Follow us!

    Re: Another Mold Settlement

    Posted by Mike B. on 11/23/07

    Yeah, well I knew it was to much for you to accept. What's the matter? Couldn't you come up
    with some more "the dog ate my homework" excuses?

    On 11/21/07, ff wrote:
    > Mikey,
    > That's pathetic. I'm sorry. I don't know how to help you.
    > ff
    > On 11/21/07, Mike B. wrote:
    >> 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.