Re: juanjo puts forth more lies and slander

Fartwick Chilton

unread,

Oct 5, 2009, 9:03:10 AM10/5/09

to mail...@reece.net.au, mail...@dizum.com, mail...@bananasplit.info, mail...@mixmin.net

In article <0afd4d04-2119-4354-af7c-
2e2ef8...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Wash. Times continues to smear Jennings with false claim that he
> failed to report "sexual abuse" of student

He broke the law you simpering liberal faggot. Deal with it.

Every Obama hireling is either a tax evader, liar, psychiatric
case or racist.

Ray Fischer

unread,

Oct 5, 2009, 1:26:37 PM10/5/09

to

Fartwick Chilton <xan...@ibm.net> wrote:
>In article <0afd4d04-2119-4354-af7c-
>2e2ef8...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
>juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wash. Times continues to smear Jennings with false claim that he
>> failed to report "sexual abuse" of student
>
>He broke the law you simpering liberal faggot.

No he didn't, you goose-stepping fscist.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

juanjo

unread,

Oct 5, 2009, 7:25:06 PM10/5/09

to

On Oct 5, 6:03 am, "Fartwick Chilton" an anonymous coward wrote:
> In article <0afd4d04-2119-4354-af7c-
> 2e2ef83f8...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>

>
> juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Wash. Times continues to smear Jennings with false claim that he
> > failed to report "sexual abuse" of student
>
> He broke the law you simpering liberal faggot. Deal with it.
>

If you bothered to read the article, you would not that the person in
question was above the age of consent and thus no law was broken.

juanjo

unread,

Oct 6, 2009, 1:28:41 PM10/6/09

to

Fox has now retracted their story. The young man in question revealed
that Fox had contacted him prior to running the story and thus were
aware of two critical facts. First the young man in question was 16
not 15 as Fox reported incorrectly. Secondly, he told Fox that he met
and had a discussion with an older man but that no sexual contact took
place at that time. So what we have is two people of legal age having
a discussion in which the subject of homosexuality came up but no
sexual activity took place. Just exactly what crime was committed?
What was Jennings supposed to report?

Ray Fischer

unread,

Oct 6, 2009, 2:29:44 PM10/6/09

to

juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Oct 5, 4:25�pm, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 6:03�am, "Fartwick Chilton" an anonymous coward wrote:
>>
>> > In article <0afd4d04-2119-4354-af7c-
>> > 2e2ef83f8...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> > juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Wash. Times continues to smear Jennings with false claim that he
>> > > failed to report "sexual abuse" of student
>>
>> > He broke the law you simpering liberal faggot. �Deal with it.
>>
>> If you bothered to read the article, you would not that the person in
>> question was above the age of consent and thus no law was broken.
>
>Fox has now retracted their story. The young man in question revealed
>that Fox had contacted him prior to running the story and thus were
>aware of two critical facts.

What? Fox news lied? What're the odds?

> First the young man in question was 16
>not 15 as Fox reported incorrectly. Secondly, he told Fox that he met
>and had a discussion with an older man but that no sexual contact took
>place at that time. So what we have is two people of legal age having
>a discussion in which the subject of homosexuality came up but no
>sexual activity took place. Just exactly what crime was committed?

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net