Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Question to Marky Bilbo
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 20:21:45 +0100
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 271
Message-ID: <crpbsg$h14$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <crhca3$7vt$0@pita.alt.net> <1105185391.175441.161200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <crp3l6$v2l$0@pita.alt.net> <1105206274.039511.263840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <crp825$9j0$0@pita.alt.net> <1105208578.631895.96340@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <crp8ma$aua$0@pita.alt.net> <1105209797.929534.176950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <crpad3$ebo$0@pita.alt.net> <1105211218.243778.269750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2742.200
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:3805
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105211218.243778.269750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1105209797.929534.176950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > > "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1105208578.631895.96340@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > > > > "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1105206274.039511.263840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > > > > > > "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> news:1105185391.175441.161200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > < snip >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By the way, Davey, you're showing a rather remarkable
> lack
> > > of
> > > > > > > curiosity
> > > > > > > > > about the things Jason has been asked - and has dodged
> - in
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > groups, particularly with respect to his shenanigans in
> > > court.
> > > > > > > > > No interest at all, eh?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm watching it all, and have no comments at this time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And why not?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you had no evidence at all, you had no problem making
> all
> > > > > kinds of
> > > > > > > noises, but now that we have some rather interesting
> > > information
> > > > > coming
> > > > > > > out, you want to reserve your opinion?
> > > > > > > That's your right, Davey.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But let's make a note of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You haven't shown anything of substance yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course I have.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The 2000 USD was a clerical error. Unfortunate, but there you
> go.
> > > > >
> > > > > Um, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're taking Jason's word for that, but what I have shows
> > > otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you think I asked him how many times he filed this case?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Not his fault, and I'm willing to bet not your fault, but you
> > > made
> > > > > capital
> > > > > > out of it anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, actually, it IS his fault.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if we accept that it's an error, he had MONTHS to correct
> it.
> > > > >
> > > > > MONTHS, Davey.
> > > > >
> > > > > The date on the abstract that I posted was in August.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which was big of you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, thank you, Davey.
> > > > >
> > > > > Always happy to be of service.
> > > > >
> > > > > > But you troll along merrily anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep believing that, Davey.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask Jason how many times he filed his case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask him if any of them were rejected - and why.
> > > > > Ask if if he's ever filed any other civil actions pro se.
> > > >
> > > > If you know the answers, why don't you just give them?
> > >
> > > A better question is "why don't you ask him?"
> >
> > In trollish circles, this technique is known as "let's you and him
> fight".
>
> No, Davey, I'm simply asking you why you don't ask HIM?
>
> YOU are the one being challenged now - not Jason.
>
> > > > Not trolly enough for you, that way?
> > >
> > > In case you haven't noticed, I tend to allow others to dig the
> holes in
> > > which they wind up being buried.
> >
> > I know your clever techniques. You even weren't above dragging his
> wife and
> > kid into them.
>
> Anything that I said about Jason's family was in sincere concern for
> their welfare, Davey.
>
> It is his responsibility to support and provide for them. So now, they
> weren't dragged into anything.
>
> Of course, I didn't go so low as Jason did when he took a comment from
> Robyn and decided to use her 6 year old child to then imply that she
> was unfit as a parent.
>
> > > Then I nail the coffin shut.
> >
> > Hmmn. Prosecutor AND funeral director. I call that moonlighting.
>
> What pays the bills, eh?
>
> > > You'll need to decide if it's "trolly" or an "evil lawyer trick,"
> or
> > > both.
> > >
> > > Either way, it tends to work. For example, I set up and then
> nailed
> > > Jason on the $2000 that he claimed was NOT in the court documents
> > > ANYWHERE.
> > >
> > > He walked right into it, and provided me with evidence that he is
> not
> > > forth-right and honest with the readers - and you, Davey.
> >
> > That was not proven by you, there was every chance he could have
> failed to
> > notice the court error.
>
> For MONTHS, Davey?
I expect it was filed away in a drawer for months. Either you notice these
things straight off or you don't see them for months, maybe for ever.
I don't suppose he kept getting it out to look at it, like some kind of
ruddy gloat sheet.
You might do that funny stuff, but that doesn't mean everybody does it.
>
> The case was dismissed in December. The abstract that I posted was
> from August.
>
> At the very least, it was incompetent in someone presuming to act pro
> se, and it certainly was inattentive.
Huh. I've had no better from my lawyers in my divorce. I wish I had acted
pro se then.
>
> > I am always seeing in my line of work how easy it is for people not
> to
> > notice this kind of numerical error.
>
> This is not on a par with the occasional accounting error, Davey - this
> was a declared amount demanded for damages in a civil suit.
>
And that transaction is an holy cow among transactions why, exactly?
It's only money, one way or another. And 200 USD is not exactly a great deal
of money.
Now more than ever.
> > If I accused them of motive on each occasion I would be excrucitely,
> and
> > time and goodwillwastingly wrong.
>
> See above.
>
> > I have other ways of analysing and deciding the origin and importance
> of
> > errors I spot as a result of my tests, and if you think I am
> blinkered here,
> > you are wrong.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> Well, let's just say that if you want to test my legal knowledge
> against your own, YOU'RE wrong.
>
> Okay, you're turn. I'm wrong.
>
> Then it's my turn. You're wrong.
You're wrong.
>
> > If I, an auditor, hadn't spotted it, your case would be strong, but
> as it
> > is, it isn't.
>
> We're not talking about an audit, Davey.
I'm comparing the level of errorspottingness on documents you might expect
from me to someone untrained in error spotting who might be inclined to take
a court document on trust and not give it a second look.
Do try to keep up.
> > > Jason's convenient "oath to God" was, of course, his way of
> retreating.
> > > He knows he's no match for me, and I'm not even all that good at
> this.
> > > He should be pretty happy that he didn't have to face a lawyer in a
> > > real court of law.
> > >
> > > Then again, maybe that's why he didn't show up.
> > > You might ask him THAT, too, Davey.
> >
> > He was his own attorney, so obviously there was a risk he might not
> show.
>
> He could have been hit by a bus, too, but he wasn't.
>
Whooosh!
> The court actually TRIED to get a hold of him. It did not have a good
> phone number.
They probably added another nought on the end of that as well.
> Jason made a great deal of noise about this case and even used it to
> threaten others with legal action. It was months in preparation and
> I'll tease you, Davey - it was filed more than once.
Ooh, you teaser you.
>
> And he couldn't be bothered to show up when it came time to make his
> case?
>
> If you're going to make excuses for him, you'll have to do better than
> that.
>
> But chin up, Davey! He couldn't do any better.
The fact is, David, that ...
_Nobody_ does it better
Makes me feel sad for the rest.
Nobody does it, like the English do
Baby, we're the best.
<crash> oh well, there goes another copyright.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 |
|