KOOK WEBSITE
Yale F. Edeiken
have printed the fact thaqt by name exists on a list of attorneys polaced on
some website.
I ahve never been charged with any unethical activity relating to the
practice of law. I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
deadline.
If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation. On
the other hand no specifics are present and no source for the information
listed. Nor does the listing differentiate between a mistake in legal
practice (malpractice) and an allegation of legal impropriety.
Two things make this listing highly suspect.
Frist, it was apparently added on December 27, and immediately reported
here. Since this deadline was missed in 1989 and the Sstatute of
limitations missed in 1988, it looks trange that they just discovered this.
Further I find it strange that the following cases about which I know
are not listed (except for the Judge I will omit names):
Judge O'Kicki who was removed from the bench for using his office to
harrass.
A lawyer incarcerated for DUI after his second offense.
A lawyer convicted of soliticing prostitutes.
A lawyer suspended for five years for making loans to himself from a
union trust fund. (The "loans" were repaid).
A lawyer suspended indefinitely for making "loans" to himself from a
trust fund he administered (the "loans" were not repaid. after a court order
to do so).
A lawyer disciplined for appearing in court intoxicated.
A lawyer twice sentenced to prison for physcially abusing his wife.
A lawyer suspended for soliciting sex from clients.
A lawyer caught in a scheme of falsely representing the legal status of
property.
A lawyer twice found incompetent in his handling of civil cases.
A lawyer found guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court for her failure
to obey the orders of that court.
A lawyer suspended for demanding fees from a client for which
representation she had had been paid in full by the state.
A lawyer found to have "lied to the court and two the jury" to cover his
failure to obtain a witness.
A lawyer convicted of having embezzled over a million dollars.
And many lawyers disciplined for commingling their funds with the funds
of their clients.
And this is just in Pennsylvania.
The only lawyer listed in Michigan is Jeffrey Feiger who has never been
convicted of anything or otherwise disciplined.
In short there is something that smells to high heaven about this
listing.
In the meantime Lord Haw Haw (who found about about the listing
within days of its addition to this list still refuses to discuss his active
xooperation with the campaign of criminal harrassment being conducted by
Scott Bradbury.
?
Now why can't you answer this Lord Haw Haw:
Here, again, is an account of your open cooperation with Bradbury: Yes, you
have indeed, once
or twice made some half-hearted comments. slightly less sincere than the
spiel of a used car
salesman. Your actions demonstrate your real beliefs.
You believe in and encourage criminal harassment.
> Posting of addresses is absolutely not
> on -- not least because it can lead to people being hurt or killed. What
if a member
> of Edeiken's or Bradbury's family receives a parcel bomb and gets killed?
Will it
> seem such good fun to characters like 'Nazihunter' then?
But you did not think of that or say that on December 13, 1999, when
Bradbury made at least 20
of his posts. After posting what he believed to be my address and telephone
number he suggested
that YOU "hunt him down like a dog."
You said nothing.
In fact, Bradbury's campaign of criminal harassment, death threats, and
forgery has lasted over
three years. Except for a few tepid protests (from one or two people) there
has been a deafening
silence. In fact he has received far more support than condemnation. Over
that period, you have
done nothing that would indicate that you limp-wristed "condemnations" were
anything other
than a sham and a fraud.
In tthe past three months I was subjected to a campaign which, as was poster
admitted, was
designed to harass me. This has included forgeries (about which you did
protest), death threats
(about which you did not protest), and continuous posting of what Bradbury
believed to be my
address and telephone number with incitements to violence (about which you
managed to hide
your concern for my family or those who might have been hurt if that
information was not
correct). This campaign included calling the police and other attorneys in
my area. You did
nothing but encourage him.
On December 13, 1999 Bradbury made over 20 abusive posts. Many were direct
threats of
violence and at least two, as I noted, made those threats in YOUR name.
There was not one
single post from you condemning them. Around here we believe that actions
speak much louder
than words.
And you actions speak volumes.
When I took LEGAL action to put a halt to this criminal activity, you
actively encouraged it.
You did not bother to ask what would happen if the violent thugs that form
so large a proportion
of your racist friends took action. Instead you actively encouraged it.
When it became clear that I was taking effective action you stepped in and
gave Bradbury you
unhesitating support. You demanded that I stop. dealing with a "gnat" (yes,
you were really
worried about my family then, Lord Haw Haw) and demanded, like a three year
old demanding
his mother's attention, that I pay attention to you. Indeed, you constantly
denigrated me for not
dropping all my other business and devoting all my time to you. Further you
fabricated other
charges including fraudulently accusing me of threatening to assault you. I
considered your
actions then, and I consider it now, to be deliberate efforts to aid and
abet a series of criminal
acts.
I consider you, then and now, an accomplice to Bradbury. Morally, if not
legally, the only
difference between him and you is that you have a British accent and,
perhaps, bathe more often.
Now is the time for you to speak up, Lord Haw Haw.
You have claimed publically that I should lay low lest my "superiors" hear
about my "sordid"
activities.
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, LORD HAW HAW.
Don't just sit there and pretend you are something other than an active
participant in a criminal
conspiracy. You contact whoever you think are my "superiors" and tell them
that I have offended
the delicate sensitivities of your nazi ego by informing victims of a
criminal campaign of the
identity of the criminal.
Winter is coming and they might need a good laugh.
Do you care to stop goosestepping around it?
Or is it just that you have no answer whatsoever?
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Gord McFee
F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
Yes, the listing is the product of a bunch of kooks and your inclusion
in it is almost certainly the result of collaboration between Bradbury
and Michael.
> In the meantime Lord Haw Haw (who found about about the listing
> within days of its addition to this list still refuses to discuss his active
> xooperation with the campaign of criminal harrassment being conducted by
> Scott Bradbury.
That's because he is a gutless Internet stalker.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Gord McFee
+0000, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
>
> 'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> deadline.
>
> If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation.'
>
> So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
> statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of the
> suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
>
> I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how he
> managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
>
> Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
> legal ability?
>
> Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
> here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
> those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
Go fuck yourself, stalker. You and Bradbury were caught and that's the
way it is.
Gord McFee
+0000, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Gord McFee wrote:
>
> > In <3870...@news3.enter.net>, on Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:50:24 -0500, "Yale
> > F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the listing is the product of a bunch of kooks and your inclusion
> > in it is almost certainly the result of collaboration between Bradbury
> > and Michael.
> >
> > > In the meantime Lord Haw Haw (who found about about the listing
> > > within days of its addition to this list still refuses to discuss his active
> > > xooperation with the campaign of criminal harrassment being conducted by
> > > Scott Bradbury.
> >
> > That's because he is a gutless Internet stalker.
> >
> > --
> > Gord McFee
> > I'll write no line before its time
>
> Mr Edeiken has now confessed to having missed a statute of limitations, having
> missed a court deadline, and having been sued twice for malpractice.
Mr Edeiken has confessed to nothing.
> In the light of this information, Mr McFee, I demand an apology from you for the
> lies that you've been telling about me all day.
I have told no lies about you, asshole.
> Or don't you have the balls to apologize when you've been discovered with your
> trousers around your ankles?
Never by you.
steve wolk
The odor of rats is very strong in here. Some of the odor is wafting in
from Texas; the rest is wafting in from across the Atlantic. I think it
is safe to say we know who the rats are that nest in these locations.
Steve
Gord McFee
+0000, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> No Steve -- you just forgot to take a bath again.
No, David, the issue is whether you have had sex with hamsters.
steve wolk
>
> The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
>
> statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> deadline.
>
>
> So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
> statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of the
> suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
>
> I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how he
> managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
>
> Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
> legal ability?
>
> Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
> here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
> those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
>
No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
flying leap into the dungheap. Yale has stated that he was sued twice
for malpractice. Big deal. This has probably happened to every lawyer.
That's why they carry malpractice insurance. No different than you
carrying automobile insurance. More importantly, you have not shown
that this is the reason he appears on CLR. Since these suits date back
ten years or more, and CLR dates back only to 1997, it is extremely
unlikely that these are the source of the listing on CLR. Yale has told
you all you need to know. If you want to know more, do your own
dirt-digging. While you're at it, maybe you'll dig up a definition of
"white". As far as apologizing to you - I'll eat a plate of worms
before that ever happens. I never apologize to Nazis, especially when
there is nothing for which to apologize. That includes both you and
Bradbury. Deal with it.
Steve
Sara Salzman
wrote:
> Recently net terrorist Scott Bradbury and his accomplice Lord Haw Haw
>have printed the fact that my name exists on a list of attorneys placed on
>some website.
>
Yale:
I think there are many of us who find this list rather suspect.
Not only is there the shocking lack of information you list below, but
more so that an attorney convicted of first-degree murder (Thomas Copano)
is MISSING.
> I ahve never been charged with any unethical activity relating to the
>practice of law. I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
>statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
>deadline.
>
SO as I understand it, it's okay to list lawyers who have NOT been
convicted of anything, who have never been charged with unethical
behavior, but it's NOT okay to list CONVICTED lawyers. What a fascinating
site this is!
I'm also curious about how Dr. Michael "found" this information.... many
of us have used a number of search engines with your name... and although
lots of hits came up relating to Nizkor, THHP, and even a gumbo recipe,
NONE of the ones I looked at linked to this "site."
No, but his defense of people like Jack Kevorkian obviously pissed off
some idiot who had his name placed here.
>
> In short there is something that smells to high heaven about this
>listing.
>
> In the meantime Lord Haw Haw (who found about about the listing
>within days of its addition to this list still refuses to discuss his active
>xooperation with the campaign of criminal harrassment being conducted by
>Scott Bradbury.
>
His actions, however, speak volumes, don't they?
Sara
--
"I am an agitator, and an agitator is the center
post in a washing machine that gets the dirt out."
Jim Hightower
Gord McFee
2000 22:58:33 EST, cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
> In article <3870...@news3.enter.net>, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Recently net terrorist Scott Bradbury and his accomplice Lord Haw Haw
> >have printed the fact that my name exists on a list of attorneys placed on
> >some website.
> >
>
> Yale:
>
> I think there are many of us who find this list rather suspect.
>
> Not only is there the shocking lack of information you list below, but
> more so that an attorney convicted of first-degree murder (Thomas Copano)
> is MISSING.
A great website. };->
> > I ahve never been charged with any unethical activity relating to the
> >practice of law. I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> >statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> >deadline.
>
> SO as I understand it, it's okay to list lawyers who have NOT been
> convicted of anything, who have never been charged with unethical
> behavior, but it's NOT okay to list CONVICTED lawyers. What a fascinating
> site this is!
Yes, the kind that David Michael gravitates to like the proverbial fly
to shit.
> I'm also curious about how Dr. Michael "found" this information.... many
> of us have used a number of search engines with your name... and although
> lots of hits came up relating to Nizkor, THHP, and even a gumbo recipe,
> NONE of the ones I looked at linked to this "site."
Maybe he already knew the address and what was there. I can see
Bradbury writing him and saying, "OK Dave, stop making out with Cuddles
your hamster, and check out URL bla..bla.
Correct.
> > In short there is something that smells to high heaven about this
> >listing.
> >
> > In the meantime Lord Haw Haw (who found about about the listing
> >within days of its addition to this list still refuses to discuss his active
> >xooperation with the campaign of criminal harrassment being conducted by
> >Scott Bradbury.
> >
> His actions, however, speak volumes, don't they?
Yeppers.
Gord McFee
+0000, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Certainly. You have made allegations against me. The allegations are false. You don't
> have the balls to apologize. End of story.
The allegations are fact. You and Bradbury were found out. You don't
have the guts, or the integrity to admit it. Fuck off.
Gord McFee
steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
> > No Steve -- you just forgot to take a bath again.
> >
> > David
>
>
> I prefer showers, not baths. But if I did neglect to shower, I'd use
> perfume. You, on the other hand, seem to take no precautions whatsoever
> against B.O.
ROTFL! Of course, when you date hamsters.........
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
>
> David
I prefer showers, not baths. But if I did neglect to shower, I'd use
perfume. You, on the other hand, seem to take no precautions whatsoever
against B.O.
Steve
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
> > >
> > > statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> > > deadline.
> > >
> > >
> > > So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
> > > statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of the
> > > suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
> > >
> > > I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how he
> > > managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
> > >
> > > Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
> > > legal ability?
> > >
> > > Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
> > > here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
> > > those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
> > flying leap into the dungheap. Yale has stated that he was sued twice
> > for malpractice. Big deal. This has probably happened to every lawyer.
>
> Responsibility blacklist?
>
> >
> > That's why they carry malpractice insurance.
>
> into the walls -- but only a very few of them actually experience lorries driving into
> their walls.
>
> > No different than you
> > carrying automobile insurance.
>
>
> > More importantly, you have not shown
> > that this is the reason he appears on CLR.
>
>
> > Since these suits date back
> > ten years or more, and CLR dates back only to 1997, it is extremely
> > unlikely that these are the source of the listing on CLR.
>
>
> And how come you know so much about his malpractice suits?
>
> > Yale has told
> > you all you need to know.
>
> want anyone else to know about it'.
>
> > If you want to know more, do your own
> > dirt-digging.
>
>
> > While you're at it, maybe you'll dig up a definition of
> > "white". As far as apologizing to you - I'll eat a plate of worms
> > before that ever happens. I never apologize to Nazis, especially when
> > there is nothing for which to apologize. That includes both you and
> > Bradbury. Deal with it.
> >
>
> have the balls to apologize. End of story.
>
> >
>
> David
No, Herr Cuddles. This is the end of the story. Kiss my ass!
Steve
steve wolk
Actually: When you lie down with pigs, you get up smelling like a pig.
Are you insinuating that Cuddles does bizarre things with hamsters? Do
you know if he owns a VCR?
Steve
David E Michael
Gord McFee wrote:
> In <3870...@news3.enter.net>, on Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:50:24 -0500, "Yale
> Yes, the listing is the product of a bunch of kooks and your inclusion
> in it is almost certainly the result of collaboration between Bradbury
> and Michael.
>
> > In the meantime Lord Haw Haw (who found about about the listing
> > within days of its addition to this list still refuses to discuss his active
> > xooperation with the campaign of criminal harrassment being conducted by
> > Scott Bradbury.
>
> That's because he is a gutless Internet stalker.
>
> --
> Gord McFee
> I'll write no line before its time
Mr Edeiken has now confessed to having missed a statute of limitations, having
missed a court deadline, and having been sued twice for malpractice.
In the light of this information, Mr McFee, I demand an apology from you for the
lies that you've been telling about me all day.
Or don't you have the balls to apologize when you've been discovered with your
trousers around your ankles?
David
David E Michael
'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
deadline.
If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation.'
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
No Steve -- you just forgot to take a bath again.
David
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
> >
> > The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
> >
> > 'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> > statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> > deadline.
> >
> > If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation.'
> >
> > So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
> > statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of the
> > suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
> >
> > I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how he
> > managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
> >
> > Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
> > legal ability?
> >
> > Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
> > here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
> > those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
> >
> > David
>
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
Kinky.
> But if I did neglect to shower, I'd use
> perfume.
Chanel No. 5?
> You, on the other hand, seem to take no precautions whatsoever
> against B.O.
>
Being Observant.
>
> Steve
David
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > David E Michael wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
> > > >
> > > > 'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> > > > statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> > > > deadline.
> > > >
> No, Herr Cuddles. This is the end of the story. Kiss my ass!
>
> Steve
You might indulge in such behaviour, sir. I, however, am British.
That's all for today folks. Goodnight.
David
Gord McFee
steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
> Actually: When you lie down with pigs, you get up smelling like a pig.
> Are you insinuating that Cuddles does bizarre things with hamsters? Do
> you know if he owns a VCR?
I merely apply Cuddles' own evidentiary standards and am sure he does
something bizarre with hamsters. Have you noted he has not denied it?
That means he is guilty - by his standards.
steve wolk
BODY ODOR. You stink.
Steve
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > David E Michael wrote:
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
> > > > >
> > > > > statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> > > > > deadline.
> > > > >
You might try telling this to a British vet of WW2 (or any Brit who was
around during that time) when you tell him his side won and your side
lost. You would be wearing your colon for a hat. You are a disgrace to
a country which has a long and mostly honorable history.
Steve
steve wolk
Then it also means he stinks.
Steve
Yale F. Edeiken
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:38702921...@btinternet.com...
The goose-stepping nazi tries to attack again.
What he will not deal with is his open cooperation with a campaign of
criminal harrassment.
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > David E Michael wrote:
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > > David E Michael wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
> > > > >
> > > > > 'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> > > > > statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a
court
> > > > > deadline.
> > > > >
> > > > > If that is the source for their information, that is the
Please fon't say that publically, other Brits are ashamed of you.
> That's all for today folks. Goodnight.
Which means he will run away again from explaining his support of a
campaign of criminal harrassment.
?
Now why can't you answer this Lord Haw Haw:
Here, again, is an account of your open cooperation with Bradbury: Yes, you
have indeed, once
or twice made some half-hearted comments. slightly less sincere than the
spiel of a used car
salesman. Your actions demonstrate your real beliefs.
888You believe in and encourage criminal harassment.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3870129C...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 03
Jan 2000 03:08:13 +0000, David E Michael
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
>
>'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
>statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a
>court deadline.
>If that is the source for their information, that is the
>expanation.'
>So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of
>missing a statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell
>us the outcome of the suits) for missing a court deadline and for
>malpractice.
You are sooooo stupid, David. Read what he wrote, Halfwit.
>I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice
>cases and how he managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court
>deadline.
I call upon you to tell us what you meant by "being there" in
Bophuthatswana.
>Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C
>rating for legal ability?
Actually his rating in Martindale-Hubbel is CV:
The Martindale-Hubbell CV Rating indicates good to high
legal ability and very high ethical standards as established
by confidential opinions from members of the Bar.
See http://lawyers.martindale.com/marhub and follow the links.
Thank you for bringing to our attention that Yale Edieken is rated by
his peers as having good to high legal ability and very high ethical
standards.
And thank you once again for demonstrating that you are a malign and
stupid individual.
>Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr
>Bradbury here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr
>McFee, I call upon those individuals to apologize to us both without
>reservation.
You owe Yale Edeiken an apology, you Nazi prick.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOHA8OpQgvG272fn9EQJcvwCg+/xXM3APsjmoBv93eYjliMA1LH8AoJzw
GzRBTNKKxZ17tcXB6bMybNXz
=RRyB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Buck Turgidson
> The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
>
> 'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> deadline.
>
> If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation.'
>
> So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
> statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of the
> suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
"Found guilty"? I presume you have the judgment handy, along with the case number.
After all, to be found guilty one must have committed a crime. All Yale says is
that he was sued; I don't see anything here about the dispensation of those suits.
They may have been settled amicably for all you know. (Not that knowing very little
stops you from collaborating to smear a person.)
>
>
> I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how he
> managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
I would imagine that is none of your business. Or to paraphrase Curdles the
Internet Stalker, "Maybe you should investigate it yourself."
>
>
> Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
> legal ability?
Oh No. Only in the Top 5% of His Profession. Horrors.
>
>
> Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
> here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
> those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
I feel the sudden urge to pass a large amount of gas.
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
Buck Turgidson
> >
> > I prefer showers, not baths.
>
> Kinky.
You think showers are kinky? Well, THAT explains a lot.
steve wolk
>
> -- --Dep
The nose knows.
Steve
David Christian
<deppi...@mindspring.com> wrote :
>David E Michael wrote:
>
>> The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
>>
>> 'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
>> statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
>> deadline.
>>
>> If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation.'
>>
>> So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
>> statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of the
>> suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
>
>"Found guilty"? I presume you have the judgment handy, along with the case number.
>After all, to be found guilty one must have committed a crime. All Yale says is
>that he was sued; I don't see anything here about the dispensation of those suits.
>They may have been settled amicably for all you know. (Not that knowing very little
>stops you from collaborating to smear a person.)
Knowing very little about history doesn't stop him from posting reams of
drivel.
>
>>
>>
>> I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how he
>> managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
>
>I would imagine that is none of your business. Or to paraphrase Curdles the
>Internet Stalker, "Maybe you should investigate it yourself."
>
>>
>>
>> Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
>> legal ability?
>
>Oh No. Only in the Top 5% of His Profession. Horrors.
>
>>
>>
>> Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
>> here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
>> those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
>
>I feel the sudden urge to pass a large amount of gas.
"We fart in your general direction, silly English person"
>
>
>-- --Dep
>
>"Always tell the truth. It's the ? "Truth is just...truth. You can't
> easiest thing to remember." ? have opinions about truth."
> --David Mamet --Peter Schickele
>
>Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
>http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
Alexander Berkman
Fledgist
>The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
>
>'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
>statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
>deadline.
>
>If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation.'
>
>So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
>statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of
>the
>suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
Whatever your doctorate is in, it isn't in literacy. Yale mentioned two
lawsuits for malpractice; he described the alleged malpractices (missing a
deadline, missing a statute of limitations). You have created from this three
offences, imputing guilt in one case. Try learning to read.
>
>I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how
>he
>managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
Surely after you tell us how you managed to miss a bus AND a taxi.
>
>Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
>legal ability?
>
>Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
>here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
>those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
>
For what?
>David
>
Fragano Ledgister
(Fled...@aol.com)
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20000103094936...@ng-da1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 03 Jan 2000 14:49:36 GMT, fled...@aol.comkillspam (Fledgist)
wrote:
David Michael spray-painted on a bus shelter:
>>The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
>>'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
>>statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a
>>court deadline.
>>If that is the source for their information, that is the
>>expanation.'
>>So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of
>>missing a statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't
>>tell us the outcome of the suits) for missing a court deadline and
>>for malpractice.
>Whatever your doctorate is in, it isn't in literacy. Yale mentioned
>two lawsuits for malpractice; he described the alleged malpractices
>(missing a deadline, missing a statute of limitations). You have
>created from this three offences, imputing guilt in one case. Try
>learning to read.
I suspect a head injury.
>>I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice
>>cases and how he managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a
>>court deadline.
>Surely after you tell us how you managed to miss a bus AND a taxi.
>>Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C
>>rating for legal ability?
Actually, a "CV" rating by the source David cited which indicates
three things: Yale Edieken is highly regarded by his peers for legal
abilities; Yale Edeiken is highly regarded by his peers for his
ethics; Yale has not been disciplined by the State Bar or the State
Supreme Court.
Now, David thinks his own source--Martindale-Hubbell--is just no
damned good.
>>Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and
>>Mr Bradbury here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and
>>Mr McFee, I call upon those individuals to apologize to us both
>>without reservation.
>For what?
Exposing him for the vicious, amoral thug he is.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOHC5XpQgvG272fn9EQJjeQCg91XSrZgu1i/aHMAUbpMbPH0qwZ8AoMlH
NQpsckzUW+P9KUbWq2VYuhz0
=mgGX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gord McFee
steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
> Then it also means he stinks.
We already knew that.
Gord McFee
> You think showers are kinky? Well, THAT explains a lot.
Probably the hamster prefers the tub. I'll leave it to you to imagine
why.
Gord McFee
06:06:05 GMT, John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <3870129C...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 03
> Jan 2000 03:08:13 +0000, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
> >
> >'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> >statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a
> >court deadline.
>
> >If that is the source for their information, that is the
> >expanation.'
>
> >So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of
> >missing a statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell
> >us the outcome of the suits) for missing a court deadline and for
> >malpractice.
>
> You are sooooo stupid, David. Read what he wrote, Halfwit.
>
> >I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice
> >cases and how he managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court
> >deadline.
>
> I call upon you to tell us what you meant by "being there" in
> Bophuthatswana.
>
> >Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C
> >rating for legal ability?
>
> Actually his rating in Martindale-Hubbel is CV:
Ahar! The truth comes out.
> The Martindale-Hubbell CV Rating indicates good to high
> legal ability and very high ethical standards as established
> by confidential opinions from members of the Bar.
So, Mr Edeiken has received a very good rating from his peers that was
done confidentially. There goes David "I never met a hamster who didn't
turn me on" Michael's smear campaign right down the old craperoono.
> See http://lawyers.martindale.com/marhub and follow the links.
>
> Thank you for bringing to our attention that Yale Edieken is rated by
> his peers as having good to high legal ability and very high ethical
> standards.
Hehehe.
> And thank you once again for demonstrating that you are a malign and
> stupid individual.
In spades.
> >Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr
> >Bradbury here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr
> >McFee, I call upon those individuals to apologize to us both without
> >reservation.
>
> You owe Yale Edeiken an apology, you Nazi prick.
He isn't man enough.
Gord McFee
-0600, Buck Turgidson <deppi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
>
> > The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
> >
> > 'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> > statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> > deadline.
> >
> > If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation.'
> >
> > So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
> > statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of the
> > suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
>
> "Found guilty"? I presume you have the judgment handy, along with the case number.
> After all, to be found guilty one must have committed a crime. All Yale says is
> that he was sued; I don't see anything here about the dispensation of those suits.
> They may have been settled amicably for all you know. (Not that knowing very little
> stops you from collaborating to smear a person.)
>
> > I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how he
> > managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
>
> I would imagine that is none of your business. Or to paraphrase Curdles the
> Internet Stalker, "Maybe you should investigate it yourself."
He won't. That might take some effort and courage.
>
> > Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
> > legal ability?
>
> Oh No. Only in the Top 5% of His Profession. Horrors.
David has never been in the top 5% of anything (except asshole of the
year), so he is no doubt insanely jealous.
> > Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
> > here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
> > those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
>
> I feel the sudden urge to pass a large amount of gas.
That's what I did when I saw his post.
Gord McFee
"Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
> On 2-Jan-2000, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > The important point about Mr Edeiken's post is his admission:
> >
> > 'I have been sued twice for malpractice, once for missing a
> > statute of limitations (which did occur) and once for missing a court
> > deadline.
> >
> > If that is the source for their information, that is the expanation.'
> >
> > So there we have it from the horses mouth. He was found guilty of missing a
> > statute of limitations, and he's been sued (but won't tell us the outcome of the
> > suits) for missing a court deadline and for malpractice.
> >
> > I now call upon Yale F Edeiken to tell us about his malpractice cases and how he
> > managed to miss a statute of limitation AND a court deadline.
> >
> > Does this have anything to do with the fact that he only has a C rating for
> > legal ability?
> >
> > Moreover, in the light of the allegations made against myself and Mr Bradbury
> > here today by various individuals, notably Mr Wolk and Mr McFee, I call upon
> > those individuals to apologize to us both without reservation.
> >
> > David
>
> Yale F. Edeiken Attorney should be disbarred.
Really? Tell it to the judge in February asshole, assuming you have the
guts to show up.
Buck Turgidson
> In <38705762...@mindspring.com>, on Mon, 03 Jan 2000 02:02:41
> > You think showers are kinky? Well, THAT explains a lot.
>
> Probably the hamster prefers the tub. I'll leave it to you to imagine
> why.
The round edges cut down on ricochets?
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
Gord McFee
c.r.ca...@worldnet.att.net (Chris Carpenter) wrote:
Look what the cat dragged in. Cripes.
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:42:20 -0500, steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
> >flying leap into the dungheap.
>
> You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
>
> > Yale has stated that he was sued twice
> >for malpractice. Big deal.
>
> Yes, that - is- a big deal.
>
> Tantamount to a:
>
> Architect designing a bridge too long
Nope.
> Engineer building a bridge too short
Nope.
> Surgeon removing the wrong limb
Nope.
> Pilot landing at the wrong airport
Nope.
Apart from the fact that all of those analogies are completely
incorrect, you seemed to have omitted mention of whether he was
*successfully* sued. Any clown can sue someone because they don't like
the colour of his hair.
> > This has probably happened to every lawyer.
>
> You are an ignoramus of the first water. I can now understand why you
> believe in "gas chambers."
> BTW, I've never called anyone an ignoramus before - you rate.
Someone who doesn't know the difference between being accused of
something and found guilty of it looks very funny calling anyone else an
ignoramus.
> >That's why they carry malpractice insurance.
> > No different than you carrying automobile insurance.
>
> Two more foolish statements. Do you believe in the deep burning pits
> at Auschwitz, too?
Can't follow the thread, can you Chrissie? Whattsa matter, did Scottie,
Davie and schoolboy call in for reinforcements?
> > More importantly, you have not shown
> >that this is the reason he appears on CLR.
>
> Why should he show anything? David posted a url and Yale fessed up.
Incorrect again. You don't even lie very well.
> > Since these suits date back
> >ten years or more, and CLR dates back only to 1997, it is extremely
> >unlikely that these are the source of the listing on CLR.
>
> Well, Yale can explain the nature of CLR's data - if he desires.
How can Yale explain the ravings of a madman?
> > Yale has told you all you need to know.
>
> Hmmmmm
Big word, for you.
> > If you want to know more, do your own
> >dirt-digging.
>
> I'm sure he will if Yale is not up front.
>
> [snip]
>
> > As far as apologizing to you - I'll eat a plate of worms
> >before that ever happens.
>
> You are so blinded by hate. No wonder you are a holocaust believer.
> Will you "eat a plate of worms" when the six million figure is
> reduced by more than 2/3?
Another attempt to deflect. You are a third stringer, Chrissie.
Flipped any dice lately?
> > I never apologize to Nazis, especially when
> >there is nothing for which to apologize.
>
> They are revisionists.
They are Nazis. As are you.
> > That includes both you and
> >Bradbury. Deal with it.
> >Steve
>
> You're real tough, Steve - stupid too.
His dog is smarter than you clowns.
Gord McFee
-0600, Buck Turgidson <deppi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Gord McFee wrote:
>
> > In <38705762...@mindspring.com>, on Mon, 03 Jan 2000 02:02:41
> > > You think showers are kinky? Well, THAT explains a lot.
> >
> > Probably the hamster prefers the tub. I'll leave it to you to imagine
> > why.
>
> The round edges cut down on ricochets?
ROTFLMAO! Bingo!
steve wolk
>
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:42:20 -0500, steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
> >flying leap into the dungheap.
>
> You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
>
> > Yale has stated that he was sued twice
> >for malpractice. Big deal.
>
> Yes, that - is- a big deal.
>
> Tantamount to a:
>
> Architect designing a bridge too long
>
>
>
>
>
> You are an ignoramus of the first water. I can now understand why you
> believe in "gas chambers."
> BTW, I've never called anyone an ignoramus before - you rate.
>
> > No different than you carrying automobile insurance.
>
> Two more foolish statements. Do you believe in the deep burning pits
> at Auschwitz, too?
>
> >that this is the reason he appears on CLR.
>
> Why should he show anything? David posted a url and Yale fessed up.
>
> >ten years or more, and CLR dates back only to 1997, it is extremely
> >unlikely that these are the source of the listing on CLR.
>
> Well, Yale can explain the nature of CLR's data - if he desires.
>
>
> Hmmmmm
>
> >dirt-digging.
>
> I'm sure he will if Yale is not up front.
>
> [snip]
>
> > As far as apologizing to you - I'll eat a plate of worms
> >before that ever happens.
>
> You are so blinded by hate. No wonder you are a holocaust believer.
> Will you "eat a plate of worms" when the six million figure is
> reduced by more than 2/3?
>
> >there is nothing for which to apologize.
>
> They are revisionists.
>
> >Bradbury. Deal with it.
> >Steve
>
> You're real tough, Steve - stupid too.
From another self-exposed maggot and poster of lies who professes that
he is not an anti-semite.
Steve
steve wolk
>
> In <38713f90...@netnews.att.net>, on Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:38:43 GMT,
> c.r.ca...@worldnet.att.net (Chris Carpenter) wrote:
>
> Look what the cat dragged in. Cripes.
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
> > >flying leap into the dungheap.
> >
> > You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
> >
> > > Yale has stated that he was sued twice
> > >for malpractice. Big deal.
> >
> > Yes, that - is- a big deal.
> >
> > Tantamount to a:
> >
> > Architect designing a bridge too long
>
>
> > Engineer building a bridge too short
>
>
> > Surgeon removing the wrong limb
>
>
> > Pilot landing at the wrong airport
>
>
> Apart from the fact that all of those analogies are completely
> incorrect, you seemed to have omitted mention of whether he was
> *successfully* sued. Any clown can sue someone because they don't like
> the colour of his hair.
>
> >
> > You are an ignoramus of the first water. I can now understand why you
> > believe in "gas chambers."
> > BTW, I've never called anyone an ignoramus before - you rate.
>
> something and found guilty of it looks very funny calling anyone else an
> ignoramus.
>
> > > No different than you carrying automobile insurance.
> >
> > Two more foolish statements. Do you believe in the deep burning pits
> > at Auschwitz, too?
>
> Davie and schoolboy call in for reinforcements?
>
> > >that this is the reason he appears on CLR.
> >
> > Why should he show anything? David posted a url and Yale fessed up.
>
>
> > >ten years or more, and CLR dates back only to 1997, it is extremely
> > >unlikely that these are the source of the listing on CLR.
> >
> > Well, Yale can explain the nature of CLR's data - if he desires.
>
>
> >
> > Hmmmmm
>
>
> > > If you want to know more, do your own
> > >dirt-digging.
> >
> > I'm sure he will if Yale is not up front.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > As far as apologizing to you - I'll eat a plate of worms
> > >before that ever happens.
> >
> > You are so blinded by hate. No wonder you are a holocaust believer.
> > Will you "eat a plate of worms" when the six million figure is
> > reduced by more than 2/3?
>
> Flipped any dice lately?
>
> > >there is nothing for which to apologize.
> >
> > They are revisionists.
>
>
> > >Bradbury. Deal with it.
> > >Steve
> >
> > You're real tough, Steve - stupid too.
>
>
> Gord McFee
> I'll write no line before its time
I have 5 dogs. They are ALL smarter than Oberst Chris. Also, they are
lovable, a quality that is totally foreign to these Nazi punks. It
wouldn't surprise me at all if their toilet habits aren't better than
Chris's. They don't shit on the rug.
Steve
Chris Carpenter
wrote:
[snip]
>No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
>flying leap into the dungheap.
You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
> Yale has stated that he was sued twice
>for malpractice. Big deal.
Yes, that - is- a big deal.
Tantamount to a:
Architect designing a bridge too long
Engineer building a bridge too short
Surgeon removing the wrong limb
Pilot landing at the wrong airport
> This has probably happened to every lawyer.
You are an ignoramus of the first water. I can now understand why you
believe in "gas chambers."
BTW, I've never called anyone an ignoramus before - you rate.
>That's why they carry malpractice insurance.
> No different than you carrying automobile insurance.
Two more foolish statements. Do you believe in the deep burning pits
at Auschwitz, too?
> More importantly, you have not shown
>that this is the reason he appears on CLR.
Why should he show anything? David posted a url and Yale fessed up.
> Since these suits date back
>ten years or more, and CLR dates back only to 1997, it is extremely
>unlikely that these are the source of the listing on CLR.
Well, Yale can explain the nature of CLR's data - if he desires.
> Yale has told you all you need to know.
Hmmmmm
> If you want to know more, do your own
>dirt-digging.
I'm sure he will if Yale is not up front.
[snip]
> As far as apologizing to you - I'll eat a plate of worms
>before that ever happens.
You are so blinded by hate. No wonder you are a holocaust believer.
Will you "eat a plate of worms" when the six million figure is
reduced by more than 2/3?
> I never apologize to Nazis, especially when
>there is nothing for which to apologize.
They are revisionists.
> That includes both you and
Buck Turgidson
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:42:20 -0500, steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
> >flying leap into the dungheap.
>
> You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
Oh, looky who's come by. Everyone's favorite hyena. Just as pleasant, just as
companionable, but about half as bright.
Philip Mathews
>c.r.ca...@worldnet.att.net (Chris Carpenter) wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:42:20 -0500, steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
>>flying leap into the dungheap.
>
>You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
>
>> Yale has stated that he was sued twice
>>for malpractice. Big deal.
>
>Yes, that - is- a big deal.
>
>Tantamount to a:
>
>Architect designing a bridge too long
>
>Engineer building a bridge too short
>
>Surgeon removing the wrong limb
>
>Pilot landing at the wrong airport
Not very good at analogies, are you.
>> This has probably happened to every lawyer.
>
>You are an ignoramus of the first water. I can now understand why you
>believe in "gas chambers."
>BTW, I've never called anyone an ignoramus before - you rate.
You don't believe in gas chambers? What are you, an idiot, or a denier?
>
>>That's why they carry malpractice insurance.
>> No different than you carrying automobile insurance.
>
>Two more foolish statements. Do you believe in the deep burning pits
>at Auschwitz, too?
Gee, you really are a certified member of that tiny fringe set called deniers.
Do you believe in your own birth?
>
>> More importantly, you have not shown
>>that this is the reason he appears on CLR.
>
>Why should he show anything? David posted a url and Yale fessed up.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Why don't you mention the other,
professionally recognized URL David is now running from?
>
>> Since these suits date back
>>ten years or more, and CLR dates back only to 1997, it is extremely
>>unlikely that these are the source of the listing on CLR.
>
>Well, Yale can explain the nature of CLR's data - if he desires.
Why bother. CLR is a site run by some overwrought man who blames all attorneys
and judges for his wife divorcing him.
>
>> Yale has told you all you need to know.
>
>Hmmmmm
Hmmmm indeed.
>
>> If you want to know more, do your own
>>dirt-digging.
>
>I'm sure he will if Yale is not up front.
In your dreams, fool.
>
>[snip]
>
>> As far as apologizing to you - I'll eat a plate of worms
>>before that ever happens.
>
>You are so blinded by hate. No wonder you are a holocaust believer.
>Will you "eat a plate of worms" when the six million figure is
>reduced by more than 2/3?
Are all deniers as stupid as you?
>
>> I never apologize to Nazis, especially when
>>there is nothing for which to apologize.
>
>They are revisionists.
You and they are not revisionists, you're deniers. You don't have the foggiest
idea what historical revisionism is.
>
>> That includes both you and
>>Bradbury. Deal with it.
>>Steve
>
>You're real tough, Steve - stupid too.
How's that glass house you're living in?
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson
William Daffer
c.r.ca...@worldnet.att.net (Chris Carpenter) writes:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:42:20 -0500, steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
> >flying leap into the dungheap.
>
> You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
>
> > Yale has stated that he was sued twice
> >for malpractice. Big deal.
>
> Yes, that - is- a big deal.
>
> Tantamount to a:
>
> Architect designing a bridge too long
>
(Blathering deleted)
Chris;
Try to read up a bit on the matter at hand before you step in with
your next decisive proof of your cluelessness.
Yale has been cited with a rating of CV by the Martindale-Hubbell
rating service. This service is a peer rating. It indicates that
Yale has a 'good to high' rating for his legal skills and and 'high
rating' for his ethics. It also indicates that he has not been
disciplined by the Penn bar.
Against this, all your mumblings strive in vain.
You may thank David Michael for providing this information. He did
so thinking that a 'C' rating was, somehow, bad. In this regard, he
shares some characteristics with you.
William
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOHLnsiKcKc3OYUhpAQE+hQP/QvHUmX/iMtCEO1J902QFI4PeLEBrANcI
HNFaxQ/m+VoldLzLOi9Ew0jfBmCnuD7TGR5tgNkgumVFr/YD5ljmTYfV8T7ktSjt
yW1WgwRiwBW0mDcWz9H85XC71Xhzz8P2JWSz7oQCJeDc8gOWd8BfTgTQlNTwcLAb
QB/H10qS2iI=
=DXXX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David E Michael
William Daffer wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> c.r.ca...@worldnet.att.net (Chris Carpenter) writes:
>
> > On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:42:20 -0500, steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
> > >flying leap into the dungheap.
> >
> > You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
> >
> > > Yale has stated that he was sued twice
> > >for malpractice. Big deal.
> >
> > Yes, that - is- a big deal.
> >
> > Tantamount to a:
> >
> > Architect designing a bridge too long
> >
>
> (Blathering deleted)
>
> Chris;
>
> Try to read up a bit on the matter at hand before you step in with
> your next decisive proof of your cluelessness.
>
> Yale has been cited with a rating of CV by the Martindale-Hubbell
> rating service. This service is a peer rating. It indicates that
> Yale has a 'good to high' rating for his legal skills and and 'high
> rating' for his ethics.
It indicates, actually, that he has the lowest rating for legal ability that
it is possible to get from Martindale-Hubbell. He doesn't merit an A. He
doesn't merit a B. Just a third-rate C. Martindale-Hubbell explicitly state
that because an attorney is unrated this does not mean anything about his or
her legal ability as Martindale-Hubbell does not rate every attorney. And I
wouldn't read too much into this 'good-to-high' nonsense. It was once
established that if condoms were described as 'small', 'medium' and 'large'
nobody would want to purchase the 'small' ones; if, however, they were
redesignated as 'large', 'very large' and 'jumbo size', demand for the small
ones went up. So it is with Martindale-Hubbell ratings. If they were
'excellent', 'mediocre' and 'crap', the lower-rated attorneys would not wish
to cite their rating; so they call the ratings 'highest', 'very high' and
'good to high'.
> It also indicates that he has not been
> disciplined by the Penn bar.
>
Absolute rubbish.
>
> Against this, all your mumblings strive in vain.
>
> You may thank David Michael for providing this information. He did
> so thinking that a 'C' rating was, somehow, bad. In this regard, he
> shares some characteristics with you.
>
The C rating for ability is the lowest rating it is possible to get.
That is Yale F Edeiken for you.
>
> William
>
> - --
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
> Groucho Marx.
> Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
>
> iQCVAwUBOHLnsiKcKc3OYUhpAQE+hQP/QvHUmX/iMtCEO1J902QFI4PeLEBrANcI
> HNFaxQ/m+VoldLzLOi9Ew0jfBmCnuD7TGR5tgNkgumVFr/YD5ljmTYfV8T7ktSjt
> yW1WgwRiwBW0mDcWz9H85XC71Xhzz8P2JWSz7oQCJeDc8gOWd8BfTgTQlNTwcLAb
> QB/H10qS2iI=
> =DXXX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David
William Daffer
Martindale-Hubbell explicitly states, concerning Yale's rating of CV.
<quoting http://www.martindale.com/company/ratings.html>
C Good to High
A CV ® Rating is an excellent first rating for lawyers. The
typical recipient has a reputation for hard work and high
ethical standards.
</quote>
Hardly something to sniff at with a supercilious sneer, as you
continue doing.
Face it, David. You've been outed. You've been trying to beat this
dead horse until it's twice, or maybe thrice, dead. Yale has 'good
to high' marks for his legal abilities and 'high' marks for his
ethics. Quite a contrast to the picture you are attempting to paint
of him. And, what's even funnier, we have you to thank for the
information.
> And I
> wouldn't read too much into this 'good-to-high' nonsense.
Yes, of course you wouldn't. Or, you wouldn't now, when it doesn't
support your posturing. But you're quite happy to push the "it's a C
not an A" argument. You accept one meaning of the ordering, provided
by yourself but unsupported by the webpage you're quoting but reject
the meaning presented by the webpage itself.
I ask, who are we to believe? You, who have an obvious agenda and
nothing but your spite to support it? Or the description of the
rating process of an independent rating service?
For my money, I'll trust Martindale-Hubbel. They have no stake in
this fight.
> It was once
> established that if condoms were described as 'small', 'medium' and 'large'
> nobody would want to purchase the 'small' ones; if, however, they were
> redesignated as 'large', 'very large' and 'jumbo size', demand for the small
> ones went up.
Who gives a fuck for your tawdry analogies. The information that
*you* presented and now are trying desprately to distance yourself
from is your undoing. Yale's marks are 'good to high' for legal
ability with high ethical standards. Not exactly the picture you've
been trying to paint by quoting this web page.
I bet you really regret quoting it now!
> So it is with Martindale-Hubbell ratings. If they were
> 'excellent', 'mediocre' and 'crap', the lower-rated attorneys would not wish
> to cite their rating; so they call the ratings 'highest', 'very high' and
> 'good to high'.
>
But it's still 'good to high'.
Not 'mediocre' or even 'mediocre to good' as is your argument.
> > It also indicates that he has not been
> > disciplined by the Penn bar.
> >
>
> Absolute rubbish.
>
It's what the web page says, stupid, go read it for the first time.
> >
> > Against this, all your mumblings strive in vain.
> >
> > You may thank David Michael for providing this information. He did
> > so thinking that a 'C' rating was, somehow, bad. In this regard, he
> > shares some characteristics with you.
> >
>
> The C rating for ability is the lowest rating it is possible to get.
>
> That is Yale F Edeiken for you.
>
Fine. It's still "good to high" no matter what you say.
And, the ethics rating is "high" no matter what you say.
Like I said. Against these two facts, provided by *yourself*, all
you duplicitous mumblings strive in vain.
(s)
> David
>
William
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOHO6GyKcKc3OYUhpAQErJwP/dMzbTuk8f3+iueCkkcKieEkjnV8H1Aly
4bfBWrbjJky+DvchXESUX009tEpB6tRi+RvzPJ36eiBwy7jw+8ktzD/x6XrPe41G
1Sc0nU4gMYiSNrGOmr5Nbj0PI+M8De2qIt5CI3thntpt8lZhtrd9OUFKPi7Wci/V
hIm9+Xx9ssA=
=QDpy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <387391D1...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 05
Jan 2000 18:47:45 +0000, continuing his infantile campaign of
personal attacks, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com>
whined:
>William Daffer wrote:
>> c.r.ca...@worldnet.att.net (Chris Carpenter) writes:
>> > Tantamount to a:
>> (Blathering deleted)
>> Chris;
Very few do.
> He
>doesn't merit a B.
Very few do.
> Just a third-rate C. Martindale-Hubbell explicitly state
>that because an attorney is unrated this does not mean anything
>about his or her legal ability as Martindale-Hubbell does not rate
>every attorney.
Exactly, David. Your reflex assumption that a "C" is worthless is
infantile and tendentious. You consistently and dishonestly omit to
mention that there is no "C" rating independent of a "V" rating.
Without the "V," there is no other rating. Thus, if a lawyer has not
been judged by his peers to exercise the highest ethical standards,
he cannot be rated on his abilities. Thus, there mere fact that Yale
has been rated at all means that he already stands in high regard by
his peers.
And that just burns your ass, doesn't it?
> And I
>wouldn't read too much into this 'good-to-high' nonsense.
Of course you wouldn't. It is necessary to your emotional being to
find ways to rationalize your hatred of Yale Edeiken.
But here is what Martindale-Hubbell really says:
Lawyers are proud of their Martindale-Hubbell Rating, as
it reflects the respect of their colleagues and the esteem
they have earned within the profession. Lawyers rely on these
Ratings because they know that members of the legal community
—those best suited to assess their peers—are directly involved
in the process.
http://www.martindale.com/company/ratings.html
[snip David's good news that his condom doesn't fall off anymore]
>> It also indicates that he has not been
>> disciplined by the Penn bar.
>Absolute rubbish.
"Absolute," huh, David?
Disbarred lawyers or disciplined lawyers automatically have
their ratings removed. Bar admitting authorities routinely
supply Martindale-Hubbell with that information.
http://www.martindale.com/company/ratings.html
>> Against this, all your mumblings strive in vain.
>> You may thank David Michael for providing this information. He
>> did
>> so thinking that a 'C' rating was, somehow, bad. In this regard,
>> he
>> shares some characteristics with you.
>The C rating for ability is the lowest rating it is possible to get.
>
>That is Yale F Edeiken for you.
The pitiful spectacle of a petulant child trying salvage something
from his gaffe: that's David E. Michael for you.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOHPPEZQgvG272fn9EQJGJgCgtq0pPGI1SsS0WBf8gRZg5r91608AnjUt
wq0Deh+EAEGDZfuuyDEAG4BG
=q3R4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Buck Turgidson
> William Daffer wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > c.r.ca...@worldnet.att.net (Chris Carpenter) writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 22:42:20 -0500, steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >No, Herr Cuddles. The important thing here is that you are guilty of a
> > > >flying leap into the dungheap.
> > >
> > > You are a true wordsmith, Mr. Wolk.
> > >
> > > > Yale has stated that he was sued twice
> > > >for malpractice. Big deal.
> > >
> > > Yes, that - is- a big deal.
> > >
> > > Tantamount to a:
> > >
> > > Architect designing a bridge too long
> > >
> >
> > (Blathering deleted)
> >
> > Chris;
> >
> > Try to read up a bit on the matter at hand before you step in with
> > your next decisive proof of your cluelessness.
> >
> > Yale has been cited with a rating of CV by the Martindale-Hubbell
> > rating service. This service is a peer rating. It indicates that
> > Yale has a 'good to high' rating for his legal skills and and 'high
> > rating' for his ethics.
>
> It indicates, actually, that he has the lowest rating for legal ability that
> it is possible to get from Martindale-Hubbell. He doesn't merit an A. He
> doesn't merit a B. Just a third-rate C. Martindale-Hubbell explicitly state
> that because an attorney is unrated this does not mean anything about his or
> her legal ability as Martindale-Hubbell does not rate every attorney. And I
> wouldn't read too much into this 'good-to-high' nonsense. It was once
> established that if condoms were described as 'small', 'medium' and 'large'
> nobody would want to purchase the 'small' ones; if, however, they were
> redesignated as 'large', 'very large' and 'jumbo size', demand for the small
> ones went up. So it is with Martindale-Hubbell ratings. If they were
> 'excellent', 'mediocre' and 'crap', the lower-rated attorneys would not wish
> to cite their rating; so they call the ratings 'highest', 'very high' and
> 'good to high'.
>
WHEEEEEEEE!!! Lookit Curdles backpedal!! Sorry, but no matter how hard you do
it, you'll never catch up with your lost dignity. Way too far back, buckaroo.
>
> > It also indicates that he has not been
> > disciplined by the Penn bar.
> >
>
> Absolute rubbish.
Despite the statement of M-H to the contrary? Tch, Mr. Curdles!
>
>
> >
> > Against this, all your mumblings strive in vain.
> >
> > You may thank David Michael for providing this information. He did
> > so thinking that a 'C' rating was, somehow, bad. In this regard, he
> > shares some characteristics with you.
> >
>
> The C rating for ability is the lowest rating it is possible to get.
Unless one prefers to be unrated entirely. See, here's the problem, Curdles. If
M-H were to start posting negative ratings on lawyers--let's say, "D" for
mediocre to good, or "E" for lousy to mediocre--don't you think that would put
them at risk of defamation lawsuits? Of course it would. Therefore, they only
rate those lawyers who rank good or above, and the remaining go unranked. As do,
of course, those who have been disbarred or disciplined by the Supreme Court of
PA.
May I make an analogy? I didn't think you'd mind. We rank sports teams a lot
over here; one of those things Americans like. Every weekend there are 2 Top 25
rankings (AP and USA Today/CNN) for college football and basketball. Mind you,
this is not a perfect analogy by ANY means, but: does it mean there are only 25
colleges in the US? Does it mean that if Fresno State goes unranked that it has
no potential whatsoever? Does it mean that an unranked team will never beat a
ranked team in the NCAA Tournament? Of course not; it means that they just stop
ranking after #25. There is no Bottom 25, or even a Middle 25. Just the Top 25,
and everyone else gets lumped together.
So you have to think of Yale Edeiken as somewhere in the USA Today/CNN Top 25
rankings for PA lawyers, so to speak. He's enough of a powerhouse to get a vote
and get ranked highly amongst a very large, crowded field. He gets the
acceptance and acclaim of his peers. Now, Joe Schmoe, Attorney at Law, just
across the street, may be an okay lawyer and does his job, but just isn't good
enough to get noticed.
Yale is. Yale got noticed. He got ranked by his peers. His ethics are very high.
That just pisses you off, doesn't it, Curdles? Pisses you off enough that you
can't stop mangling and twisting and holding on to that lie of yours for dear
life. But that's how it goes, Curdles. Professionals like Yale Edeiken get
ranked; babies like David Michaels get rankled.
>
>
> That is Yale F Edeiken for you.
Yup. Good to high ability with high ethical standards.
Gord McFee
Wrong.
> He doesn't merit an A. He
> doesn't merit a B. Just a third-rate C.
Wrong.
> Martindale-Hubbell explicitly state
> that because an attorney is unrated this does not mean anything about his or
> her legal ability as Martindale-Hubbell does not rate every attorney. And I
> wouldn't read too much into this 'good-to-high' nonsense. It was once
> established that if condoms were described as 'small', 'medium' and 'large'
> nobody would want to purchase the 'small' ones; if, however, they were
> redesignated as 'large', 'very large' and 'jumbo size', demand for the small
> ones went up. So it is with Martindale-Hubbell ratings. If they were
> 'excellent', 'mediocre' and 'crap', the lower-rated attorneys would not wish
> to cite their rating; so they call the ratings 'highest', 'very high' and
> 'good to high'.
>
> > It also indicates that he has not been
> > disciplined by the Penn bar.
>
> Absolute rubbish.
Nope. The truth.
> > Against this, all your mumblings strive in vain.
> >
> > You may thank David Michael for providing this information. He did
> > so thinking that a 'C' rating was, somehow, bad. In this regard, he
> > shares some characteristics with you.
> >
>
> The C rating for ability is the lowest rating it is possible to get.
Nope.
> That is Yale F Edeiken for you.
Yup, twice the man you will ever be.
Anthony S
wrote in message news:387148C6...@mindspring.com...
> Gord McFee wrote:
> > In <38705762...@mindspring.com>, on Mon, 03 Jan 2000 02:02:41
> > -0600, Buck Turgidson <deppi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > David E Michael wrote:
>
> > > > > I prefer showers, not baths.
> > > >
> > > > Kinky.
> > >
> > > You think showers are kinky? Well, THAT explains
> > > a lot.
> >
> > Probably the hamster prefers the tub. I'll leave it to
> > you to imagine why.
>
> The round edges cut down on ricochets?
Why am I not suprised a social deviant like Scot Murphy had an answer to
this? (And then I wonder why he posts as "Buck Turgidson"!)
[.sig worked over by Thrym]
Buck Turgidson
If you'd ever watched "Dr. Strangelove," you'd know. As it is, you've just
marked yourself as yet another uncultured buffoon. Way to go, Sabanazi!
Anthony S
> Anthony S wrote:
> > Scot Murphy using the "Buck Turgidson" wrote:
> > > Gord McFee wrote:
> > > > Scot Murphy using the "Buck Turgidson" wrote:
> > > > > David E Michael wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I prefer showers, not baths.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kinky.
> > > > >
> > > > > You think showers are kinky? Well, THAT explains
> > > > > a lot.
> > > >
> > > > Probably the hamster prefers the tub. I'll leave it to
> > > > you to imagine why.
> > >
> > > The round edges cut down on ricochets?
> >
> > Why am I not suprised a social deviant like Scot Murphy
> > had an answer to this? (And then I wonder why he posts
> > as "Buck Turgidson"!)
>
> If you'd ever watched "Dr. Strangelove," you'd know. As it
> is, you've just marked yourself as yet another uncultured
> buffoon. Way to go, Sabanazi!
ROTFLOL! Scot Murphy's definition of "culture" <snicker, snicker>
includes Hollywood-inspired trash, no doubt as primes examples of _haute
culture_! What next? Fine dining at McDonald's or Taco Bell? LOL! Way to
go, Yankee-boy! You certainly help to demonstrate why the rest of the
world sees the U.S. as the bearer of 'trash-culture' (not my word for
it)!
LOL! Back to the porn groups with you, boy!
[.sig's cultural vistas expanded with a trip to the _Jerry Springer
Show_]
Buck Turgidson
Like I said, you're a cultural buffoon. Kubrick is widely regarded as one of the
finest directors in the history of film, a pioneer and artist equalled or
surpassed by very few. (Myself, the only director I would place above Kubrick
would be Kurosawa.) Also, you are apparently unaware that Kubrick was a complete
Anglophile. He lived in Britain most of his life, and rarely traveled away.
Every one of his films, starting with "Paths of Glory" (Ibelieve), were made in
Britain. Absolutely true. Even "The Shining," which is set in Colorado, was
filmed entirely in Britain, with the exception of second-unit exteriors shot in
Colorado.
But then, you're Sabanazi the Cultural Genius, so I guess you MUST know more
about art and film than the man who gave us "2001: A Space Odyssey," "A
Clockwork Orange," "Barry Lyndon," and "Full Metal Jacket."
>
>
> LOL! Back to the porn groups with you, boy!
You can come along if you like. They're only nekkid women. No reason to be
afraid.
Anthony S
wrote in message news:3878082F...@mindspring.com...
Like I implied, you're a typical dumb Yankee-doodle.
> Kubrick is widely regarded as one of the finest directors in
> the history of film, a pioneer and artist equalled or surpassed
> by very few. (Myself, the only director I would place above
> Kubrick would be Kurosawa.)
By _whom_, you idiot? People who consider Hollywoodesque films
'culture'!
> Also, you are apparently unaware that Kubrick was a
> complete Anglophile. He lived in Britain most of his life,
> and rarely traveled away. Every one of his films, starting
> with "Paths of Glory" (Ibelieve), were made in Britain.
> Absolutely true. Even "The Shining," which is set in
> Colorado, was filmed entirely in Britain, with the
> exception of second-unit exteriors shot in Colorado.
Didn't know that about _The Shining_, but why do you think I said
"Hollywood-inspired trash" as opposed to "Hollywood trash"?
> But then, you're Sabanazi the Cultural Genius,
For God's sake, man, it doesn't take much to be a "cultural genius" next
to silly Yankees who are told every year what constitutes 'culture'.
For example, I remember when Roy Orbison (sp?) died a few years ago. God
almighty were the airwaves filled with Orbison crap, an American
'cultural' icon! But how many regularly heard his stuff being played in
the years just prior to his death? Almost the same thing with Kubrick.
It's just a bloody fad.
BTW, this is not to say I didn't enjoy some of his movies, but calling
them 'culture' is just too much!
> so I guess you MUST know more about art and film
> than the man who gave us "2001: A Space Odyssey,"
> "A Clockwork Orange," "Barry Lyndon," and "Full Metal
> Jacket."
When did I say I knew more about art & film than Kubrick or anyone else
for that matter? I just laugh at the notion that stupid people like you
think Hollywood-style films are somehow 'culture'.
> > LOL! Back to the porn groups with you, boy!
>
> You can come along if you like. They're only nekkid
> women. No reason to be afraid.
Told you, Scottie: I don't need jpegs.
[.sig sent away]
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <s8Sd4.3030$A45.1...@newscene.newscene.com> in alt.revisionism,
>> Anthony S wrote:
>> > > > > > Kinky.
>LOL! Way to go, Yankee-boy! You certainly help to demonstrate why
>the rest of the world sees the U.S. as the bearer of 'trash-culture'
>(not my word for it)!
Nice to see you back making arguments with your usual wit and
intelligence.
[snip]
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOHgqvpQgvG272fn9EQJRZgCeJeMwkxwwrDinBRWTNIXi2ApLIVUAoKir
s1GEYm9VCjXs5HcHP+1Ajft0
=jwYl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Buck Turgidson
> Scot Murphy using the alias "Buck Turgidson" <deppi...@mindspring.com>
> wrote in message news:3878082F...@mindspring.com...
My response has to be, then, why are they *not* culture?
>
>
> > so I guess you MUST know more about art and film
> > than the man who gave us "2001: A Space Odyssey,"
> > "A Clockwork Orange," "Barry Lyndon," and "Full Metal
> > Jacket."
>
> When did I say I knew more about art & film than Kubrick or anyone else
> for that matter? I just laugh at the notion that stupid people like you
> think Hollywood-style films are somehow 'culture'.
Well, I will leave you to your opinion, then, with the comment that there were
many who chose not to regard photography as an art, either. Then came Stieglitz.
>
>
> > > LOL! Back to the porn groups with you, boy!
> >
> > You can come along if you like. They're only nekkid
> > women. No reason to be afraid.
>
> Told you, Scottie: I don't need jpegs.
<shrug> Okay.