SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill who wrote (58692)9/18/2002 3:49:41 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
It has been pretty obvious that there is some sort of dalliance in the path we are being led down. I smelled a gotcha from the start. Surely JLA did too. I'm still waiting to see what X's got? I suspect it is nothing but a empty ploy to make the obvious point that anyone who criticised CH is a hypocrit. X is kinda compulsive about the subject of hypocrisy.



To: Bill who wrote (58692)9/18/2002 4:25:43 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
Actually JLA publicly asked for proof, and promised confidentiality to a third person- because a guarantee was ASKED for. He then told me (Publically) that the "proof" didn't measure up and called me a liar. Oddly enough I did NOT feel the need to take it public even though I totally disagree with him and his "perception".

hmmmm.....



To: Bill who wrote (58692)9/18/2002 4:48:58 PM
From: J. C. Dithers  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Only if JLA had publicly lusted for X

How about if JLA (and yourself?) publicly lust for X's blood?

Does that qualify?