|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 21, 2008 21:57:51 GMT -5
Why are the street addresses still on this? I'm pretty sure the only addresses are for the court and the attorneys. This is public information, and the girls' addresses are not listed. If there is an address that is NOT for a public officer/attorney listed, White Knight will get it removed I am sure. Scott
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Oct 21, 2008 22:08:03 GMT -5
So as far as the rules of this forum are concerned, attorneys are fair game?
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Oct 21, 2008 22:09:52 GMT -5
So as far as the rules of this forum are concerned, attorneys are fair game? Please, oh please, do not limit this new sport to this forum only!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 21, 2008 22:24:51 GMT -5
So as far as the rules of this forum are concerned, attorneys are fair game?
As to the 'rules' regarding public information, the attorneys are in the same category as the judge or other public figures whose WORK information is public knowledge. Information regarding their personal life would NOT be allowed (home address as opposed to work address) For example: www.lawyers.com/Michigan/Imlay-City/Bernard-P.-Penzien-722218-a.html Scott
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Oct 21, 2008 22:28:02 GMT -5
Oh good. I have some worker lists that need posted.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 21, 2008 22:34:02 GMT -5
Oh good. I have some worker lists that need posted. What? You put workers in the same category as attorneys? ;D Actually, I think that there have been worker lists posted hither and yon here on the board. much like the convention speaking lists we see. Scott
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Oct 21, 2008 22:57:40 GMT -5
What? You put workers in the same category as attorneys? ;D Well... now that you put it that way, it does make perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Oct 22, 2008 15:04:52 GMT -5
Ilylo...any attorney can be looked up in the phone book or by calling information. What's the deal on that? Not that I'm saying posting workers' list (IMO) is any big deal at all...but how is it the same? The workers don't want their info public, apparently....but attorneys actively list theirs to get clients. Hardly the same at all. M.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Nov 20, 2008 21:44:02 GMT -5
The 2x2 church - still origin free after 111 years! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When truth is truth the LORDS way is origin free for thousands of years. Those who are corrupt may have come from us, but were not of us. Therefore they must be left on there own.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on May 31, 2009 6:23:00 GMT -5
This was on page 40. Hope this will help to keep one digging to help you find your answers? I have also noticed major changes throughout these threads via wings associates and others.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on May 31, 2009 7:13:53 GMT -5
I have also noticed major changes throughout these threads via wings associates and others. When you look at the first page of this thread, it looks like the original poster is talking to themselves because of all the other posts that have been deleted. (Which is part of the reason I spend so much time quoting, in case others decide to delete their posts) Thanks for the bumping this to the top
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Jun 1, 2009 21:01:16 GMT -5
Your Welcome
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 2, 2009 0:26:43 GMT -5
Yes, Bandtroll, quite welcome, and you are being quoted for the very same reason. I noticed you have edited your posts too, and we wouldn't want to get the wrong idea here, would we?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 2, 2009 7:22:18 GMT -5
I noticed you have edited your posts too Feel free to post as many original and and the edited posts as you have. Most would be typo's, changing words like "the" to "they." When it isn't a type, I usually leave the original wording and add more explanation/detail.
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 2, 2009 13:00:18 GMT -5
And I and other appreciate your "detailed explainations" as so many of us are so confused, and only get our facts from you. The simple fact that you write things that only an insider in this case would know, helps us to gain a better prospective and further damages any credibility you may have had at one time as an impartial poster.
Keep up the good work...........................................................................Pianoman
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 2, 2009 20:55:06 GMT -5
Hey, Ilylo! You missed Pianoman's sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 2, 2009 22:05:56 GMT -5
Emy, he's only human, can't catch them all...............
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 2, 2009 22:11:37 GMT -5
Hey, Ilylo! You missed Pianoman's sarcasm. Did I?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 2, 2009 22:58:49 GMT -5
Hey, Ilylo! You missed Pianoman's sarcasm. Did I? My mistake. I should have said you failed to sarcastically point it out.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 2, 2009 23:14:31 GMT -5
Really?
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Jun 3, 2009 7:25:42 GMT -5
I personally think some website should have addresses of HEAD WORKERS. When a worker accepts responsibility, he should be accountable to others. If some of these overseers were getting more mail about certain issues discussed there, maybe they might do some thinking. As long as they are separated from criticisms on TMB, they will continue to be unaware of issues of concern.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 3, 2009 9:58:47 GMT -5
Do you really think for one minute that they are not in knowledge of the opinions and attitudes from many on this web? There is no way in the world they are unaware of issues that concern many. The difference is that they are not concerned too. The old saying still mouth wise head is the excuse. But when they took the position of being an overseer, the still mouth was definitely put in moth balls. And that has led to many a unwise head.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 3, 2009 12:53:59 GMT -5
The simple fact that you write things that only an insider in this case would know the more one assumes, the further they get from the facts. It only damages my credibility with those that can't see the forest for the trees. Thank you, not planning on going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 3, 2009 16:40:40 GMT -5
Bandtroll, I agree, most of us can't see the forest for the trees. Oh wait, maybe we really can!
I have yet to see those flocking to your point of view, if you really have one. You have flip flopped so much, it is hard to know where you are coming from, and where you are going to, that would be really interesting to be able to even predict.
Your ship is sinking, so hold on tight to that anchor, it will keep you and the rest of your cronies together.
Just keep all of us blind, ignorant people informed about the "facts" such as the "lists" and the "fact" that we are all "speculating" on a list of 200, supplied by, in your opinion " the incompetent twins", and let us know what your speculation would be on them not knowing all on the lists. Perhaps the "name fairy" visited them in their rooms at the mental facility, and provided them with names of people they don't know and have never met.
We really need to know as our "speculations", in your opinion, are despicable, but your learned "facts" and "beliefs" are in no way to be taken as "speculation". That is only thoughts that come from other than your mind.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 3, 2009 21:08:32 GMT -5
I have yet to see those flocking to your point of view That has nothing to do as to why I post Flip flopped, on what for example? My point of view: 1) Someone who is mentally ill could have come up with a list of 200 people, (including some they are never known to have met) 2) Nothing the court system has done so far indicates that anyone else was involved in the making of that list 3) If it's not 'first person' info or documented in court, I'm not willing to accept it as fact Where have I flip-flopped on any of the above? Didn't you just say (above) I have yet to see those flocking to your point of view Where have I attack anyone who is voice there OPINION? I have pointed out where people were stating things as FACT that to me could only be assumptions, but those people were not stating that that was their OPINION. All of my comments can, and most likely are by most people, be taken as speculation.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Jun 3, 2009 21:25:35 GMT -5
IN this case, names and address of everyone were put on the list. Now pray tell how would/could a so called incompetent person get all this info. Who incidentally according to court dockets they have been deemed competent. You may be naive, but the rest of us aren't!
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Jun 7, 2009 22:29:59 GMT -5
I haven't said much about how I 'feel' about this case, and I doubt it would change how I feel, unless the facts were on their side. I do know people who have been accused, and I do understand what having this on ones record can mean. (But 'Rest of your life' is just a slight exaggeration, right?) Yes, what you were trying to do makes sence, thanks for the input. ] How do you explain this" I haven't said much about how I 'feel' about this case, and I doubt it would change how I feel, unless the facts were on their side."So you are saying if the facts aren't on their side there's no point in listening to anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 8, 2009 11:50:46 GMT -5
I haven't said much about how I 'feel' about this case, and I doubt it would change how I feel, unless the facts were on their side. I do know people who have been accused, and I do understand what having this on ones record can mean. (But 'Rest of your life' is just a slight exaggeration, right?) Yes, what you were trying to do makes sence, thanks for the input. ] How do you explain this" I haven't said much about how I 'feel' about this case, and I doubt it would change how I feel, unless the facts were on their side."So you are saying if the facts aren't on their side there's no point in listening to anyone else? How do you explain this" I haven't said much about how I 'feel' about this case, and I doubt it would change how I feel, unless the facts were on their side." So you are saying if the facts aren't on their side there's no point in listening to anyone else? No, I'm saying that 'how I feel' about the case is not likely to change unless what is proven/admitted as facts change. And the only way I would know if the 'proven/admitted facts change' is to continue to listen to every side, which I do.
|
|