Replies

In answer, Bob J, because I did address you, to your own bewilderment -- you are the person who posted the thread -- and there were/are responses within the thread which addressed "sophomoric" actions ... total lack of response to a part of the suit, and a repeat of a few requests to know what had happened to Clarity, which were allowed to persist without any correction.

No one took the responisbility to explain why BB is "missing" -- but swipes were taken at him, and went undefended, nonetheless.

Your post, when part and parcel of the subject was a concerted "work in progress on behalf of and in collaberation with JR" and address the side issues of concern of many who were/are replying with your own responses (no matter that they are central to the discussion of the lawsuit and the appeal) and neglect to give some explanation and allow some misconception of a fellow member (who did a huge body of work on behalf of JR and of FR) to persist and grow throughout the thread, you are not being the "custodian" of your own thread.

Only my own opinion ... I was in a rush to go on my daily rounds around the valley and should have made a general reply to address the "Clarity" issue, but only have my memory to fall back on ... as a FReeper and outside the inner circle.

Since Clarity was the legal representative, I think he should have been defended in kind with all of your direct answers to those who were on the thread. You were keeping the thread active ... if I am wrong to assume that posting on FR kinda gives you an indictment to address the points that you make and any that arise from your post (a vanity with a cause, in effect) ... then forgive my misconception.