--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> > > > > <steve.sundur@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, this is old school. Is is the way verifications
> > > > > > should be done. Do you think Nab will have the courage to
> > > > > > admit his error. Let's see what the future posts hold.
> > > > > > Tip of the hat to you, John Manning.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nabby will do exactly the same thing he did after
> > > > > claiming that sandiego108 couldn't *possibly* be
> > > > > Jim Flanegin, and then finding out that it was.
> > > > >
> > > > > He'll pretend he never said anything...
> > > > >
> > > > > This is what a TM TB calls "the truth."
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of "the truth," I'm unable to find anywhere
> > > > that Nabby made any claims as to whether the phrase
> > > > "angels and gods" appears in SBAL.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please quote what I seem to have missed?
> > >
> > > Actually I made a comment challenging Edg to provide a reference
> > > to angels&gods knowing he would be unable to. That someone else
> > > found them is a different thing altogether.
> >
> > But you never made a *claim*. And you acknowledged
> > you couldn't be sure since you hadn't read SBAL in
> > some years.
> >
> > So as usual, we see Barry creating his very own
> > "facts" at the same time he's berating a TMer for
> > doing so when the TMer did no such thing.
> >
> > Plus which, he was wrong about you not being willing
> > to acknowledge that the phrase did appear (once) in
> > SBAL.
> >
> > Do you think we'll see an acknowledgment from Barry
> > that (a) he misstated what you said and (b) he was
> > wrong that you wouldn't acknowledge the facts?
>
>
> In real life what you do when someone develops
> a Judy-sized obsession with you is go to court
> and get a restraining order.
>
> On the Internet, you just ignore the person.
>
> Especially if it's Carnavale in your town, and
> you have a life, and the stalker doesn't... :-)
>
Judy was correct. You continue to avoid the subject. Not surprising
ofcourse, subject closed.
