Replies

Your imaginary friend makes up 'special' stories. How convenient.

What was the previous freepname you went by?

See there? That's one question you still won't answer, and that's only one among a great many others that have been posed to you. You have no standing to point to anyone around here having failed to answer one of your questions, particularly when that was a seriously loaded question. You do seem to specialize in those. I'm not sure why I would need repeat this...it's not difficult, nor complicated. Just tell the forum what was the previous freeper name you went by.

Now this here (below) sounds familiar ...didn't you post something quite like this to me once before, you know, something similar, while you postured that it was from some clinical diagnosis?;

She said, as an example, about your last post “He weaves in and out of about 6 or 7 separate thought strings thoughtful his writing. Disjointed thoughts, disjointed writing.

I began a previous note to you regarding the hypocrisy which you frequently display. I ended that note with the question that you fail to supply answer for that underscores that hypocrisy. That does not display disorganization, but instead is exhibition of myself being capable of keeping eye on, and touch upon more than one concurrently running stream of thought at the same time, eventually arriving at an ending destination that was rationally linked to the very beginning sentence, the middling portions written along the way filling out the structure, referencing past conversations between you and I, while touching upon the subject matter of this thread's OP (original posting -- the "article" itself) that your own original posting at comment #2 was effort to prevent discussion by way of demonizing any and all who do not approve of DA Reyna's methodolgy.

It looks like as far as Clendennen is concerned -- Reyna is now "toast". I do wonder if he will be able to restrain himself from trying to intervene and influence the efforts and decisions of the attorneys who have been appointed to replace McLennan County DA's Office through behind the scenes back-channels. I add mention of those sort of things here, since it's about the only opportunity I have to do so, what with after having corrected a couple of your misleading statements and errors, it's been nothing but fight-fight-fight ever since, with your main weapon being trying to paint me as some sort of "druggie". That does work towards keeping the subject matter off the table though. I'll grant you that much.

But you're still pathetic...

You pointed at someone allegedly having "avoided" a question. The question you were speaking of was a loaded one. Did you show your imaginary friend that part too? How about your comment at #2 on this thread, and the responses you got from more than just a few others? Did you show this imaginary psychiatrist friend myself having corrected what you said about LEO having shot only people who were themselves "shooters"? And then, shown that "friend" your responses? What you posted was simply not true. Not entirely enough -- which is important. You had stated it as all-encompassing descriptive. I pointed out one definite place (a man shot in the face) where it was not accurate description. Additionally, there is possibility that LEO's may have fired the last of three bullets that entered the Cossack known as 'Bear'. I explained to some extent how that is definite possibility.

Oh, wait -- you said that "you printed out" what I posted to you in one comment. That's what you said last time you tried to pull this same stunt. That you printed out something I wrote to you, and showed it to others nearby to yourself. If you're not lying here (it's so hard to tell, you lie so much) it's obvious enough you were withholding the wider context. That's another way to misrepresent things.

It's amazing just how much you love the lies you tell, and boy, oh boy those are flowing from you here of late.

It seems to me you've been wounded, and are getting desperate to save face, and save the past misstatements and outright lies you've been telling. Simply repenting would be much simpler for you. Ever think of that?

He was either drunk, high, or more likely, (if he was clinically sober) severely disturbed from many years of chemical abuse.

That's hilarious. Your imaginary doctor friend must be a quack. The real truth is "None of the above". It's more like sky-high IQ (inherited) on way too much instant coffee. See how much easier that is? lol! (Wally World just marked Maxwell House instant down to $3.79 a jar, fwiw. It had been $4.99 iirc, just a few weeks ago).

But myself drinking too much instant coffee doesn't fit the accusations that you've been hurling my way. Too bad. So sad, for your imaginary friend and the invention of the "he must be drunk or else a druggie" diagnosis.

I'm not a drug user, nor was drinking anything but instant coffee. And here I used to be a specialty grade, small batch coffee roaster too, and had enjoyed some of the finest coffees from all over the world...but now, go figure. It's a crying shame how much instant coffee I drink nowadays -- bwaaahahAAHHAA!!! (I hardly ever sleep anymore...)

See there? I address most everything you say. You spin up the bullshit. I shoot it out of the air. You suck at this. You keep losing, and you always will, as long as you keep fighting me.

One would think you'd tire of this process. When are you going to learn? That's me returning to a previous theme -- ask your imaginary friend if my doing so is evidence of being "disjointed", or shows re-integration of varied trains of thought to become one whole diagnosis of the way you're thinking goes.

Agreement with the diagnosis is not required in order to agree that it is a diagnosis of your ills (you know, like the part about you being a damnable liar?).

It's no wonder you had to invent imaginary friends to help yourself feel better about the lies that you keep telling yourself, and telling others.

As pattern and practice (I've seen you in action) those lies topically are crafted in order that you could distance yourself from needing contemplate having been proved wrong, and proved to have attempted to mislead -- had even lied. You think you're slick, and you do try to be, but then again so is fresh crap. You're about as impressive as that stuff, come to think of it. Is it crazy to say that? Ask your imaginary friend.

It is yourself who "avoids" questions, never answering -- not unless you can shit on somebody when doing so (or otherwise makes yourself feel all good when it's not necessary for you to shit on other people in effort to salve your wounded ego, and pride, since part of the time you can get away with seeking after ego boost "fix" without needing to shit out-right at others). It's the way things go with you.

It's your nature, and in this small exchange, it's been your way of trying to get back at me for having shown you to be a liar. That's what this all this stuff is really all about. So cut the bullshitting.

Have your imaginary friend read the whole thread, including this comment, and then get back to us. eh?

You could perhaps ask them too if you're not getting some freebie internet psychoanalysis that's more in-depth. and on-the-spot than the missed-by-miles diagnosis that I was drunk, or had a history of drug abuse, etc., etc.

And tell us your previous freepname -- though I suspect you're lying about that, and are possibly a FED, trying to manage LEO PR (or maybe one of Reyna's friends? you did once say to me that you had friends that knew Reyna, and that Reyan was A-OK, or something like that didn't you?) and troll up grounds for rounding up those creatures of much Myth and Legend -- the dreaded "Tea Party Terrorist".

They're everywhere. But nobody can quite find one...save for in the sort of goobermint publications that deleted mention of Islamicists, and Islamic extremism, writing in "Tea Party" where those other words used to be...and face down in the snow alongside a rural highway in Eastern Oregon.