Five Plain & Simple Questions - When Will They be Answered? R_0825
Documented Facts
over five years ago and to this very day (July 16, 2003) none of my opposition
have answered the simple questions!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=34e36f9f.172581109%40news.flash.net&rnum=35
Subject: Five Plain & Simple Questions - When Will They be Answered? (was Re:
Scott wonders what a real life would be like....)
Date: 1998/02/12
Message-ID: <34e36f9f....@news.flash.net>
Attention lurkers: Twice Gregory Taylor has used childish titles. I.E.
"Scott wonders what a real life would be like...."
"SCOTTY, YOUR VIRGINITY IS SHOWING! (was Re: Doc Tavish Is A Jew)"
But yet he won't answer five plain and simple questions!
.........................................................................
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:51:58 -0600, gta...@msn.fullfeed.com wrote:
>Scott Bradbury's odiferous sock puppet doc_t...@nonspam.bigfoot.com
>wrote:
Still making the personal attacks BUT NOT answering the serious
questions.
>>...You still haven't summoned up the antsy to
>> answer these questions in an adult manner:
Notice that Gregory only left two lines of my reply to his original
post. I have attached the post below so all may see his methods of
debate. I have not snipped one word from his posts.
>Scott, at the moment you're not worth the trouble;
What you are saying is that you can't answer the questions. Any
thinking person would know that you would make a dodge such as this. I
see that you have enough time to make a fictionalized account of your
public radio fantasy. I will attach the challenge I issued you just
below your typical run of the mill fancy foot work at avoiding the
serious matter at hand.
>I've got a bunch of new product announcements to design, a new ad campaign
>and direct mail program to keep an eye on, and some of the other perks that
>us folks who stayed in school and wound up with careers spend our time on
>(instead of importuning women who are your intellectual superiors, inventing
>fake persons to cover your own noted lack of fortitude, and trolling for naked
>pix from the safety of your trailer).
>
>Here's a quick hint: Your "proofs" don't contain the language of supposed
>gentiles' uncleanliness (you imputed that bit, moron). Moreover, you
>demonstrate a rather unsuprising lack of general understanding of what
>Kosher/Kashrut is in addition to the sort of idiocy which might be
>explicable by your relative lack of exposure to the range of pietistic
>behaviours through the world's religious practices. Finally, you've got
>the same basic problem with understanding the extent to which the stuff
>you quote reflects anything approaching authoritative descriptions of
>anyone other than the person who wrote it (that same "some X/all X"
>problem you just can't get past).
>
>In brief: You can't make sense of what you read. Your propositionalizing
>is faulty from the git-go, and you wouldn't recognize the construction of
>proper evidence and authority if it bit you in your fat arse.
>
>Now excuse me: I've got some web interfaces to a database to mess around
>with.
>
>Stay lame, dude. That last little whiny peek under your tinfoil helmet in
>re: Ms. Cohen (who really does think you're a pathetic yutz, by the way)
>was thrilling; I think that the diagnosis of infantilism and narcissism
>is spot on in your case.
~~~~~~~~ END ~~~~~~~~
Here is what Gregory Taylor won't answer because he can't answer in a
way that would not make him look bigoted. This was his post and my
reply:
Original subject title posted under by Gregory Taylor was:
Re: SCOTTY, YOUR VIRGINITY IS SHOWING! (was Re: Doc Tavish Is A Jew)
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:52:21 -0600, gta...@msn.fullfeed.com wrote:
>A. G. Phillbin wrote:
>> Why do I get the impression that you are a virginal adolescent who stammers
>> and stutters in the presence of any reasonably attractive female?
Gregory Taylor (uncut):
>You've probably been led astray by assuming that the concentration of
>fixations on oral sex and juvenile slobbering exists mainly in the
>virginal adolescent. While there may be some residual inarticulacy
>occasioned by his leaving school before his middle-school diploma, we are
>reliabily informed by Scott Bradbury that he's a portly man on the far
>side of forty. It is also quite likely that he's intimidated by the
>intelligence of any woman he doesn't rent or inflate (which would
>constitute most women), and regresses at the first sight of inadequacy.
>This would certainly square with his more general inability to take any
>personal responsibility for his views.
>
>Hope this helps.
It only helps people know that all you can do is name call and make
personal attacks as well. You still haven't summoned up the antsy to
answer these questions in an adult manner:
1) ".... Wine, more than any other food or drink, represents the
holiness and separateness of the Jewish people."
Aren't non-Jews holy or clean?
2) "The production and handling of kosher wine must be done
exclusively by Jews. Wine, grape juice, and all products containing
wine or grape juice must remain solely in Jewish hands during the
manufacturing process and also after the seal of the bottle has been
opened."
Are non-Jews unclean? Is this why they can't touch the bottle of wine
after the seal is broken?
3) " We are not allowed to drink any wine or grape juice, or any drink
containing wine or grape juice, which has been touched by a non Jew
after the seal of the bottle has been opened."
A repeat in general from above. Why aren't Jews allowed to drink if
the seal has been broken and the wine is touched by a non-Jew?
4) " Non commercial bread and cake that is completely baked by an
individual non Jew is called pat akum and may not be eaten."
I'm dying to hear you explain this bigotry too! Can you imagine the
outrage by you if a web site had something that said instead:
"Non commercial bread and cake that is completely baked by an
individual non-White is called pat akum and may not be eaten by a
white." ? You'd be screaming racist bigot at the top of your lungs!
5) "Certain foods which were completely cooked by a non Jew (disbud
akum) may not be eaten, even if the foods are kosher and are cooked in
kosher utensils."
How about this? Care to explain?
The above actually from the following:
http://www.kashrus.org/kosher/supervis.html
[ ... ]
.... Wine, more than any other food or drink, represents the holiness
and separateness of the Jewish people.
It is used for the sanctification of Shabbat and Yom Tovand at Jewish
simchot. In the Beit Hamikdash wine was poured upon the Altar together
with the sacrifice. However, since wine was and still is used in many
forms of idolatrous worship, it has a unique status in Jewish Law,
which places extra restrictions on the making and handling of wine.
This includes wine used for non ceremonial purposes.
The production and handling of kosher wine must be done exclusively by
Jews. Wine, grape juice, and all products containing wine or grape
juice must remain solely in Jewish hands during the manufacturing
process and also after the seal of the bottle has been opened.
We are not allowed to drink any wine or grape juice, or any drink
containing wine or grape juice, which has been touched by a non Jew
after the seal of the bottle has been opened.
[ ... ]
Grape Ingredients In Processed Foods: All liquids produced from fresh
or dried grapes, whether alcoholic or non alcoholic, such as grape
juice and wine vinegar, are in the same category as wine in Jewish
Law.
Therefore foods with grape flavoring or additives must aiways have a
reliable hechsher; examples are jam, soda, popsicles, candy, juice
packed fruit, fruit punch, and lemonade.
Alcoholic drinks such as cognac and brandy have wine bases. Liqueurs
and blended whiskeys are often blended with wine. All such beverages
require kashnut supervision, as does herring in wine sauce. Cream of
tartar is made from wine sediment and needs Rabbinical supervision.
All baked goods must have reliable kashrut certification. Some
bakeries in Jewish communities carry the certification from a local
Orthodox Rabbi or the kashrut board in that city.
In addition, bread, cake and other baked goods from a Jewish bakery
with reliable kashnut certification often ensures not only the kashrut
of these products but also that they are patYisrael. It is preferable
to use pat Yisrael products whenever possible. This means that a
Jewish person has baked or assisted in the baking of the products.
Even if he simply lit the oven he is considered as having assisted.
Non commercial bread and cake that is completely baked by an
individual non Jew is called pat akum and may not be eaten.
[ ... ]
Certain foods which were completely cooked by a non Jew (disbud akum)
may not be eaten, even if the foods are kosher and are cooked in
kosher utensils.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone can do childish taunts as you do Gregory but it takes something
other than that to deal with the above. You avoid answering my posts
because there is no way that you can make excuses for what was said
not being bigoted. If what I posted is so much out of line then it
should be an easy slam dunk for a person with a "rapier wit[TM]" that
you've bragged about having. If what I have posted is so off then why
do you always delete it and go into your name call and smear mode?
Tavish
BTW you only make yourself look bad when you avoid the serious stuff.
Lurkers apply the Tavish maxim to what you have seen and you decide
who seeks truth and who seeks to hide it! See for yourselves who
attacks the opposition personally and who attacks the opposition's
premise.
The Tavish Maxim is:
"If I hear something being debated pertaining to a subject that I am
not cognizant of, therefore impartial, I examine the manner of the
debate and conduct. I know who is telling the truth and who is lying
by the tactics employed- the liar always attacks the opposing person
and the truth teller always attacks the opposing premise!"
- Doc Tavish -
BTW Gregory, I will be posting this post along with your reply to many
other news groups as well. If you want to carry on as you normally do
then it is fine by me because as I have said before you are hurting
yourself far more than you are hurting me!
(I'll be posting to more than you see above in other words. You will
become quite famous as a great debater!)
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Documented Facts
Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>Documented Crack <Fact...@noE-Mail4Me.net> writes:
>
>>Classic repost from February 1998 which demonstrates how my opposition acted
>>over five years ago and to this very day (July 16, 2003) none of my opposition
>>have answered the simple questions!
>
>No one will ever accuse you of being an obsessive kook, Blubber Boy. (Five
>years ago "to this very day" is August 26, 1998, not July 16. No wonder
>you're the joke of your county's police force.)
>
>[Bradbury delusions dumped]
>
>>BTW Gregory, I will be posting this post along with your reply to many
>>other news groups as well. If you want to carry on as you normally do
>>then it is fine by me because as I have said before you are hurting
>>yourself far more than you are hurting me!
>
>>(I'll be posting to more than you see above in other words. You will
>>become quite famous as a great debater!)
>
>Thanks for showing what "new fields" you're crapping in. What do you do when
>they start laughing at you there, as well?
You can't refute what I post so you attack me instead. What doies this tell
everyone?
Once again to your continual shame:
russky
This new nym of yours is a joke, Fatboy.You wouldn't recognize a fact
if it bit your dick off.
Tavish
Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>Once again to your continual shame:
>
>>Classic repost from February 1998 which demonstrates how my opposition acted
>>over five years ago and to this very day (July 16, 2003) none of my opposition
>>have answered the simple questions!
>
>You mean, like: why did you run like a rabbit when we were in town a month
>ago?
How is it I ran? Sara did not tell me of the exact date or time she was to show
up and she did NOT honor my agreement either which was:
On 11 Jul 2003 18:34:38 GMT, Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
<catamont-A637E1...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>
"Day, time, place. I'm waiting. Sara"
My answer: Anytime and any day. The place: my local courthouse
(my jurisdiction).
You and Yale F. Edeiken re-file the same exact perjurious lawsuit against me
with those same perjurious accusations and YOUR same perjurious affidavit. I
would like for YOU to explain to a jury of my peers why YOU and Yale "bore false
witness" against me and why you two are not responsible for all of the criminal
harassment I have had done to me. I want YOU and Yale to deny causing the
harassment I have been subjected to because of my address being distributed and
the info being used criminally. I want Yale to state his motive for subpoenaing
my medical record and then lying about what it stated. I will show copies to the
jury and have Yale explain how he deduced it stated "morbid obesity" and that I
weighed well over 300 pounds when there are no height nor weight fields on it
and the diagnosis was: "sleep apnea, narcolepsy, vertigo." I want YOU to explain
why the telephone number YOU distributed was different than the one the subpoena
stated and how YOU knew it seeing how it was unlisted number. I want YOU and
Yale to prove what I ever actually did to either of you that I deserve all of
the ill treatment I have been subjected to because of legal system abuse. I want
YOU and Yale to explain why I am accountable for what a person in another state
and another country allegedly did so that I get harassed as a proxy of your
vindictiveness. I want YOU to explain why I, nor David Michael, or our attorneys
were never served with the complaints against us YET after the lawsuit was
dismissed in my favor then the "complaints" were posted and distributed giving
out my address and new telephone number. I want YOU to tell a jury of my peers
what the purpose was for YOU to do that to me. IF YOU TWO GOD DAMNED VILE EVIL
SHITS DON'T RE-FILE THEN LET IT BE KNOWN FOREVER THAT YOU TWO ARE COWARDS
AND THAT LAWSUIT HAD NO REAL VALIDITY IN THE FIRST PLACE!! IF YOU DON'T DO ALL
OF THIS THEN IT IS YOU AND YALE WHO ARE THE COWARDS!! MAKE YOUR SAME ACCUSATIONS
TO MY FACE IN FRONT OF A JURY OF MY PEERS AT MY COURTHOUSE IN MY JURISDICTION!!
ARE YOU UP TO IT YOU PERJURIOUS COWARD!?
<END>
You and Sara came to my town to do damage control and that is all. OTOH why do I
wan t to see shit like you two face to face and not be able to "turn you off" as
I can do on my computer!? Sara made a 1600 mile round trip journey to make an
ass of herself. She made not one criminal complaint because I had not committed
a criminal act! She also did not want to deal with the fact she lied in a sworn
statement-- sooooo why on Earth would I want to see that lying psychotic?
Nuff said now try to refute what I posted instead of attacking me personally!
Tavish
<pat...@io.com> wrote:
>Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> writes:
>
>>On 27 Aug 2003 10:40:38 -0500, <szkd6er...@hagbard.io.com> Patrick L.
>>Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>>Documented Dreck <R. Scott Bradbury> chundered:
>
>>>>Once again to your continual shame:
>
>>>>Classic repost from February 1998 which demonstrates how my opposition
>>>>acted over five years ago and to this very day (July 16, 2003) none of my
>>>>opposition have answered the simple questions!
>
>>>You mean, like: why did you run like a rabbit when we were in town a month
>>>ago?
:.
>>How is it I ran? Sara did not tell me of the exact date or time she was to
>>show up and she did NOT honor my agreement either which was:
:.
>a patent fraud.
Why did you delete this and call it a "patent fraud"? Because it exposes you as
a liar?
----------
Now stop deleting my words and then attacking me based on your dishonest out of
context version of my words!
>>You and Sara came to my town to do damage control and that is all. OTOH why
>>do I wan t to see shit like you two face to face and not be able to "turn you
>>off" as I can do on my computer!? Sara made a 1600 mile round trip journey to
>>make an ass of herself. She made not one criminal complaint because I had not
>>committed a criminal act! She also did not want to deal with the fact she
>>lied in a sworn statement-- sooooo why on Earth would I want to see that
>>lying psychotic?
:.
>You were the one who said "Any day. Any time."
And you keep avoiding the conditions of the invite which I restored above! I
invited that perjurer to have her and Yale's lawsuit against me re-filed. I did
not invite that "crackpot" to my town to hear her rants and ravings!
>and she took you up on your offer
She did not. She did not come to lay the ground work to re-file the kook lawsuit
against me. She came to whine and wail to everyone here who would listen to her.
Neither of you made a good impression!! THAT IS FACT!! No normal person makes a
1600 mile round trip to whine and wail like Sara did and not even file any sort
of charges. I did no criminal act YET shits like her and her pimp committed many
criminal acts against me!
BTW the courthouse regular who mistook Sara's son for monkey and offered him a
banana to which she had a conniption fit is still the toast of the town!! :-)
Sara is retarded and her son is retarded as well as her daughter is retarded--
what can one expect from the Salzman Gang?
~~Sara Salzman on record as admitting she's retarded?~~
On 07 Jul 2003 01:31:53 GMT, Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
"How many times do I have to tell you-- I AM RETARDED!!!"
<catamont-548CA8...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=catamont-548CA8.19314906072003%40spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net&output=gplain
Date: 07 Jul 2003 01:31:53 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=apbjcvg26ov1u9lf2ombh65t8depv2btg7%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Did Sara "The Fist" Salzman's S&M/Drug HomeLife Result in Two "GIFTED"
Children? I.E. Genetics/Lifestyles?...
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:13:21 -0500
Message-ID: <apbjcvg26ov1u9lf2...@4ax.com>
>-- and you ran like the coward kook you are.
Another lie. I was gone BEFORE you and that bitch showed up unannounced. I have
a life and I am not going to stay at home waiting for her to reply. If she would
have done what my "invitation" entailed she would have re-filed (on behalf of
Yale) their perjurious lawsuit against me. That was what it was all about and
nothing more you hard headed kook!
>>Nuff said now try to refute what I posted instead of attacking me personally!
>
>[and, as always, Bradkook falls back on posting the same 250-line butt-nugget]
You won't accept fact and you deceptively quote my "invite" out of context which
is about par for a bastard like you!
>How about doing something different for once in your life and proving what you
>bellow?
I have and you don't accept facts!
Tavish
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=50ht24%24l0g%40anarchy.io.com
Subject: Re: PATRICK "THE STALKER?"
Date: 1996/09/03
Message-ID: <50ht24$l...@anarchy.io.com>
references: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960808...@omni.cc.purdue.edu>
---Sad, but true, but at least it'll be a bit easier than I thought to
encounter "Shawn" when I'm in Austin next month--if I'm out at night, just look
for anyone peeking into windows... Patrick L. Humphrey
Patrick now back tracking:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=szky92tc507.fsf_-_%40fnord.io.com&rnum=2
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 09:07:43 -0600
Subject: Re: Scott Bradbury proves he's a kook, and implodes; no film at 10
References: <226k8vskrk3lnkto9...@4ax.com>
<szk8yut...@eris.io.com> <ms9k8vobc4a5qp40d...@4ax.com>
<szk1y0l...@eris.io.com> <u2ol8v8e898ui8lb8...@4ax.com>
From: Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com>
Date: 02 Apr 2003 09:07:20 -0600
Message-ID: <szky92tc5...@fnord.io.com>
>8) For a fact you are a self admitted Peeping Tom:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=50ht24%24l0g%40anarchy.io.com
>"---Sad, but true, but at least it'll be a bit easier than I thought to
>encounter "Shawn" when I'm in Austin next month--if I'm out at night, just
>look for anyone peeking into windows..." Patrick L. Humphrey
I could have stated that better -- but I was referring to "Shawn" when I said
to look for anyone peeking through windows. I've never engaged in that kind
of activity, because I'm anything but subtle. Lurking in the shadows is what
kooks like you prefer.
<<Tavish comment July 29, 2003: Your own words "if I'm out at night, just
look for anyone peeking into windows" nails you as the peeping tom-- not Shawn!
Piss poor attempt to worm your way out of your own words Peeping Tom Humphrey!>>
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
Sara Salzman
Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2003 10:40:38 -0500, <szkd6er...@hagbard.io.com> Patrick L.
> Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >>Once again to your continual shame:
> >
> >>Classic repost from February 1998 which demonstrates how my opposition
> >>acted
> >>over five years ago and to this very day (July 16, 2003) none of my
> >>opposition
> >>have answered the simple questions!
> >
> >You mean, like: why did you run like a rabbit when we were in town a month
> >ago?
>
> How is it I ran? Sara did not tell me of the exact date or time she was to
> show
> up and she did NOT honor my agreement either which was:
>
> On 11 Jul 2003 18:34:38 GMT, Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
> <catamont-A637E1...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>
> "Day, time, place. I'm waiting. Sara"
> My answer: Anytime and any day. The place: my local courthouse
> (my jurisdiction).
"Honor your agreement"?!!
For one thing, MORON, an agreement is made BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE. It is
_not_ your ranting and raving. We had no agreement, because I didn't
agree to any of the spew you've reposted below.
YOU, on the other hand, INVITED ME to come:
> My answer: Anytime and any day. The place: my local courthouse
> (my jurisdiction).
I was there, AT YOUR COURTHOUSE, in your juridsiction.
> You and Yale F. Edeiken re-file the same exact perjurious lawsuit against me
> with those same perjurious accusations and YOUR same perjurious affidavit.
Once again, MORON, I cannot "re-file" a lawsuit thst I NEVER FILED. You
have a problem with Yale's lawsuit? Take it up with Yale, MORON.
> I
> would like for YOU to explain to a jury of my peers why YOU and Yale "bore
> false
> witness" against me and why you two are not responsible for all of the
> criminal
> harassment I have had done to me.
NO explanation necessary. I deny your accusations completely, and a
JUDGE ACCEPTED MY AFFIDAVIT AS FACT. Therefore, it's not "false
witness," MORON. You got a problem with that? FILE A PERJURY SUIT
AGAINST ME OR SHUT UP.
Oh, wait. Your DA said you CANNOT FILE A PERJURY SUIT against me based
on the facts of the trial.
> I want YOU and Yale to deny causing the
> harassment I have been subjected to because of my address being distributed
> and
> the info being used criminally.
No jury is necessary. I DENY IT.
> I want Yale to state his motive for
> subpoenaing
> my medical record and then lying about what it stated.
NEWSFLASH: TAKE IT UP WITH YALE. HE DOESN'T POST ON USENET, AND HASN'T
IN QUITE SOME TIME.
> I will show copies to
> the
> jury and have Yale explain how he deduced it stated "morbid obesity" and that
> I
> weighed well over 300 pounds when there are no height nor weight fields on it
> and the diagnosis was: "sleep apnea, narcolepsy, vertigo."
You didn;t even show your so-called proof to your DA, MORON. But WE did.
>I want YOU to
> explain
> why the telephone number YOU distributed was different than the one the
> subpoena
> stated and how YOU knew it seeing how it was unlisted number.
No explanation necessary. I DID NOT DISTRIBUTE YOUR PHONE NUMBER.
> I want YOU and
> Yale to prove what I ever actually did to either of you that I deserve all of
> the ill treatment I have been subjected to because of legal system abuse.
NEWSFLASH: TAKE IT UP WITH YALE. HE DOESN'T POST ON USENET, AND HASN'T
IN QUITE SOME TIME.
> I
> want
> YOU and Yale to explain why I am accountable for what a person in another
> state
> and another country allegedly did so that I get harassed as a proxy of your
> vindictiveness.
NEWSFLASH: TAKE IT UP WITH YALE. HE DOESN'T POST ON USENET, AND HASN'T
IN QUITE SOME TIME.
THEN you can explain why _I_ am accountable whenever a person in another
state and another country posts the name of your one-horse town.
I want YOU to explain why I, nor David Michael, or our
> attorneys
> were never served with the complaints against us YET after the lawsuit was
> dismissed in my favor then the "complaints" were posted and distributed
> giving
> out my address and new telephone number.
How the hell would _I_ know, MORON. I DIDN'T FILE A LAWSUIT.
I want YOU to tell a jury of my
> peers
> what the purpose was for YOU to do that to me.
How the hell would _I_ know, MORON. I DIDN'T FILE A LAWSUIT.
> IF YOU TWO GOD DAMNED VILE
> EVIL
> SHITS DON'T RE-FILE THEN LET IT BE KNOWN FOREVER THAT YOU TWO ARE COWARDS
> AND THAT LAWSUIT HAD NO REAL VALIDITY IN THE FIRST PLACE!! IF YOU DON'T DO
> ALL
> OF THIS THEN IT IS YOU AND YALE WHO ARE THE COWARDS!! MAKE YOUR SAME
> ACCUSATIONS
> TO MY FACE IN FRONT OF A JURY OF MY PEERS AT MY COURTHOUSE IN MY
> JURISDICTION!!
> ARE YOU UP TO IT YOU PERJURIOUS COWARD!?
>
> <END>
>
I sure was. it was YOU who cut and ran, MORON.
> You and Sara came to my town to do damage control and that is all.
Wrong again, MORON. YOU invited me, I showed up. I didn't do any "damage
control" at all. I had an APPOINTMENT to meet with your DA, AND an
APPOINTMENT to meet with the County Sheriff. No damage control, since
you're an ineffectual little MORON.
> OTOH why
> do I
> wan t to see shit like you two face to face and not be able to "turn you off"
> as
> I can do on my computer!?
BECAUSE YOU INVITED ME, MORON.
> Sara made a 1600 mile round trip journey to make an
> ass of herself.
Wrong again, MORON.
> She made not one criminal complaint because I had not
> committed
> a criminal act!
Wrong again, MORON.
> She also did not want to deal with the fact she lied in a
> sworn
> statement-- sooooo why on Earth would I want to see that lying psychotic?
DEAL with it?!? I was THERE -- in YOUR JURISDICTION --- in YOUR
COURTHOUSE.
Of COURSE I would have "dealt" with it -- if your cowardly ass wasn't
OUT OF TOWN, MORON.
If you hadn't run away, we would have met with your DA, and you could
have made any delusional accusation you wanted to IN FRONT OF THE DA.
Of course, you hid.
Which was a good thing, considering how funny everyone in authority
thought your lame-ass accusations were.
Try again, MORON. You've lost again.
Sara
--
My name is not "Fatbury Scumbag" you stupid lying Jew bastard. Name call
is all a pathetic loser like you has! You have yet to prove me wrong
you dirty filthy lying Jew bastard!
--Scott Bradbury, who completely misses the irony of the above
Sara Salzman
rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
Or as Judge Millian says, "I wouldn't believe him if his tongue came
notarized."
russky
> In article <2a0a014c.03082...@posting.google.com>,
> rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
>
> > Documented Facts <Fact...@noE-Mail4Me.net> wrote in message
> > news:<qqsokvcct35f3e9g3...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 26 Aug 2003 10:48:54 -0500, <szky8xg...@hagbard.io.com> Patrick L.
> > >
> >
> > This new nym of yours is a joke, Fatboy.You wouldn't recognize a fact
> > if it bit your dick off.
>
> Or as Judge Millian says, "I wouldn't believe him if his tongue came
> notarized."
>
> Sara
There was a General on the Union side in the Civil War named
McClellan, who was always able to convince himself he was outnumbered
by the enemy,regardless of evidence to the contrary. Someone said of
him:"He has an infinite capability for realizing hallucinations".That
sounds alot like Fatboy.
Tavish
<catamont-764E3D...@tribune.sj.sys.us.xo.net> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <2a0a014c.03082...@posting.google.com>,
> rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
>
>> Documented Facts <Fact...@noE-Mail4Me.net> wrote in message
>> news:<qqsokvcct35f3e9g3...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 26 Aug 2003 10:48:54 -0500, <szky8xg...@hagbard.io.com> Patrick L.
>> >
>>
>> This new nym of yours is a joke, Fatboy.You wouldn't recognize a fact
>> if it bit your dick off.
>
>Or as Judge Millian says, "I wouldn't believe him if his tongue came
>notarized."
Well-- why don't you show where I was being deceptive seeing how you can't
refute what I posted but chose to attack me personally instead. Show where I was
dishonest in showing how Pharisaic Filth are bigots who hide behind a devilish
religion. (Remember Jesus did state the Pharisees are the Children of the
Devil!):
.........................................................................
~~~~~~~~ END ~~~~~~~~
http://www.kashrus.org/kosher/supervis.html
[ ... ]
[ ... ]
Therefore foods with grape flavoring or additives must always have a
[ ... ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tavish
The Tavish Maxim is:
- Doc Tavish -
<END>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=vd01cvsh9ta3ep7b3crfru9ce2rb0snnls%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Children of the Devil and Anti-Christ[s] Positively Identified Using
Scripture-- Check The Proofs For Yourselves! V2.0
Message-ID: <vd01cvsh9ta3ep7b3...@4ax.com>
Date: 13 May 2003 05:29:00 GMT
Now go fist yourself you dirty pig!
Tavish
>Sara
From: Sara "The Fist" Salzman
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Fist Fucking
:
By the way... Elbow Grease IS WATER SOLUABLE.
Says so right on the label.
We've found for MANY things, it is "wetter" and slicker than KY.
Your mileage may, of course, vary.
Perrrfect
--
It never rains under my umbrella
~~End~~
From: Sara "The Fist" Salzman
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Fist fucking (1)
In article <3hg9a1$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lant...@aol.com (L
Antoniou) wrote:
> Perhaps you should read the messages before responding. If you read all
> of mine, you will see that eventually I do suggest the "duck" position -
> all fingers together. What I (and Elf) was responding to was the
> suggestion that one *begin* fisting in that position. Of course, you go
> on to say *exactly that*.
In fact, Laura, I did NOT say you should begin in the "duck" position. I
just stated that it was the eventual position to achieve.
I'm sorry if I did not make that clear in my post. I *did* state that fist
fucking was not something I had done very often, and merely wanted to
impart my own (limited) experience. <END>
Imagine the person in these photos assuming the "duck" position
and "fisting" herself!
http://www.westword.com/issues/11209/2/image.gif
http://www.westword.com/issues/11209/4/image.gif
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=s70dcvgs3eucqd31n81gqo5e21uj7vvg67%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Sara "The Fist" Salzman - A Compilation of Her Better Known Literary
Works and Opinions
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 13:35:49 -0500
Message-ID: <s70dcvgs3eucqd31n...@4ax.com>
russky
I'm always intrigued by this question:If Yale's complaint contained
false statements, why didn't Fatboy refute them with evidence?Why did
he elect to move to have the case dismissed on procedural grounds?
Sara Salzman
Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2003 01:33:01 GMT,
> <catamont-764E3D...@tribune.sj.sys.us.xo.net> Sara Salzman
> <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <2a0a014c.03082...@posting.google.com>,
> > rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
> >
> >> Documented Facts <Fact...@noE-Mail4Me.net> wrote in message
> >> news:<qqsokvcct35f3e9g3...@4ax.com>...
> >> > On 26 Aug 2003 10:48:54 -0500, <szky8xg...@hagbard.io.com> Patrick
> >> > L.
> >> >
> >>
> >> This new nym of yours is a joke, Fatboy.You wouldn't recognize a fact
> >> if it bit your dick off.
> >
> >Or as Judge Millian says, "I wouldn't believe him if his tongue came
> >notarized."
>
> Well-- why don't you show where I was being deceptive seeing how you can't
> refute what I posted but chose to attack me personally instead. Show where I
> was
> dishonest in showing how Pharisaic Filth are bigots who hide behind a
> devilish
> religion. (Remember Jesus did state the Pharisees are the Children of the
> Devil!):
>
I don't have to show anything. You're a MORON and a lunatic, and you
wouldn't know reality if it danced naken on a piano singing, "Reality is
here again."
Sara Salzman
> Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:<catamont-764E3D...@tribune.sj.sys.us.xo.net>...
> > In article <2a0a014c.03082...@posting.google.com>,
> > rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
> >
> > > Documented Facts <Fact...@noE-Mail4Me.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<qqsokvcct35f3e9g3...@4ax.com>...
> > > > On 26 Aug 2003 10:48:54 -0500, <szky8xg...@hagbard.io.com> Patrick
> > > > L.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This new nym of yours is a joke, Fatboy.You wouldn't recognize a fact
> > > if it bit your dick off.
> >
> > Or as Judge Millian says, "I wouldn't believe him if his tongue came
> > notarized."
> >
> > Sara
>
>
> There was a General on the Union side in the Civil War named
> McClellan, who was always able to convince himself he was outnumbered
> by the enemy,regardless of evidence to the contrary. Someone said of
> him:"He has an infinite capability for realizing hallucinations".That
> sounds alot like Fatboy.
Very true. But McClellan had _some_ skills, specifically in organizing
training troops.
Mr. Bradbury has skills _only_ in realizing hallucinations.
Sara Salzman
rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
Because he refused to address the complaint in the first place.
Everything that Yale (as attorney) sent to Bradbury in reference to the
case, Bradbury returned unopened with the statement "Return to Stalker"
on it.
Therefore, Yale won the case by default.
THEN Bradbury panicked and got an attorney to argue jurisdiction.
Only AFTER Yale had won on FACTUAL grounds. Bradbury's "win" was nothing
more than a technicality. The case was decided on FACTS, and Yale won
those.
Tavish
<catamont-E9F2E3...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Because he refused to address the complaint in the first place.
>Everything that Yale (as attorney) sent to Bradbury in reference to the
>case, Bradbury returned unopened with the statement "Return to Stalker"
>on it.
Yale was under obligation to only contact my attorney I had hired to represent
me! When my attorney tried to get the complaints he was told "Fuck You" and Yale
did the same thing to David Michael's attorney. CASE CLOSED YOU STUPID BITCH!!
Tavish
Tavish
rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
>I'm always intrigued by this question:If Yale's complaint contained
>false statements, why didn't Fatboy refute them with evidence?
I have told you numerous times you dumb Jew Bastard-- neither I nor my attorney
were ever served the complaints!
>Why did he elect to move to have the case dismissed on procedural grounds?
The procedural grounds being-- I was never served!!
I.E.
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A."
Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable to
attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was opened
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
<<Tavish comment August 3, 2003: I now expand on what this document stated:
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant. The court has
heard telephone messages left on the defendant's answering machine, in which
the plaintiff admits dedicating himself to making the defendant's life a "living
hell." He refers to the defendant as a "miserable piece of shit" among other
charming epithets. The defendant's private medical information, subpoenaed by
Mr. Edeiken finds its way onto the Internet. Even after the defendant is
represented by counsel, mail is still sent directly to the defendant addressed
to "Defendant Bradbury." ...When attorney Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of
the complaint when he first becomes involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You"
via e-mail. In plain English, this is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged
by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never met. The court should not be a party to
this." Special attention to the lurkers-- I have reposted the telephone call the
drunken sot named Yale F. Edeiken made to my answering machine in this news
group: alt.binaries.sounds.realaudio AND the subject title is: "REPOST: Yale F.
Edeiken, Drunken Attorney, Commits Criminal Offense - RA_Yale Edeiken Telephone
Threat - RA_Yale Edeiken Telephone Threat.ra" Look for it and listen to it and
imagine a civil court hearing an attorney behave in such a manner! Is it any
wonder the shyster lost his kook lawsuit? He should have been disbarred!!>>
Respectfully submitted
Daylin B. Leach Esquire
<END>
The above document should be easily obtained from the Lehigh County Office of
Court Clerks! IOW I was NEVER allowed to defend myself against numerous perjured
false accusations as detailed in this archive:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=ja362v4amltqohp97uo053rju5erbf80qr%404ax.com
Subject: Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is Filled With Lies and Perjury...
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:23:54 -0600
Message-ID: <ja362v4amltqohp97...@4ax.com>
Andrea E. Naugle
CLERK OF COURTS OF LEHIGH COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION
Lehigh County Courthouse
455 W. Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1614
RE: Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786
<END>
How many more times do you have to be told you stupid kike before the truth
sinks in? You shits fight dirty and you shits abuse the legal system.
Tavish
Steven Mock
> On 26 Aug 2003 10:48:54 -0500, <szky8xg...@hagbard.io.com> Patrick L.
> Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for showing what "new fields" you're crapping in. What do you do when
> >they start laughing at you there, as well?
>
> You can't refute what I post so you attack me instead. What doies this tell
> everyone?
Tavish, does it even occur to you as a possibility that the mere fact
that you're ridiculed does not automatically mean you are right.
It is just as plausible, if not more so, that the only reason why there
is no one left addressing your points, for what they're worth, is that
many of us have done so before and are well acquainted with the fabulous
impression of a brick wall that you do when confronted with contrary
evidence or argument. No matter how we answer you, you will simply go
on ranting and reposting the same discredited tripe as though nothing
ever happened, so is it surprising that we eventually lose patience and
resign ourselves to making you Usenet's #1 laughingstock.
> Attention lurkers: Twice Gregory Taylor has used childish titles. I.E.
> "Scott wonders what a real life would be like...."
> "SCOTTY, YOUR VIRGINITY IS SHOWING! (was Re: Doc Tavish Is A Jew)"
>
> But yet he won't answer five plain and simple questions!
Okay, then. If putting on straight face and answering these questions
is what it takes to prove, if not to you, then to this legion of
fictional "lurkers" you seem to think you're addressing, that the mere
ability to ask stupid questions doesn't make the invited assumptions
behind them right, I will oblige. Cutting to the chase, here are the
questions:
Okay, you say there are 5 questions here, but, in fact, these are all
the same question asked five times.
The question is this: do these dietary regulations imply that non-Jews
are considered by Judaism to be "unclean".
The answer is no. The word "unclean" is not mentioned at all in the
actual quotes, nor is it implied, at least not in the sense that you
mean it. You take it as an assumption that the only reason such
regulations would be in place is if non-Jews were considered dirty and
inferior since, as a racist, you are unable to personally concieve of
any other interpretation other than a racist one. To illustrate, you
draw the comparison, in your comment after quote 4, to the idea of a
white person saying that food touched by a non-white would be
forbidden. But the distinction between Jew and non-Jew - at least in
this context - is religious, not racial. It is perfectly reasonable -
at least as a rule - to assume that a non-Jew has not followed the
elaborate regulations necessary in Jewish law to maintain personal
ritual purity, but nowhere is it stated that the non-Jew is considered
ascriptively unclean as a consequence of inferior birth.
What must be noted is that these laws were interpreted in the Middle
Ages, during a time when *every* western religion had similar mechanisms
for ensuring separation between religious communities, and often this
was done according to similar logic whereby other religions were deemed
unclean - not by blood or birth - but as a consequence of what the
followers of those religions did or did not practice. The purpose was
to enforce seperation in order to preserve groups with different values,
beliefs and cultures and ways of life - it in no way reflected a
racialized logic of identity.
Furthermore, it is interesting that it is only Judaism which you judge
based on its most closed, traditional, medieval incarnation, according
to modern standards of equality and inclusiveness. I don't see you
mining the writings of medieval Christianity or Islam for similar
examples of "bigotry" but do you really think they'd be hard to find if
you put in as much effort as you do in your quest to smear Jews? This
was simply the way the different religious communities related to each
other at the time these regulations were codified. The only fact that
really matters is that the number of Jews per thousand alive today who
still follow these regulations on wine to the letter could probably be
counted on Django Reinhard's fret hand. A fact that you will proceed to
ignore, as you froth rabidly about "how Pharisaic Filth are bigots who
hide behind a devilish religion". At which time I will go back to
considering you a mere troll, unworthy of my time and attention.
Steven Mock
russky
> On 28 Aug 2003 08:46:26 -0700, <2a0a014c.0308...@posting.google.com>
> rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
>
> >I'm always intrigued by this question:If Yale's complaint contained
> >false statements, why didn't Fatboy refute them with evidence?
>
> I have told you numerous times you dumb Jew Bastard-- neither I nor my attorney
> were ever served the complaints!
Then how did you know there was a case filed against you?How did you
know enough to hire an attorney and argue the procedure, you lying
piece of shit?
You are a chronic LIAR. I don't get any truth from scum like you.
You shits fight dirty and you shits abuse the legal system.
Come on up here and we'll discuss this shit in person, chickenshit.You
wanted my address. What are you waiting for, yellowbelly?
russky
Fatboy ran away from the facts, just like he ran away from you.He
asked for my address. I'm still awaiting his visit.
Sara Salzman
Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2003 08:46:26 -0700,
> <2a0a014c.0308...@posting.google.com>
> rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
>
> >I'm always intrigued by this question:If Yale's complaint contained
> >false statements, why didn't Fatboy refute them with evidence?
>
> I have told you numerous times you dumb Jew Bastard-- neither I nor my
> attorney
> were ever served the complaints!
>
> >Why did he elect to move to have the case dismissed on procedural grounds?
>
> The procedural grounds being-- I was never served!!
>
No, you idiotic MORON. JURISDICTION. JURISDICTION.
Sara Salzman
Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2003 17:33:07 GMT,
> <catamont-E9F2E3...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net> Sara Salzman
> <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Because he refused to address the complaint in the first place.
> >Everything that Yale (as attorney) sent to Bradbury in reference to the
> >case, Bradbury returned unopened with the statement "Return to Stalker"
> >on it.
>
> Yale was under obligation to only contact my attorney I had hired to
> represent
> me! When my attorney tried to get the complaints he was told "Fuck You" and
> Yale
> did the same thing to David Michael's attorney. CASE CLOSED YOU STUPID
> BITCH!!
>
> Tavish
>
You didn't even HIRE an attorney until after Yale went to court, you
MORON.
And then, your attorney never BOTHERED TO FILE the required papers
stating that he was representing you.
You're LYING AGAIN.
russky
> rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote:
>
> >I'm always intrigued by this question:If Yale's complaint contained
> >false statements, why didn't Fatboy refute them with evidence?
>
> I have told you numerous times you dumb Jew Bastard-- neither I nor my attorney
> were ever served the complaints!
>
>
I asked Sara, not you, you lazy, freeloading, degenerate lowlife.I
don't believe a word you say.
Jim Riley
alt.conspiracy,
alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
houston.general,
alt.revisionism,
soc.culture.usa
On 28 Aug 2003 01:33:01 GMT, Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
wrote:
--
Jim Riley
russky
The one cross-posting is Tavish, not Sara.She just didn't remove the
irrelevent groups from the header when she answered him. I often
forget to do this, too.