Re: Brink's money talks.

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47155259$0$24348$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > damn near every sentence in this "story" is untrue....
> I didn't use the word story in the post. And, for the record, no one is
> saying what I called a story in earlier posts is a story anymore, even
Mark
> Leuck. It did happen the way I said it did, although Leuck disputes the
term
> "hush money" to describe the payment for the event and seems to think
there
> is no reason on earth why he should have known about the event,

I'm still waiting for you to answer that last part and you can dispute the
term hush money all you want but that doesn't make it true

> other than
> originally being certain it didn't happen. To me that alone suggests that
he
> felt he should be in a position to know to be able to say it didn't
happen.

What exactly is my position? You have no idea, instead you seem to think
everyone should know all about your problems

> But at least he can't say that anymore. He has been mum on why the policy
> that caused it in the first place wasn't challenged earlier, especially by
> him. In fact he has not acknowledged anything about the status of the
policy
> that may well be in force as we speak. How reassuring for customers!

Which policy? You haven't answered that one either, you just like to cry
like a little boy spouting sour grapes

I now await your 1,000 word rebuttal that says nothing