What "tiff"? ChaseR *pinged* me at least four times to this thread, trying to needle me into a discussion on JUDICIAL WATCH, that's his/her true goal here. He's simply using this case as a vehicle to create a confrontation wherein he envisions himself to be some sort of "crusader for truth".
Go back and read this thread once again, keep in mind that I have NEVER commented on the Loral case in FR; I have been VERY critical of Larry Klayman, which gets a lot of people pissed off. Coincidentally, the people getting pissed off at my criticism of Larry and JW, are the same people who harrass those who get offended when President Bush is criticized, and attack them for getting pissed about people who criticize the President.
We ALL have our sacred cows I guess.
But anyway, in another one of those traits of really bad lawyers that ChaseR seems to be infested with, now he's backing out because he claims that have some sort of trap thing set for him, and that I will pull the plug on him. Kind of doing that whole Jeanne Dixon thing again, isn't he?
Reminds of of a lawyer who would file a worthless case, knowing full well that it will get thrown out of Court, but prepares his clients by telling them that the Judge is crooked, that way when the case fails, he just says "See! I told you that the Judge was crooked!"
Sound familiar?
Like I said, you will be discussing the Loral Shareholders case anyway. Regardless. You are now obligated to give your take on all the allegations in the Loral case, yes indeed. As guest speaker - you have too, there has been four days of this going on now, and we will all be anticipating your full comments. Don't let me or anyone down. (I'll call in, and when I do, I'll identify myself as poster "wrinkles." See you on the 24th.
Now, in the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to give your opinion on the allegations in the Loral case. Yes, you can start right now.
What do you call it then? Have you read the thread again yet?
"ChaseR *pinged* me at least four times to this thread, trying to needle me into a discussion on JUDICIAL WATCH, that's his/her true goal here. He's simply using this case as a vehicle to create a confrontation wherein he envisions himself to be some sort of "crusader for truth"."
Now who is being Jeanne Dixon? Looks to me like he thought you two would be in complete agreement when he first pinged you.
"Go back and read this thread once again, keep in mind that I have NEVER commented on the Loral case in FR;"
You are the one that needs to go back and read it if anyone does. I know you have not made any comments on Loral on this thread. That is what everyone is asking for. Why not? Would you please tell us why you have made no commet in FR on the Loral case?
" "I have been VERY critical of Larry Klayman, which gets a lot of people pissed off. Coincidentally, the people getting pissed off at my criticism of Larry and JW, are the same people who harass those who get offended when President Bush is criticized, and attack them for getting pissed about people who criticize the President."
What ever harassing goes on it works both ways. I see many of the harassers that get offended when Bush is criticized are usually the first ones to use personal attacks in lieu of opinion or facts and are the most rude and ill mannered .
"We ALL have our sacred cows I guess."LOL yes that is true.
"But anyway, in another one of those traits of really bad lawyers that ChaseR seems to be infested with, now he's backing out because he claims that have some sort of trap thing set for him, and that I will pull the plug on him. Kind of doing that whole Jeanne Dixon thing again, isn't he?"
No Chase said no from the start and for other reasons. You do need to reread the thread. After thinking on it, and your continued 'no comment' on the topic your, insistence that the only discussion can be on the radio, he again decided to not to do it and I do not blame him. Since you know what you think and what Chase thinks, that gives you a great advantage over him while in a discussion or debating the subject with him on of all places live radio where you will be at ease and he will not.
"Reminds of of a lawyer who would file a worthless case, knowing full well that it will get thrown out of Court, but prepares his clients by telling them that the Judge is crooked, that way when the case fails, he just says "See! I told you that the Judge was crooked!""
Oh please...Do you remember the Clinton years and what all his judges did?
"Sound familiar?"
Yes it does....It sounds just like the lawyers that had to go up against the likes of judges like Judge Norma Holloway Johnson.