Re: Carol ducks the question again
Carol Lee Smith
>
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> >> Carol did Colonel Killian's widow refuse to release his journal or not?
>
> > Are you really that reading impaired? You have asked this before, and I
> > have answered.
>
> No you have NOT.
Yes, I did. Here is the message as taken from the archives. Notice it
was sent to three groups. The other groups to which it was sent are being
added back to this message. Don't like it? Lump it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Carol Lee Smith (hu...@csd.uwm.edu)
Subject: Re: Killian's widow; was: CBS. A Rather false story... Carol goes
NUTS
View this article only
Newsgroups: milw.general, wi.general, UWM.general
Date: 2004-10-19 15:58:03 PST
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, krp wrote:
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104101...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, krp wrote:
> >> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104101...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> >> >> Carol you and I and everyone else that has followed this thread
KNOW
> >> >> that you made the claim that she "REFUSED" to release the journal.
> >> >> So now has Harry
> >> > Harry is responsible for Harry. I am not.
> >> But you also made the claim and it is FALSE.
> > So you say, but you have never proved I made any such claim.
> More selective quotes.
What are you talking about? What selective quotes?
Ya know I have ASKED for you to provide certain quotes. Of mine. Things
you claim I said. Which I didn't say. The reason you can't provide them
is because they don't exist.
> Let's settle this the easy way with ONE question.
> 1. Did Colonel Killian's widow REFUSE (or decline) to provide his
Journal?
> (That is a YES or a NO question Carol)
> I am 199% positive that YOU will opt for a 3rd answer that CLOUDS the
issue
> even more.
Why Kenny, you are prescient! Who would have thunk it?
Of course I MUST opt for a third answer because I don't know if she
refused. I don't even know if she was asked!
I don't choose a third answer for the purpose of clouding any issue. I
choose it because it is the truth.
I don't know.
Do you?
krp
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>>>
>> >> Carol did Colonel Killian's widow refuse to release his journal or
>> >> not?
>>
>> > Are you really that reading impaired? You have asked this before, and
>> > I
>> > have answered.
>>
>> No you have NOT.
>
> Yes, I did. Here is the message as taken from the archives. Notice it
> was sent to three groups. The other groups to which it was sent are being
> added back to this message. Don't like it? Lump it.
You DUCK and RUN yet again... WHAT was the answer? Did she REFUSE or not???
STRAIGHT answer Carol, nor the EVASIVE ones.
YES OR NO!
Carol Lee Smith
> >> No you have NOT.
> YES OR NO!
Only you would spew forth on something about which you know nothing.
Not making an unsubstantiated pronouncements is a mark of integrity.
You really should consider it.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point that out.
krp
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, krp wrote:
>
>> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
>> >> >> Carol did Colonel Killian's widow refuse to release his journal or
>> >> >> not?
>
>> >> > Are you really that reading impaired? You have asked this before,
>> >> > and
>> >> > I have answered.
>
>> >> No you have NOT.
>
>> > Yes, I did. Here is the message as taken from the archives. Notice it
>> > was sent to three groups. The other groups to which it was sent are
>> > being
>> > added back to this message. Don't like it? Lump it.
>
>> You DUCK and RUN yet again... WHAT was the answer? Did she REFUSE or
>> not???
>> STRAIGHT answer Carol, nor the EVASIVE ones.
>
>> YES OR NO!
> Only you would spew forth on something about which you know nothing.
YES OR NO CAROL! STILL RUNNING AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!
Carol Lee Smith
> YES OR NO CAROL! STILL RUNNING AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!
Do you expound upon that which you know nothing? Silly question. Of
course you do.
Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, krp wrote:
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> >> >> Carol did Colonel Killian's widow refuse to release his journal
> >> >> or not?
> >> > Are you really that reading impaired? You have asked this
> >> > before, and I have answered.
> >> No you have NOT.
> > Yes, I did. Here is the message as taken from the archives. Notice
> > it was sent to three groups. The other groups to which it was sent
> > are being added back to this message. Don't like it? Lump it.
> You DUCK and RUN yet again... WHAT was the answer? Did she REFUSE or
> not??? STRAIGHT answer Carol, nor the EVASIVE ones.
> YES OR NO!
Only you would spew forth on something about which you know nothing.
Not making an unsubstantiated pronouncements is a mark of integrity.
krp
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> Do you expound upon that which you know nothing? Silly question. Of
> course you do.
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.
And I see STILL running like hell from the question.....................
Did Colonel Killian's widow REFUSE to provide his Journal?
YES OR NO! I will laugh watching you duck and weave and RUN again!!!
Carol Lee Smith
>
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> >> YES OR NO CAROL! STILL RUNNING AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!
> > Do you expound upon that which you know nothing? Silly question. Of
> > course you do.
> > Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.
> And I see STILL running like hell from the question.....................
> Did Colonel Killian's widow REFUSE to provide his Journal?
How would I know?
Has she been asked?
Why should I make a statement about something of which I have no
information? Do you really think doing so would be an example of
integrity? I don't.
> YES OR NO! I will laugh watching you duck and weave and RUN again!!!
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to point out again that
there is no shame in being honest.
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, krp wrote:
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> >> >> Carol did Colonel Killian's widow refuse to release his journal
> >> >> or not?
> >> > Are you really that reading impaired? You have asked this
> >> > before, and I have answered.
> >> No you have NOT.
> > Yes, I did. Here is the message as taken from the archives. Notice
> > it was sent to three groups. The other groups to which it was sent
> > are being added back to this message. Don't like it? Lump it.
> You DUCK and RUN yet again... WHAT was the answer? Did she REFUSE or
not???
> STRAIGHT answer Carol, nor the EVASIVE ones.
> YES OR NO!
Only you would spew forth on something about which you know nothing.
Not making an unsubstantiated pronouncements is a mark of integrity.
You really should consider it.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point that out.
krp
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>> >> YES OR NO CAROL! STILL RUNNING AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!
>> > Do you expound upon that which you know nothing? Silly question. Of
>> > course you do.
>
>> > Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.
>
>> And I see STILL running like hell from the question.....................
>
>> Did Colonel Killian's widow REFUSE to provide his Journal?
>
> How would I know?
>> YES OR NO! I will laugh watching you duck and weave and RUN again!!!
> Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to point out again that
> there is no shame in being honest.
Okay so you admit you have NEVER had ANY reason to believe she refused
to turn it over.............. Right?
Carol Lee Smith
> > How would I know?
What I had to say on the matter of Killian's widow resides here:
Make of it what you will.
krp
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
>> >> >> YES OR NO CAROL! STILL RUNNING AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!
>
>> >> > Do you expound upon that which you know nothing? Silly question.
>> >> > Of
>> >> > course you do.
>
>> >> > Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.
>
>> >> And I see STILL running like hell from the
>> >> question.....................
>
>> >> Did Colonel Killian's widow REFUSE to provide his Journal?
>
>> > How would I know?
>
>> >> YES OR NO! I will laugh watching you duck and weave and RUN again!!!
>
>> > Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to point out again
>> > that
>> > there is no shame in being honest.
>
>> Okay so you admit you have NEVER had ANY reason to believe she
>> refused
>> to turn it over.............. Right?
RAN FROM THE QUESTION with a diversion AGAIN!
Lannie Ruvin
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, krp wrote:
> >> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> >> >> >> Carol did Colonel Killian's widow refuse to release his journal or
> >> >> >> not?
>
> >> >> > Are you really that reading impaired? You have asked this before,
> >> >> > and I have answered.
>
> >> >> No you have NOT.
>
> >> > Yes, I did. Here is the message as taken from the archives. Notice it
> >> > was sent to three groups. The other groups to which it was sent are
> >> > being added back to this message. Don't like it? Lump it.
Good for you.
> >> You DUCK and RUN yet again... WHAT was the answer? Did she REFUSE or
> >> not???
> >> STRAIGHT answer Carol, nor the EVASIVE ones.
> >> YES OR NO!
>
> > Only you would spew forth on something about which you know nothing.
>
> YES OR NO CAROL! STILL RUNNING AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!
You are kidding, right Mr. Pangborn?
You wouldn't promote the idea that integrity is unimportant,
would you?
Do you take positions on matters about which you have no
evidence?
Are you going to take the fifth on these questions to avoid an
incriminating position?
LR
Lannie Ruvin
<web2...@verizon.net> wrote to: milw.general, misc.legal, wi.general,
uwm.general
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
[snip repitition]
+|>> >> Did Colonel Killian's widow REFUSE to provide his Journal?
+|>
+|>> > How would I know?
+|>
+|>> >> YES OR NO! I will laugh watching you duck and weave and RUN
again!!!
+|>
+|>> > Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to point out
again
+|>> > that there is no shame in being honest.
+|>
+|>> Okay so you admit you have NEVER had ANY reason to believe
she
+|>> refused to turn it over.............. Right?
+|>What I had to say on the matter of Killian's widow resides here:
+|?http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&q=killian%27s+widow+refused&btnG=Searc
h&meta=group%3Dmilw.general
+|RAN FROM THE QUESTION with a diversion AGAIN!
You must be kidding, right Mr. Pangborn?
You wouldn't possibly be promoting the idea that integrity is
unimportant,
would you?
Do you make it a habit of taking positions on matters about which
you have no evidence?
Again I ask you if you are going to take the fifth on these
krp
"Lannie Ruvin" <lanr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:99c06796.04110...@posting.google.com...
>> YES OR NO CAROL! STILL RUNNING AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!
>
> You are kidding, right Mr. Pangborn?
>
> You wouldn't promote the idea that integrity is unimportant,
> would you?
I am not the one RUNNING from a direct question and LYING about it.
Carol IS!
krp
news:99c06796.04110...@posting.google.com...
> +|RAN FROM THE QUESTION with a diversion AGAIN!
> You must be kidding, right Mr. Pangborn?
Nope - just stating facts. Carol has NEVER directly answered the SIMPLE
yes or no question.
> You wouldn't possibly be promoting the idea that integrity is
> unimportant,
> would you?
No, that would be CAROL.
> Do you make it a habit of taking positions on matters about which
> you have no evidence?
What matters are those?
> Again I ask you if you are going to take the fifth on these
> questions to avoid an incriminating position?
I have no need.
Carol Lee Smith
Saying one doesn't know the answer to a question, or admitting one doesn't
have the data in order to make a pronouncement is not RUNNING from a
question. Nor is it LYING about it.
I am not doing either.
I notice you were asked questions and failed to answer.
Pot
Kettle
Black
" ... the real difference between liberals and conservatives in this
country is that conservatives think sex is very, very important and
liberals think sex is essentially trivial. ... " --Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com/chd/sex.html
Carol Lee Smith
> "Lannie Ruvin" <lanr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:99c06796.04110...@posting.google.com...
> > +|RAN FROM THE QUESTION with a diversion AGAIN!
> > You must be kidding, right Mr. Pangborn?
> Nope - just stating facts. Carol has NEVER directly answered the SIMPLE
> yes or no question.
> > You wouldn't possibly be promoting the idea that integrity is
> > unimportant, would you?
> No, that would be CAROL.
How so? Stating that when one doesn't know the answer or hasn't the data?
Ha.
> > Do you make it a habit of taking positions on matters about which
> > you have no evidence?
> What matters are those?
You answer the question you keep asking me.
Did Killian's wife refuse to turn over the journal of her late husband?
(If that's not what we are talking about, be sure to correct me.)
Note that you should first be able to answer the question: Was she asked
to turn over the journal of her late husband.
Right?
> > Again I ask you if you are going to take the fifth on these
> > questions to avoid an incriminating position?
> I have no need.
We shall see.
krp
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>> YES OR NO
>> CAROL! STILL RUNNING AS FAST AS YOU CAN!! > > You are kidding, right
>> Mr. Pangborn? > > You wouldn't promote the idea that integrity is
>> unimportant, > would you?
>
>> I am not the one RUNNING from a direct question and LYING about it.
>> Carol IS!
>
> Saying one doesn't know the answer to a question, or admitting one doesn't
> have the data in order to make a pronouncement is not RUNNING from a
> question. Nor is it LYING about it.
>
> I am not doing either.
You made the initial statement that she declined to turn it over. Carol,
that was a factual claim. So NOW your position is that you don't know.
Then don't INSINUATE.
krp
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>> No, that would be CAROL.
>
> How so? Stating that when one doesn't know the answer or hasn't the data?
>
Your "I don't know" is a recent response Carol. You were NOT saying that 6
weeks ago.
Carol Lee Smith
What I was saying is archived.
That includes: "Actually I am going to follow the issue very closely and consider whatever
turns up before I make any determination about the matter."
and: "When this journal is released for all to read then we may know
something about this."
I am still of that opinion.
But you would know that if you checked the archives, for which I have on
numerous occasions given you the urls.
Want them again?
krp
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104110...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>> Your "I don't know" is a recent response Carol. You were NOT saying that
>> 6
>> weeks ago.
>
> What I was saying is archived.
>
> That includes: "Actually I am going to follow the issue very closely and
> consider whatever
> turns up before I make any determination about the matter."
> and: "When this journal is released for all to read then we may know
> something about this."
Carol - you are a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is NOT what
you initially said and you KNOW it.
> I am still of that opinion.
> But you would know that if you checked the archives, for which I have on
> numerous occasions given you the urls
I have Carol - the ones that haven't been erased. You claimed she
refused to provide the journal. Your story has changed and you are trying to
LIE your way out of it.
Lasko Phillips
be a pain in the ass and NUTS!
Your posts merely strke me as the ravings of a person who is out of
self control and who is not well mentally. Any NORMAL person, would
have let issues pass on whern they were not being debated by the other
side. STill SCREAMING about them a day later is a sign of a person
with problems. When you go on for MONTHS with no debate from the other
side, well that's more than a SMALL mental problem.
You badly need help. BADLY! VERY BADLY! Maybe you don't see your
behavior as "strange" but most everyone else does. I don'ty expect
somebody who is INSANE to understand that their behavior IS insane!
You have beaten the dead horse to vapor. And you are still flogging
it, 22 posts today. Don't you realize that is not "normal" behavior?
Do you have any idea of just how "abnormal" it is? Does even a clue
drip in? GET HELP!
Carol Lee Smith
<<What YOU can't seem to grasp is that thousands of people find you to
be a pain in the ass and NUTS!>>
If you mean me, I want to send to you my personal apologies.
Ken Smith
> On 8 Nov 2004, Lasko Phillips wrote:
>
> <<What YOU can't seem to grasp is that thousands of people find you to
> be a pain in the ass and NUTS!>>
>
> If you mean me, I want to send to you my personal apologies.
I assume you mean Pangborn, because I don't know what you are on
about here.
Uh, what do I have to do with the debate about Jerry Killian? George
Bush did coke, and I don't care.... ;)
