--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > > You've been harping on this one for years lurk.. > it evidently got to you. So sure, go ahead > and bring up the claim and show me how > "wrong" I was.
Here ya go, Sal. Below is post #243746 made on March 14, 2010 (a little over a year ago, not "years" as Sal claims). And shortly after the exchange quoted below, in another post, Sal accused Lurk (Steve, seventhray1) of lying about her ever having made the posts I documented. Sal didn't respond further. She never apologized for having called Steve a liar. She won't respond any further to this response to her demand for documentation, either. This is *absolutely standard* with Sal. Whenever she's presented with evidence that something she's claimed was in error, she vanishes into the woodwork. As far as she's concerned, it never happened. ----- --- 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? Funny, I didn't have any trouble finding them: 184848 184871 184878 184912 Here's 184878: ----- "Thanks, boo, that's what I was thinking. Obviously the Enq knows they can't be sued or else they wouldn't print trash as if it were 'fact.' "I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the 'revelations' before lurk posted them, then I saw where they came from. "Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, lurk? If this is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them. You and your party deserve each other." ----- She was wrong on two other counts in this post as well: the Enquirer has been successfully sued a number of times for publishing false information; and the story had already hit the MSM at this point. Sal wasn't the only one; boo_lives also embarrassed himself pretty thoroughly. The thread title was "Obama's Many Accomplishments," if anyone wants to see the whole discussion. ----- I would add that when Sal claimed she had "tried to find" the posts, it's very odd that she concluded that "they didn't appear to exist." Either she's totally incompetent at using Yahoo Search, or she was lying. They were easy to find. So she was wrong about Edwards; wrong about the Enquirer; and wrong that she never made those posts. And she never copped to *any* of it. As Steve says below, she "chose to absent [herself] from further discussion once [her] position became untenable." > On May 26, 2011, at 10:25 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > Sal, if you wish me to bring up an instance where you called me a gulliable fool, or idiot for believing something that you evidently did not care to believe, but which turned out to be 100% true, I will be glad to do so. In that instance you chose to absent yourself from further discussion once your position became untenable. > > It is fine to participate, But I feel that if you state opinions, you may sometimes be called to defend or clarify those opinions. And I happen to feel that it is a little lame to suddenly decide that one doesn't want to participate to that extent. Certainly there are exceptions.
