--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunsh...@...> wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:57 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:28 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > > > > > > > Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you. I > > > > remember when the John Edwards mistress, love child > > > > story broke. You totally ridiculed me for buying > > > > into it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The > > > > National Enquirer". > > > > > > Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here, more > > > than once, that the NI usually gets its stories right, > > > and has ever since the OJ Simpson case. Care to > > > find the posts? I tried to find some but they didn't > > > appear to exist. (And no, I haven't deleted any.) > > > Would you like to try?
Lurk: > > No, I really don't care to > > Because you can't--they don't exist. Ah, but they do. > And In "true fashion," you don't have courage to own up to it. > Care to bring up the posts? I didn't think so. I just did, not quite an hour before this post of Sal's. Will she have the courage to own up to them? Will she have the decency to apologize to Lurk for having falsely accused him of having made them up and not having the courage to admit it? Perhaps she carefully avoided reading my posts. If so, it would be a kindness for someone to clue her in. But holding one's breath for an acknowledgment and apology from Sal is probably not a great idea.
