meaningful about your original
    >> response to this post.
    >> I know you can't justify the jealous, racial profiling. The rest of your response was
    >> simply a page right out of the paranoid, conspiracy playbook you follow.
    >> Happy Thanksgiving.

    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.