If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Smith wrote: "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. Are you kidding Larry? This has been going on for years. This place is entertainment for many with a few tidbits of information stuck in once in a while for good measure. Luckily my airplane is finished so I am not taking time from building reading this stuff. :-) Jerry |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Model Flyer
Just blew my HD with your e-mail address. Can you just send me a blank e-mail so I can gat again and I'll put it in my paper address book ) Big John On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:11:03 +0100, "Model Flyer" wrote: 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! Jual and Larry are both in my kill file, eventuall I got fed up with all the bickering over what who said what. Because you lot still reply to their moronic meanderings I have to suffer their wanton prose. Please, Please can we leave this pair of twits where they belong and get on with the persuit of that unfortunate who used a V-8 in his Sea Bee.:-) -- . |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Corky Scott says...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049" 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. Snip lots of good stuff... 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. Does anyone know if Kevin still writes for zoom? I seem to remember that he kinda disappeared from ANN not long after he started questioning zoom about what he saw. 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." I can't for the life of me figure out why a guy would be so willing to make such a fool of himself in a public forum ,especially one that will have what he wrote stored for later access. If I were jaun I would be ashamed to have my children read the things I wrote at some later date and have them question me as to why I was so rotten. But that's his reputation and he'll have to deal with it. As for me I don't write anything I'd be ashamed to have my kids read. You had a very good possible explanation for some of jauns and zooms actions.In that light it makes some sense. See ya Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Oct 2003 20:44:46 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote: Does anyone know if Kevin still writes for zoom? I seem to remember that he kinda disappeared from ANN not long after he started questioning zoom about what he saw. I believe Kevin has been busy on active military service for the past several years. He's posted here occasionally, though. Ron Wanttaja |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
A State of Delusion.
John Stricker "andy asberry" wrote in message ... On 23 Oct 2003 05:28:52 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote: I suppose if I did a criminal record search of all the jiminezes I'd probably come up with a ton of names and I would also bet a lot of them are named jaun as well. So I if I were use jauns logic against him as he does me I could say what's the criminal charges your hiding? He's a real joke. See ya Chuck I just did a count on the Juan Jimenezs with criminal records in Texas. 549 just in Texas. I could have saved some time though. There were only 15 Juanitas. By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in? |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
In article ICHlb.2908$Fm2.5495@attbi_s04,
Juan.Jimenez wrote: "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? OK. Same deal for you. *Exactly* the same. I hereby claim you're a liar and a fraud. All you have to do to prove _me_ wrong is provide any _proof_ of *YOUR* claim that he did _not_ have his truck there. Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting you're a liar and a fraud. I'm waiting. And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting you're a liar and a fraud. I'm waiting. And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You're beating a dead horse. Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option. Barnyard Bob -- The more people I meet, the more I love my dog... and George Carlin humor. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
You're beating a dead horse. Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option. Oh I dunno 'bout that. I'd wager that firearms would be effective if properly utilized. I'm not advocating that course of action, merely being pedantic for (hopefully) humorous effect. :-) Russell Kent |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:16:53 -0500, Russell Kent
wrote: :Barnyard BOb -- wrote: : : You're beating a dead horse. : Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option. : :Oh I dunno 'bout that. I'd wager that firearms would be effective if roperly utilized. I'm not advocating that course of action, merely being edantic for (hopefully) humorous effect. :-) : :Russell Kent You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be effective. Thalium poisoning Submarine launched cruise missile Dropping in an active volcano Steam roller High voltage snakes Feel free to add to the list, everyone |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what's a good country for a homebuilt aircraft? | Lukas | Home Built | 17 | September 25th 03 06:53 PM |
bulding a kitplane maybe Van's RV9A --- a good idea ????? | Flightdeck | Home Built | 10 | September 9th 03 07:20 PM |
A Good Story | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 15 | September 3rd 03 03:00 PM |
Good degreaser? | Michael Horowitz | Home Built | 15 | July 17th 03 05:49 PM |
War Stories: Good degreaser? | B2431 | Home Built | 1 | July 16th 03 03:18 PM |