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:
> That's pathetic. I'm sorry. I don't know how to help you.
> 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?
>>> 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:
>>>> ORIGINAL POST:
>>>> 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