Good Luck, Jim!

"red12049" wrote in message
...
Juan

If you have proof that those children are Chuck's, please post it or
provide
a link.

Did I say they are Chuck's children? chuckle

If you do not, then this question is not germane to this thread, and is a
Zoom tactic at its' finest.

ROFL! Let me clue you in on a little secret: I don't give a flying
intercourse what you think is germane or not, sonny. Shoo.

Truth 101. First it was one truck, then it was two, first he said he took
it, now he says he will.

It's called "squirming, lying and backpedalling."

Class dismissed.

"red12049" wrote in message
...
Juan,

I like to think that I am of at least average intelligence. I read the
quoted post, and I still do not understand the point you are trying to
make.
For the sake of those that might be in the same position, please explain
your accusations in detail so that we may follow along.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

I can assure you that I don't have any children who had to be dealt with
in the
Juvenile Court system ,so what's your point?

You sure about that?

Just to help you my sons names are Chuck Jr, Dave ,Ted and Don.

I don't care what you named your sons. Dana is a female

I can't believe how much like zoom you are that your capable of sinking to
that
level.

You shouldn't have a problem with that, seeing as you're such a lowlife you
couldn't help but talk about my kid in the thread. What's wrong, boy, don't
like being forcefed your own bull****? chuckle

It's all about credibility, the kind you don't have.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

ROFL boy when it comes to stupidity you've just spent 2 weeks proving that
your
the Grand Master of acting stupid.

Better than proving that you are the Pathological Liar of Cleveland.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

Funny you should say that but that's just what I'm doing. jaun laid a big
egg by
they way by attributing some none existent family members to me and his
reference to Juvenile court. He's been very careful up to now but he
crossed the
line.

What line, the court line? ROFL!

What really ****es him and zoom off is that they really can't find
anything
,hard as they try.

We don't have to, you do a good job of leading everyone to the facts. All I
have to do is follow the reek of lies.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

I can't believe that your that dense, I have the title but even I can't
produce
proof of something that didn't happen yet.

You said you've taken your truck(s) to SnF since 1999. Squirming and
backpedalling will not get you out of this one.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

Ousterhout got??? Somehow you don't seem the type to strike fear into the
hearts
of anyone let alone Ousterhout.

So check Google. There was no response from him after I set him straight.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

"andy asberry" wrote in message
...

One Juan Jimenez, a self-proclaimed aviation writer, has publicly
stated that the proprietor of an airplane manufacturing company has
lied AGAIN. That indicates at least two lies. A pattern, a habitual
liar.

As a consumer who is contemplating the purchase of an airplane of the
type manufactured by the said proprietor, I certainly don't want to
get involved with a habitual liar. Therefore, I won't consider buying
from him.

Of course, if Mr. Jimenez is wrong or has lied himself, I would think
the manufacturer would be entitled to compensation for lost revenue
and damaged reputation.

If you have any doubts as to whether or not I am an aviation writer, go to
http://www.aero-news.net/SearchForm.cfm and type "jimenez" in the first
field on the form, then click Search and read. It's that simple. What you
will see covers only part of 2002 and 2003.

All Chuck has to do is post the evidence he has that answers my simple
question, and which he implied he has when he challenged me to a "bet". Or
he can admit he lied about that too and doesn't have any evidence. It's that
simple. Remember as well that that little boy scout pocket knife you're
suggesting Chuck should wave around cuts both ways.

Juan

Juan,

First off, I give you the courtesy of addressing you by the name you go by
here. Please afford me that same courtesy.

Next, no, you did not SAY that they were Chucks, but the IMPLICATION was
certainly there... go back and read the definition of McCarthyism. I have a
good friend who is an attorney that I showed this whole thread to.
According to him, if this mess were in a print media, there would be great
grounds for a suit against you, and he would take that case in a blink. He
also stated that if it could be shown that these emails were on the
originating computer, that there might also be grounds for a suit, but that
electronic law was out of his area of expertise.

Finally, again, please afford me the courtesy I have afforded you. I have
as much right here as anyone else. Tell someone else to "shoo".

As I said in an earlier post, all about your tactics....

Red
"Juan.Jimenez" wrote in message
news:KeHlb.3241$Tr4.21142@attbi_s03...

"red12049" wrote in message
...
Juan

If you have proof that those children are Chuck's, please post it or
provide
a link.

Did I say they are Chuck's children? chuckle

If you do not, then this question is not germane to this thread, and is
a
Zoom tactic at its' finest.

ROFL! Let me clue you in on a little secret: I don't give a flying
intercourse what you think is germane or not, sonny. Shoo.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

I couldn't agree more...Still getting ducks in a row :-)

Don't need quacks. All you need is a simple title and a simple piece of
proof.

It's all about the credibility you don't have.

my stepmother-in-law has a great recipe for roast duck chuckle