Oh, my, you are a barrel of laughs this morning, aren't you? I invite folks to witness the Kim-meltdown in this thread. First, my post to you:
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Kim, for umpteenth time, the AWOL charge was a typo in the first place. It never existed. It only appeared on the internet. I know you'd like it to be real, but it's not. I gather you chose not to call the SDPD about that? Some folks did, plus his ex brother in law also says it never happened.
681 posted on 5/1/02 8:46 AM Central by MizSterious
A careful read of the above post reveals that I said that I'd told Kim about the nonexistant AWOL charge for the umpteenth time, not that I'd told Kim about the brother in law. Now for the rest:
To: MizSterious
UM, I don't recall you ever pointing out a quote from the brother-in-law to me about the AWOL charge, so that is your FIRST time addressing it to me... not the UPTEENTH, as you so joyously posted. Regardless, got a source?
691 posted on 5/1/02 9:25 AM Central by ~Kim4VRWC's~
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
RE: #691 to Mizsterious "UM, I don't recall you ever pointing out a quote from the brother-in-law to me about the AWOL charge, so that is your FIRST time addressing it to me...
Any credibility you had is quickly evaporating, with denials like this Kim. The standard Clintonian "I don't recall" defense is also the favorite of the VanDams, you know. I can't say that the brother-in-law was given as the source, but you were clearly urged to contact LE yourself, if you wanted confirmation that AWOL charge was an error.
Just for the record, I do distinctly remember it clearly being pointed out to you and couldn't believe my eyes when I read your response to #681 from Mizsterious.
701 posted on 5/1/02 1:05 PM Central by theirjustdue
To: theirjustdue
. I can't say that the brother-in-law was given as the source, but you were clearly urged to contact LE yourself, if you wanted confirmation that AWOL charge was an error.
Yikes...I can see yer confusion!! Yes, she and a couple of others said the awol charge was a mistake and I DO agree that she suggested I call san diego myself. I don't believe she's brought up the brother-n-law claim to me. My apologies for the confusion.
702 posted on 5/1/02 1:31 PM Central by ~Kim4VRWC's~
To: theirjustdue
PS: I was replying to her about the brother-n-law "I don't recall you ever pointing out a quote from the brother-in-law to me about the AWOL charge "
That changes the whole thing if his family etc. are actually coming out and denying it. I stand corrected of this was pointed out to me by mizsterious NUMEROUS times. If so, my apologies.
703 posted on 5/1/02 1:37 PM Central by ~Kim4VRWC's~
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~;Mizsterious;Amore
"PS: I was replying to her about the brother-n-law "I don't recall you ever pointing out a quote from the brother-in-law to me about the AWOL charge "
To fully understand my reason for calling you on what I perceived as your feigning of ignorance about the bogus AWOL claim, we need to go back to your #643 to AMORE, where you again brought it up, having been told several times to contact San Diego LE if you still doubted it was in error. Your #643 to Amore follows:
"That's the same questions I had, when they erased the AWOL charges, the porn charges etc.. Granted the AWOL charge is a military matter, and only military can enforce their own rules and regulations..it's just all weird.
IMO, you are parsing in using the Brother-in-law excuse, because the real issue here is your seemingly disingenuous slipping of the bogus AWOL charge back into these threads, as if it were fact.
704 posted on 5/1/02 2:29 PM Central by theirjustdue
So, let's see: in #681, I pointed out that you continue to make the same erroneous statements despite the facts coming out. In #691, you try to weasel out of it by ignoring the meat of my statement, and focusing on the brother in law (I'd never posted about the brother in law prior, but we'd often mentioned the phone calls to the courts and to the sheriff's department--the charge was a clerical typo, Kim. Use your own phone and find out for yourself!). Then, when Freeper "theirjustdue" pointed out your disengenuous posturing, you tried to feign "confusion" in #701 and #702. Nawwww, you wouldn't lie, then try to cover it up...not Kim....
You did mention the brother n law in the following: 681 posted on 5/1/02 8:46 AM Central by MizSterious
I ADDRESSED one of your comments--the brother-n-law issue. I did not deny your other ramblings, and in fact clarified them..
You quoted my post to amore..fine. I'm not embarassed for bring up the AWOL issue because it IS an issue that has not been clarified by any of the important parties in the case YET. If the brother-n-law was quoted somewhere, sometime, I have no record of it, no source for it. Maybe, just maybe if he did say it, he was misinformed. WHO KNOWS
Lastly, TJD and I freepmailed each other, I clarified to him what he needed to know..and we are straight. (if that's any of your business)
I hope you have a nice weekend..I know I will.