Good Luck, Jim!

Larry Smith wrote:
"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049"
wrote:


Juan,

Excuse me, but where I come from, if you make the accusations, you have

to

supply the proof.....

Red

I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
Juan is playing a role.

He dodges and twists out of what nearly anyone would consider to be a
normal response to a direct question, nearly every time. Now, why
would he do that? Why juke so fiercely in so public a forum?

To me, it's because he has an agenda when it comes to Chuck. Think
about it. Chuck has always offered the evidence, which he has in
physical documents, to anyone who would want to confirm that what
Chuck is claiming is the literal truth: That Jim Campbell is mistaken
about Con and his case against Chuck. Neither Juan, nor his
"employer" Zoomer have chosen to view the evidence. Why not? If they
are jounalists seeking the "truth" as they often claim (especially
Campbell), why wouldn't they want to get to the bottom of this once
and for all?

The answer, to me, lies in the (diagnosed) neurosis afflicting
Cambell, and the mindset and water under the bridge for Juan.
Campbell cannot view the documents because it would expose him as
someone who has pursued a valse vendetta literally for years. His
whole psyche has been wrapped around being the one who exposes
falsehood and treachery. He cannot look at Chuck's evidence, it would
turn his world upside down. And, if he admits that he was mistaken,
it might very well lay him open to a harrasement lawsuit. So that's
not going to happen.

And Juan, Juan has been carrying Jim's spear for years now. He has
been close to Jim and has been jabbing Chuck all this time as Jim's
unholy paladin. Juan also cannot look at the evidence because what if
it proves Chuck right? All the past goads, the taunting, the
accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
in this group.

Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."

Corky Scott


Well then. If this is so the controversy will rage on forever until
settled in a court of law, not for harassment but on a civil complaint for
libel and damage to Chuck's business relations.

In the meantime quality time for building is wasted and I'm wondering if the
unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant assaults by the
trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.



Are you kidding Larry? This has been going on for years. This place is
entertainment for many with a few tidbits of information stuck in once
in a while for good measure. Luckily my airplane is finished so I am not
taking time from building reading this stuff. :-)

Jerry

Model Flyer

Just blew my HD with your e-mail address. Can you just send me a blank
e-mail so I can gat again and I'll put it in my paper address book )

Big John


On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:11:03 +0100, "Model Flyer"
wrote:

unmoderated forums won't wither and die because of constant
assaults by the
trolls like Jaun and Granolawicz.



You forgot to add one of the worst offenders here...Latchless Larry
Smith!


Jual and Larry are both in my kill file, eventuall I got fed up with
all the bickering over what who said what. Because you lot still
reply to their moronic meanderings I have to suffer their wanton
prose. Please, Please can we leave this pair of twits where they
belong and get on with the persuit of that unfortunate who used a V-8
in his Sea Bee.:-)
--

.

In article , Corky Scott says...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:18:25 -0400, "red12049"

I don't think that's what Juan wants. I've been thinking about this
as I read the many seemingly insane responses from him and I believe
Juan is playing a role.

Snip lots of good stuff...

All the past goads, the taunting, the
accusations would be exposed as the workings of a monumentally
misguided person. How can he risk that? He **KNOWS** the evidence
probably does exonerate Chuck because one of his collegues, who also
worked for Jim and also had jabbed at Chuck actually did sit down with
Chuck to view the papers. Once he saw the evidence, he was man enough
to admit that Jim was apparently mistaken, and said so publically here
in this group.

Does anyone know if Kevin still writes for zoom? I seem to remember that he
kinda disappeared from ANN not long after he started questioning zoom about what
he saw.


Juan can't do that. He has to do what he does best, ignor the
evidence sitting in front of his face and twist out of the way of
questions, like Neo dodging bullets in "The Matrix."

I can't for the life of me figure out why a guy would be so willing to make
such a fool of himself in a public forum ,especially one that will have what he
wrote stored for later access. If I were jaun I would be ashamed to have my
children read the things I wrote at some later date and have them question me as
to why I was so rotten. But that's his reputation and he'll have to deal with
it. As for me I don't write anything I'd be ashamed to have my kids read.

You had a very good possible explanation for some of jauns and zooms actions.In
that light it makes some sense.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

On 23 Oct 2003 20:44:46 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

Does anyone know if Kevin still writes for zoom? I seem to remember that he
kinda disappeared from ANN not long after he started questioning zoom about what
he saw.

I believe Kevin has been busy on active military service for the past
several years. He's posted here occasionally, though.

Ron Wanttaja

A State of Delusion.

John Stricker

"andy asberry" wrote in message
...
On 23 Oct 2003 05:28:52 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:



I suppose if I did a criminal record search of all the jiminezes I'd
probably
come up with a ton of names and I would also bet a lot of them are named
jaun as
well. So I if I were use jauns logic against him as he does me I could
say
what's the criminal charges your hiding? He's a real joke.


See ya

Chuck


I just did a count on the Juan Jimenezs with criminal records in
Texas. 549 just in Texas. I could have saved some time though. There
were only 15 Juanitas.

By the way, anyone know what state Juan is in?

In article ICHlb.2908$Fm2.5495@attbi_s04,
Juan.Jimenez wrote:



"sleepy6" wrote in message
...

You forget....If you make an accusation, you have the
responsibility of proving it.

I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... what...
2-3 weeks ago?


OK. Same deal for you. *Exactly* the same. I hereby claim you're a liar
and a fraud.

All you have to do to prove _me_ wrong is provide any _proof_ of *YOUR*
claim that he did _not_ have his truck there.

Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting
you're a liar and a fraud.

I'm waiting.

And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do.

In article ,
lid says...

I did. I told him what he has to do to prove me wrong. That was... what...
2-3 weeks ago?


OK. Same deal for you. *Exactly* the same. I hereby claim you're a liar
and a fraud.

All you have to do to prove _me_ wrong is provide any _proof_ of *YOUR*
claim that he did _not_ have his truck there.

Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting
you're a liar and a fraud.

I'm waiting.

And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do.


ROFLMAO!! That was a great post!! You've just proven jaun to be a liar and a
fraud using his own tactic. Let's wait for his answer :-)

see ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

Go ahead and *PROVE*ME*WRONG*. IF you can't do it, you _are_ admitting
you're a liar and a fraud.

I'm waiting.

And I'll post reminder notices *every*week* until you do.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You're beating a dead horse.
Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option.


Barnyard Bob --
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog...
and George Carlin humor.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

You're beating a dead horse.
Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option.

Oh I dunno 'bout that. I'd wager that firearms would be effective if
properly utilized. I'm not advocating that course of action, merely being
pedantic for (hopefully) humorous effect. :-)

Russell Kent

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:16:53 -0500, Russell Kent
wrote:

:Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
:
: You're beating a dead horse.
: Shunning is the only EFFECTIVE option.
:
:Oh I dunno 'bout that. I'd wager that firearms would be effective if
roperly utilized. I'm not advocating that course of action, merely being
edantic for (hopefully) humorous effect. :-)
:
:Russell Kent

You're right, there's a whole world of options that would be
effective.

Thalium poisoning
Submarine launched cruise missile
Dropping in an active volcano
Steam roller
High voltage
snakes

Feel free to add to the list, everyone