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

["BruceR" <brNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Why don't you guys swap phone numbers and take this off line. Don't you
get that the rest of us just don't care and you're making yourselves out
to be fools?

From: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...