Re: The G Morgan show (was: MM & Jiminex...)

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:K8idnQGbnOOQ9uHfRVn-1w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> He also has a lengthy history of lying.  Anything that happened to him as
> a result of him posting my SSN in public is his own fault.  He's fortunate
> I'm not particularly vindictive or he'd have faced a lawsuit at the least.

Robert.  Point to *one thing* he's posted that's a lie (don't start with all
the drivel that the two of you exchanged when you *both* trying to
"out-do-do" each other.   That particular "pie" had pretty well even
contributions from the both of you).

>
>> Why do you choose to lie *again*??...
>
> Say what?  I said that he claimed he didn't do it.  I didn't believe him
> and frankly I have no reason to do so.  I also said that there is question
> whether he did what I sauspected but there is *no* question that he posted
> my SSN.

When you "said he claimed he didn't do it", you're deliberately avoiding the
fact that he did call you to say your criminal record has your SIN number on
it.  Are you now denying he called you??  Graham told me exactly what
happened, including his boss' response.  I have no reason to doubt his
version's veracity.  I have the emails to prove it.


>
>> IMO that's pure horse-twaddle....
>
> I doubt anyone here cares much about your opinion.  You've managed to
> alienate almost the entire newsgroup with your repeated attacks on me.

Where have I attacked you here??  I merely pointed out several remarks
you've made that were inconsistent with the facts.  "The Story According to
You" varies wildly with the facts according to Google.


>
>> That's pretty "low" in my book, Robert.
>
> Your "book" doesn't seem to have a problem with all manner of vile
> attacks, as long as they're directed at me.

I haven't attacked you here.  I haven't "attacked you" for many months and
I'm not going to start again.  I will continue to point out the facts you so
carelessly omit in an attempt to bolster your "I'm so innocent and they're
so mean" persona.


>
>> There's no excuse for what Mike's done.
>> But then, there's no excuse for the attacks
>> you've initiated on individuals in other
>> newsgroups.
>
> I've never gone after anyone without extreme provocation.

Yes, yes...  We all know this.  Do you think for one minute you haven't
deliberately provoked me in the last few months??    What's been my
response??

> In fact I've rarely done anything more than post a snide remark, even in
> response to a barrage of profanity from your pals.

Which of "my pals" are you referring to??  We *both* know Mike does not fit
in that group.  Jim has been a good deal less profane in the last couple of
weeks.  The fact that he continues to point out facts from your less than
stirling past is an issue you're going to have to deal with as long as you
continue to use taunts that include his former nick in your responses.  You
will note that he doesn't post anywhere near the kind of remarks he does
when you're absent from the group.  It only takes one mention of "Jiminex"
or "Cracker" from you and the whole orchestra starts playing again...