Good Luck, Jim!

"John Ousterhout"
wrote in message ...

Juan, my lack of response means only that I'm not responding to you --

And it speaks for itself. I already answered your doubts about me the
way I acted towards you.

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...
Gawd, what a funny picture! (Not of you in a closet, you kicking Jaun's
ass!)

Good hallucinations make for good pictures.

"red12049" wrote in message
...

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 could care less about comparisons to McCarthyism. That's about as lame as
the way people throw charges of anti-semitism without giving the issue a
single thought. That's why calling someone an anti-semite is no longer
nearly as strong an accusation as it used to be. Kids, wolves and crying
about them once to often come to mind.

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.

So let him convince his lawyer to sue. He said he's getting his ducks in a
row. I told him I've got a BBQ fire going to cook them. I have never lost in
court, not once, specifically because I don't line up ducks, I line up
evidence. Chuck knows he started this. Chuck knows that if he's man enough
to what should be done, he can end it. Bashing me is only going to result in
his getting stomped, over and over again. shrug

Juan

You shouldn't speak about things you don't know about. Kevin was with us
this weekend at AOPA Expo. Unfortunately, it looks like he's going back to
Afghanistan soon. I wish him well, a safe trip there and back.

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
news

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

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

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

I thought he went back to PR which was his way of weaseling out of
actually flying
the BD-5, since you can't get anywhere from PR on the 5's range.

Speaking out your ass again, Natalie? I'm in Texas, and still working on
the -5J. Just solved the ignition issue week before last. Any other dumb
questions?

wrote in message
. net...

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

g Since I don't give a **** whether or not you think I'm a liar or a
fraud, plonk!

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

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 :-)

Here it is: It's all about the credibility that you don't have, liar...

From: "Juan.Jimenez"
Date: 11/2/2003 11:30 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: uJlpb.90156$Fm2.76749@attbi_s04


"B2431" wrote in message
...

Juan, I have no dog in this fight, but bringing up family members, real or
imagionary, in such a manner as to imply negative things about them is
immature, unfair and is usually resorted to by someone who can't prove his
case.

Tell that to Chuck and his RAH Gaggle of Numbnuts. They're the ones who
dragged my kid into this in the first place.

No apology will be forthcoming.

I'm sorry, but the "he started it" excuse doesn't wash here. If what you say
about Chuck bringing your child into this first is true and you didn't like it
wouldn't you be the better man for NOT doing the same in return?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Chuck Slusarczyk wrote:

He played with words to create a perception that was different then the
reality.

Ben Sego replied:

Or:
"He played with words to create a perception that was different. Then,
reality."

I like it better that way.

Only one problem: what Chuck intended to write was: "He played with words
to create a perception that was different than the reality." Notice
"different than" rather than "different then." (BTW, this is *NOT* a
speeling flame. :-)

Russell Kent
P.S. I actually typed it that way accidently, but decided I liked the
serendipitous humor.

In article SUlpb.90935$Tr4.252041@attbi_s03,
Juan.Jimenez wrote:

wrote in message
.net...

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.




g Since I don't give a **** whether or not you think I'm a liar or a
fraud, plonk!

I am *so* glad you said that!

Cuz now I can repeat the original claim, as much as I want, with
impunity, and *ABSOLUTE*LEGAL*IMMUNITY*

You see, if you _ever_ object to my making that claim in the future, that
*proves* you did lie with the above statement.