|
|
 |
|
#143
06-29-2012, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
 
|
|
#144
06-29-2012, 06:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Several times you've gotten all indignant and demanding about specific information, demanding "where is the link?" for things that were included in documents already given you. That you alleged you had "read". But clearly had not. The two main documents have been posted here. There is much more out there in the press if you simply use google. I'm not catering to your further demands for "information", because you've already proven you couldn't be bothered to read what has already been given you. You're either astoundingly lazy, or clearly unserious about anything other than public posturing. I doubt you're lazy. So if you truly have any serious interest in discussing this case - which I doubt, you are merely posturing for public effect - YOU post the acts surrounding the case that you acknowlege you are awares of, and we'll go on with further discussion from there.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#145
07-01-2012, 02:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Frankly, I have no interest in your opinion of me -- I could not care less. I would like to know, however, if there is any substance to many of the rest of your claims (which aren't substantiated in your links), in particular the one in which you claimed that the Romneys refunded the purchase price. That I would be very interested in. If you cannot prove it, I will assume that it cannot be proven, which is what I have suspected all along.
|
Linear Mode
