From: Annie on
On Sep 28, 8:50 am, schu...(a)mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

>
> Or is your post to be taken as an admission that you have done something
> in which a bounty hunter might be interested?  (Unlike you, I have no
> interest in the personal lives of Usenet posters; and, unlike you, if I
> *did* have such an interest, I would at least take the trouble to post
> *accurate* accounts of their personal lives.)
>
> -----
>
Quackwatch seems to have had a personal interest in my life, and the
lives
of other former witnesses in old lawsuits--and with the illegal use of
the DOD
in our lives for the past 12 friggin years (and my home telephone
lines, and cell phones are
still tapped).....electronic mikes, and NOSEY private investigators
connected to Quackwatch, it
would appear Mr. Schultz, that turn about is fair play - only none of
us are stooping to the level
of dishonesty as those individuals here and on the Paul Revere and the
Raider boards.....

If those old plaintiffs from those old lawsuits owe people money then
the law firm that represented
them should be after those old plaintiffs and not after those former
witnesses. And those connected to Quackwatch
believe that they have some rights afforded to them because they are
Quackwatch, they are sadly mistaken.

You do not use the DOD to harass people, chase them, stalk them,
threaten them, destroy personal property
as you see fit. Our attorney just happens to be a judge as well,
and every day, that the illegal taps on work
phones, home phones, and cell phones are still there --- it will be
costing those "connected" plenty of money.

You cannot use "The Mitchells" (aka the DOD) in the matter in which
it is being done, without notice, and keep it
up for 12 friggin years. That's a complete WASTE of taxpayers money.








From: Annie on
On Sep 28, 8:50 am, schu...(a)mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

>
> Or is your post to be taken as an admission that you have done something
> in which a bounty hunter might be interested?  (Unlike you, I have no
> interest in the personal lives of Usenet posters; and, unlike you, if I
> *did* have such an interest, I would at least take the trouble to post
> *accurate* accounts of their personal lives.)
>

The best news is that everyone that played the game at the Paul Revere
and the
Raiders AOL chatboards.......will be ever so wonderful witnesses for
the AAPS
lawsuit in Texas.


From: Annie on
On Sep 28, 8:50 am, schu...(a)mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

> Or is your post to be taken as an admission that you have done something
> in which a bounty hunter might be interested?  (Unlike you, I have no
> interest in the personal lives of Usenet posters; and, unlike you, if I
> *did* have such an interest, I would at least take the trouble to post
> *accurate* accounts of their personal lives.)
>
> -----

I have zero criminal history. And I have done "nothing" that a bounty
hunter
would be interested in.

I'm taking your post as a threat which it would appear this is how
you meant it.


From: Richard Schultz on
In article <bc07ae55-424b-4bd8-96d0-16fabecf0f0b(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Tess <XXFlamingStarrXX(a)aol.com> wrote:

: But don't see any CLUE and/or connection to Laurence Harvey or his
: Daughter, unless you want to go to the stretch of Harvey Girls movie
: and His Daughter (a "HARVEY" girl)

I own a deck of cards with 52 Queens of Diamonds.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr(a)mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
From: Richard Schultz on
In article <de53148b-f2a2-41df-8cc2-1e6c12b92701(a)a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Annie <SNIFFFThis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: On Sep 28, 8:50?am, schu...(a)mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

:> Or is your post to be taken as an admission that you have done something
:> in which a bounty hunter might be interested? ?(Unlike you, I have no
:> interest in the personal lives of Usenet posters; and, unlike you, if I
:> *did* have such an interest, I would at least take the trouble to post
:> *accurate* accounts of their personal lives.)

: I have zero criminal history. And I have done "nothing" that a bounty
: hunter would be interested in.

Then on what planet could my mentioning Laurence Harvey in conjunction
with Angela Lansbury possibly be taken as a threat? What could I possibly
be threatening you with besides exposing you as a person who knows nothing
about the history of cinema? Or do you consider an invitation to a
women's gardening club to be a threat?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr(a)mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Prev: stop hair loss now
Next: Flu Vaccine Facts