Good Luck, Jim!

"sleepy6" wrote in message
...

Juan.....From your recent string of posts, it looks like you hide from
this group until you get some backbone out of bottle before you post.

Everybody's entitled to his or her opinion. I'm sorry to hear that you think
people should drink before posting. I don't subscribe to your posting
policy.

What I would suggest is that you learn to follow threads.

Slusarczyk has been told what he needs to do to prove that he has
credibility. So far his only response is to squirm, lie, backpedal and
mumble something about hundred dollar bills.

It's very simple, two items, that's it... title in his name and proof that
the vehicle was at SNF.

Only problem is, he's lying, so he can't provide those two simple items, and
all he can do is squirm, lie, backpedal and continue mumbling something
about hundred dollar bills.

It's all about credibility, the kind he doesn't have. Simple as that.

In article Q0qlb.608327$cF.279323@rwcrnsc53, Juan.Jimenez says...

It's very simple, two items, that's it... title in his name and proof that
the vehicle was at SNF.

I can't believe that your that dense, I have the title but even I can't produce
proof of something that didn't happen yet. The truck is new and hasn't been to
SnF yet. Secondly how does one produce a title for a vehicle he no longer owns ?
Tell ya what my new truck is a 2003 silver Dodge Ram 1500 and it will be the
one with not only a "zoom free zone" sign in it but an "ANN free zone" sign as
well.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

I can't believe that your that dense, I have the title but even I
can't produce
proof of something that didn't happen yet. The truck is new and hasn't
been to
SnF yet. Secondly how does one produce a title for a vehicle he no
longer owns ?
Tell ya what my new truck is a 2003 silver Dodge Ram 1500 and it will
be the
one with not only a "zoom free zone" sign in it but an "ANN free zone"
sign as
well.

Hey Chuck, I suggest you offer to make the following bet - you and Juan
both put up a grand.... if your truck and title are at the next SnF then
you get the dough. Juan won't put up a nickel of course, but he'll waste
$1000 of his time pretending that it's *your* credibility at issue. You
might also post a photo of yourself holding up the title at Snf while
wearing a "juere's juan" T shirt.

Wayne

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

I can't believe that your that dense, I have the title but even I can't
produce
proof of something that didn't happen yet.

You said you've taken your truck(s) to SnF since 1999. Squirming and
backpedalling will not get you out of this one.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

In article Q0qlb.608327$cF.279323@rwcrnsc53,
says...


"sleepy6" wrote in message
...

Juan.....From your recent string of posts, it looks like you hide fr
om
this group until you get some backbone out of bottle before you post
.

Everybody's entitled to his or her opinion. I'm sorry to hear that you
think
people should drink before posting. I don't subscribe to your posting
policy.

What I would suggest is that you learn to follow threads.

Slusarczyk has been told what he needs to do to prove that he has
credibility. So far his only response is to squirm, lie, backpedal and
mumble something about hundred dollar bills.

It's very simple, two items, that's it... title in his name and proof
that
the vehicle was at SNF.

Only problem is, he's lying, so he can't provide those two simple item
s, and
all he can do is squirm, lie, backpedal and continue mumbling somethin
g
about hundred dollar bills.

It's all about credibility, the kind he doesn't have. Simple as that.


You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
responsibility of proving it. You offered no proof orginially and no
proof in this post. Put up or shut up. So far you're just a ball less
wonder spouting garbage.

Looks like Chuck explained it pretty well in his post even though he
had no obligation to explain anything. The current truck was bought
after the latest Sun N Fun. Titles to previous trucks went with the
trucks when they were sold. Others have posted that Chucks trucks were
there along with the CGS trailer and Chucks personal plane. I have
also seen all three items there so it's not hard for me to figure out
the truth.

You're correct about one thing, It's all about credibility and so far
you have none at all.

Care to discuss another of your wild accusations? Lets take them all
one at a time until you run out. Every time you fail to produce proof
of these wild accusations it shows the world what a fool you really
are. Bring it on and don't forget the proof

"sleepy6" wrote in message
...

You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
responsibility of proving it.

I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... what...
2-3 weeks ago?

For the record, I've never had a truck at SnF. =8)

Looks like Chuck explained it pretty well in his post even though he
had no obligation to explain anything. The current truck was bought
after the latest Sun N Fun. Titles to previous trucks went with the
trucks when they were sold.

Oh, of course, how could I forget that private parties and corporations
don't keep records of vehicles they used to own? chuckle If you believe
that you're more gullible than the rest of the RAH gaggle combined.

Others have posted that Chucks trucks were there along with the CGS
trailer and Chucks personal plane.

No, others have posted that they saw those things, not one of them knows who
owns them.

All he has to do is post a simple title (copy of which I'm sure he has on
file or can obtain in a few minutes with one phone call) and evidence that
the vehicle was at SnF. It's not your job. It's his, so I'll be saying so
long to this little sideshow thread of yours...

Juan

Juan,

Excuse me, but where I come from, if you make the accusations, you have to
supply the proof.....

Red

"Juan.Jimenez" wrote in message
news:ICHlb.2908$Fm2.5495@attbi_s04...

"sleepy6" wrote in message
...

You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
responsibility of proving it.

I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... what...
2-3 weeks ago?

For the record, I've never had a truck at SnF. =8)

Looks like Chuck explained it pretty well in his post even though he
had no obligation to explain anything. The current truck was bought
after the latest Sun N Fun. Titles to previous trucks went with the
trucks when they were sold.

Oh, of course, how could I forget that private parties and corporations
don't keep records of vehicles they used to own? chuckle If you believe
that you're more gullible than the rest of the RAH gaggle combined.

Others have posted that Chucks trucks were there along with the CGS
trailer and Chucks personal plane.

No, others have posted that they saw those things, not one of them knows
who
owns them.

All he has to do is post a simple title (copy of which I'm sure he has on
file or can obtain in a few minutes with one phone call) and evidence that
the vehicle was at SnF. It's not your job. It's his, so I'll be saying so
long to this little sideshow thread of yours...

Juan

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049"
wrote:

Juan,

Excuse me, but where I come from, if you make the accusations, you have to
supply the proof.....

Red

I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
Juan is playing a role.

He dodges and twists out of what nearly anyone would consider to be a
normal response to a direct question, nearly every time. Now, why
would he do that? Why juke so fiercely in so public a forum?

To me, it's because he has an agenda when it comes to Chuck. Think
about it. Chuck has always offered the evidence, which he has in
physical documents, to anyone who would want to confirm that what
Chuck is claiming is the literal truth: That Jim Campbell is mistaken
about Con and his case against Chuck. Neither Juan, nor his
"employer" Zoomer have chosen to view the evidence. Why not? If they
are jounalists seeking the "truth" as they often claim (especially
Campbell), why wouldn't they want to get to the bottom of this once
and for all?

The answer, to me, lies in the (diagnosed) neurosis afflicting
Cambell, and the mindset and water under the bridge for Juan.
Campbell cannot view the documents because it would expose him as
someone who has pursued a valse vendetta literally for years. His
whole psyche has been wrapped around being the one who exposes
falsehood and treachery. He cannot look at Chuck's evidence, it would
turn his world upside down. And, if he admits that he was mistaken,
it might very well lay him open to a harrasement lawsuit. So that's
not going to happen.

And Juan, Juan has been carrying Jim's spear for years now. He has
been close to Jim and has been jabbing Chuck all this time as Jim's
unholy paladin. Juan also cannot look at the evidence because what if
it proves Chuck right? All the past goads, the taunting, the
accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
in this group.

Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049"
wrote:

Juan,

Excuse me, but where I come from, if you make the accusations, you have
to
supply the proof.....

Red

I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
Juan is playing a role.

He dodges and twists out of what nearly anyone would consider to be a
normal response to a direct question, nearly every time. Now, why
would he do that? Why juke so fiercely in so public a forum?

To me, it's because he has an agenda when it comes to Chuck. Think
about it. Chuck has always offered the evidence, which he has in
physical documents, to anyone who would want to confirm that what
Chuck is claiming is the literal truth: That Jim Campbell is mistaken
about Con and his case against Chuck. Neither Juan, nor his
"employer" Zoomer have chosen to view the evidence. Why not? If they
are jounalists seeking the "truth" as they often claim (especially
Campbell), why wouldn't they want to get to the bottom of this once
and for all?

The answer, to me, lies in the (diagnosed) neurosis afflicting
Cambell, and the mindset and water under the bridge for Juan.
Campbell cannot view the documents because it would expose him as
someone who has pursued a valse vendetta literally for years. His
whole psyche has been wrapped around being the one who exposes
falsehood and treachery. He cannot look at Chuck's evidence, it would
turn his world upside down. And, if he admits that he was mistaken,
it might very well lay him open to a harrasement lawsuit. So that's
not going to happen.

And Juan, Juan has been carrying Jim's spear for years now. He has
been close to Jim and has been jabbing Chuck all this time as Jim's
unholy paladin. Juan also cannot look at the evidence because what if
it proves Chuck right? All the past goads, the taunting, the
accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
in this group.

Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."

Corky Scott

Well then. If this is so the controversy will rage on forever until
settled in a court of law, not for harassment but on a civil complaint for
libel and damage to Chuck's business relations.

In the meantime quality time for building is wasted and I'm wondering if the
unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant assaults by the
trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.

In article , "Larry Smith"
writes:


Well then. If this is so the controversy will rage on forever until
settled in a court of law, not for harassment but on a civil complaint for
libel and damage to Chuck's business relations.

In the meantime quality time for building is wasted and I'm wondering if the
unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant assaults by the
trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.



You forgot to add one of the worst offenders here...Latchless Larry Smith!


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)