| |
Main
Date: 08 Jan 2009 00:50:30
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
I understand that letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the
Fortune Top 100 corporations inquiring if Paul Truong had ever worked
for them. Evidently, all denied ever employing him.
Note to John Hillery--Paul can tell us in his deposition which of those
Fortune 100 or 500 corporations he did work for. Maybe Susan knows and
can tell us about Hubby in her deposition.
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:20:03
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
Bigmouth Lafferty: why should Paul tell you anything except to fuck off?
Susan has too much class to say it, but her friends . . .
Your stupid is so big, no one knows where to start. How many mistakes?
Which Fortune Top 100? The present top, or the top ones at various times
when Paul provided them with services over the course of 15 years? No,
Lafferty never thought of that.
Did Paul ever claim he worked for more than 60 of the Fortune Top 100?
No. So what relevance are the "letters of inquiry" "sent to about 40"
of them? None. Lafferty never thought of that either.
"letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the Fortune Top 100 [snip]
Evidently, all denied ever employing him" implies all of those that were
written to replied, which is an obvious lie. Lafferty never thought that
would be evident to all readers.
Silence is agreement is a bogus legal concept, so the non-replies (the
non-reply rate could be nearly 100%) cannot be counted as agreeing that
Paul was not "employed". But Lafferty can't understand that.
"employing" is not the same as "providing contractual services to", as
anyone except a dog-catcher-supervising administrative law clerk would
know. Somehow Lafferty did not know that.
Can any sane person think the unsolicited fishing "letters of enquiry"
to most top corporations would go anywhere but into the trash can? No.
But Lafferty thought differently.
Even in the unlikely event that such a big corporation should wish to
waste its time replying, to think that they would reply on behalf of all
their thousands of offices is beyond absurd. Lafferty didn't know this.
You can work for a big corporation without their even knowing your name,
because you did the job for an intermediary. That is how it goes. It is
no surprise that Lafferty did not think of this.
Your Brain is FUBAR, Brian. As Sam said, you don't know anything. Do you
need to consult instructions when you have to crap?
You have demonstrated by your long, malicious vendetta that you are most
unfit to hold any public office of responsibility.
Case closed.
Has your wife yet agreed which jewelry is to be surrendered to Susan?
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 7:50 pm EST, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
>I understand that letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the
>Fortune Top 100 corporations inquiring if Paul Truong had ever worked
>for them. Evidently, all denied ever employing him.
>
>Note to John Hillery--Paul can tell us in his deposition which of those
>Fortune 100 or 500 corporations he did work for. Maybe Susan knows and
>can tell us about Hubby in her deposition.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 16:11:18
From:
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
> > You either have some level of impersonal behavior in this respect,
> > which is to say that you observe a standard, or you do not.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> How many verifiable jobs have you had since that one?
Is this some way of avoiding a simple question, to ask a sardonic one
yourself? I thought you were all for glasnost and transparency, but
instead you behave in the usual way- you punt, asking a question which
nothing depends upon ;(
The question Lafferty was to do with standards - since you are
running, what, if any do you have? I note your avoidance of what I
wrote, but I have noted that before in your avoidance of your own part
in the 'hot-saucing' episode, and saw you there.
You can reply to others, to the crowd, if you wish, but I don't give a
damn for them or for that.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:34:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
On Jan 8, 5:14=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I remember at the time of the Sloan election campaign all sorts of
> superior crap about his driving a taxi to make a living. I insulted
> each and every accuser to their wit; cannot a taxi driver understand
> things as well as thee?
I recall much of the criticism of Mr. Sloan as not being directed at
his livelihood, but at his honesty, or more properly lack of, in
discussing how he earned his bread.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:26:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
On Jan 8, 5:21=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 3:52 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Jan 8, 2:57 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> samsloan wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 8, 8:34 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Archived with two points for Paul:
> >>>>>> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
> >>>>>> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his=
work
> >>>>>> as kitchen help, will come out.
> >>>>> Do you seriously claim that Paul Truong once worked as "kitchen hel=
p"?
> >>>> So I'm told.
> >>> Not a surprise. His autobiography, such as it is, mentions struggling
> >>> after he arrived in the US. I doubt anyone thinks he became a
> >>> consultant to top US companies right off the boat.
> >> Lot's of college kids wait and bus tables. =A0But by the age of 40+ th=
ey
> >> usually have more than just a job or two that can be verified.
>
> > I not only worked in kitchen, I was a dishwasher in Germany - how
> > about you Brian?
>
> > At the same time I was writing a dissertation on the psychology of
> > Kepler, and playing huge chess against serious dudes, while meantimes
> > going to the cellars as we under-folk do to get bottles of genuine
> > below class wine.
>
> > I remember at the time of the Sloan election campaign all sorts of
> > superior crap about his driving a taxi to make a living. I insulted
> > each and every accuser to their wit; cannot a taxi driver understand
> > things as well as thee?
>
> > This, you understand was not to promote the Sloan by way of advocating
> > him, but to reduce to ash the fuel unjustly offered against him.
>
> > You either have some level of impersonal behavior in this respect,
> > which is to say that you observe a standard, or you do not.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> How many verifiable jobs have you had since that one?
Does that list include "nearly an IM?"
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:14:10
From:
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
On Jan 8, 3:52=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2:57 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> samsloan wrote:
> >>> On Jan 8, 8:34 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Archived with two points for Paul:
> >>>> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
> >>>> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his w=
ork
> >>>> as kitchen help, will come out.
> >>> Do you seriously claim that Paul Truong once worked as "kitchen help"=
?
> >> So I'm told.
>
> > Not a surprise. His autobiography, such as it is, mentions struggling
> > after he arrived in the US. I doubt anyone thinks he became a
> > consultant to top US companies right off the boat.
>
> Lot's of college kids wait and bus tables. =A0But by the age of 40+ they
> usually have more than just a job or two that can be verified.
I not only worked in kitchen, I was a dishwasher in Germany - how
about you Brian?
At the same time I was writing a dissertation on the psychology of
Kepler, and playing huge chess against serious dudes, while meantimes
going to the cellars as we under-folk do to get bottles of genuine
below class wine.
I remember at the time of the Sloan election campaign all sorts of
superior crap about his driving a taxi to make a living. I insulted
each and every accuser to their wit; cannot a taxi driver understand
things as well as thee?
This, you understand was not to promote the Sloan by way of advocating
him, but to reduce to ash the fuel unjustly offered against him.
You either have some level of impersonal behavior in this respect,
which is to say that you observe a standard, or you do not.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 22:21:28
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 8, 3:52 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 2:57 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 8, 8:34 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Archived with two points for Paul:
>>>>>> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
>>>>>> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
>>>>>> as kitchen help, will come out.
>>>>> Do you seriously claim that Paul Truong once worked as "kitchen help"?
>>>> So I'm told.
>>> Not a surprise. His autobiography, such as it is, mentions struggling
>>> after he arrived in the US. I doubt anyone thinks he became a
>>> consultant to top US companies right off the boat.
>> Lot's of college kids wait and bus tables. But by the age of 40+ they
>> usually have more than just a job or two that can be verified.
>
> I not only worked in kitchen, I was a dishwasher in Germany - how
> about you Brian?
>
> At the same time I was writing a dissertation on the psychology of
> Kepler, and playing huge chess against serious dudes, while meantimes
> going to the cellars as we under-folk do to get bottles of genuine
> below class wine.
>
> I remember at the time of the Sloan election campaign all sorts of
> superior crap about his driving a taxi to make a living. I insulted
> each and every accuser to their wit; cannot a taxi driver understand
> things as well as thee?
>
> This, you understand was not to promote the Sloan by way of advocating
> him, but to reduce to ash the fuel unjustly offered against him.
>
> You either have some level of impersonal behavior in this respect,
> which is to say that you observe a standard, or you do not.
>
> Phil Innes
How many verifiable jobs have you had since that one?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 12:47:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
On Jan 8, 2:57=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 8:34 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Archived with two points for Paul:
> >> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
> >> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his wor=
k
> >> as kitchen help, will come out.
>
> > Do you seriously claim that Paul Truong once worked as "kitchen help"?
>
> So I'm told.
Not a surprise. His autobiography, such as it is, mentions struggling
after he arrived in the US. I doubt anyone thinks he became a
consultant to top US companies right off the boat.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 20:52:17
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:57 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 8:34 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Archived with two points for Paul:
>>>> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
>>>> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
>>>> as kitchen help, will come out.
>>> Do you seriously claim that Paul Truong once worked as "kitchen help"?
>> So I'm told.
>
> Not a surprise. His autobiography, such as it is, mentions struggling
> after he arrived in the US. I doubt anyone thinks he became a
> consultant to top US companies right off the boat.
Lot's of college kids wait and bus tables. But by the age of 40+ they
usually have more than just a job or two that can be verified.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 11:37:10
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
On Jan 8, 8:34=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Archived with two points for Paul:
> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
> as kitchen help, will come out.
Do you seriously claim that Paul Truong once worked as "kitchen help"?
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 19:57:27
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:34 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Archived with two points for Paul:
>> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
>> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
>> as kitchen help, will come out.
>
> Do you seriously claim that Paul Truong once worked as "kitchen help"?
So I'm told.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 05:38:55
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
On Jan 8, 8:34=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > Bigmouth Lafferty: why should Paul tell you anything except to fuck off=
?
> > Susan has too much class to say it, but her friends . . .
>
> > Your stupid is so big, no one knows where to start. How many mistakes?
>
> > Which Fortune Top 100? The present top, or the top ones at various time=
s
> > when Paul provided them with services over the course of 15 years? No,
> > Lafferty never thought of that.
>
> > Did Paul ever claim he worked for more than 60 of the Fortune Top 100?
> > No. So what relevance are the "letters of inquiry" "sent to about 40"
> > of them? None. Lafferty never thought of that either.
>
> > "letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the Fortune Top 100 [snip]
> > Evidently, all denied ever employing him" implies all of those that wer=
e
> > written to replied, which is an obvious lie. Lafferty never thought tha=
t
> > would be evident to all readers.
>
> > Silence is agreement is a bogus legal concept, so the non-replies (the
> > non-reply rate could be nearly 100%) cannot be counted as agreeing that
> > Paul was not "employed". But Lafferty can't understand that.
>
> > "employing" is not the same as "providing contractual services to", as
> > anyone except a dog-catcher-supervising administrative law clerk would
> > know. Somehow Lafferty did not know that.
>
> > Can any sane person think the unsolicited fishing "letters of enquiry"
> > to most top corporations would go anywhere but into the trash can? No.
> > But Lafferty thought differently.
>
> > Even in the unlikely event that such a big corporation should wish to
> > waste its time replying, to think that they would reply on behalf of al=
l
> > their thousands of offices is beyond absurd. Lafferty didn't know this.
>
> > You can work for a big corporation without their even knowing your name=
,
> > because you did the job for an intermediary. That is how it goes. It is
> > no surprise that Lafferty did not think of this.
>
> > Your Brain is FUBAR, Brian. As Sam said, you don't know anything. Do yo=
u
> > need to consult instructions when you have to crap?
>
> > You have demonstrated by your long, malicious vendetta that you are mos=
t
> > unfit to hold any public office of responsibility.
>
> > Case closed.
>
> > Has your wife yet agreed which jewelry is to be surrendered to Susan?
>
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 7:50 pm EST, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I understand that letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the
> >> Fortune Top 100 corporations inquiring if Paul Truong had ever worked
> >> for them. =A0Evidently, all denied ever employing him.
>
> >> Note to John Hillery--Paul can tell us in his deposition which of thos=
e
> >> Fortune 100 or 500 corporations he did work for. Maybe Susan knows and
> >> can tell us about Hubby in her deposition.
>
> Archived with two points for Paul:
> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
> as kitchen help, will come out.
Will we ever learn the reason Mr. Truong cannot enter California?
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:02:43
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:34 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Bigmouth Lafferty: why should Paul tell you anything except to fuck off?
>>> Susan has too much class to say it, but her friends . . .
>>> Your stupid is so big, no one knows where to start. How many mistakes?
>>> Which Fortune Top 100? The present top, or the top ones at various times
>>> when Paul provided them with services over the course of 15 years? No,
>>> Lafferty never thought of that.
>>> Did Paul ever claim he worked for more than 60 of the Fortune Top 100?
>>> No. So what relevance are the "letters of inquiry" "sent to about 40"
>>> of them? None. Lafferty never thought of that either.
>>> "letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the Fortune Top 100 [snip]
>>> Evidently, all denied ever employing him" implies all of those that were
>>> written to replied, which is an obvious lie. Lafferty never thought that
>>> would be evident to all readers.
>>> Silence is agreement is a bogus legal concept, so the non-replies (the
>>> non-reply rate could be nearly 100%) cannot be counted as agreeing that
>>> Paul was not "employed". But Lafferty can't understand that.
>>> "employing" is not the same as "providing contractual services to", as
>>> anyone except a dog-catcher-supervising administrative law clerk would
>>> know. Somehow Lafferty did not know that.
>>> Can any sane person think the unsolicited fishing "letters of enquiry"
>>> to most top corporations would go anywhere but into the trash can? No.
>>> But Lafferty thought differently.
>>> Even in the unlikely event that such a big corporation should wish to
>>> waste its time replying, to think that they would reply on behalf of all
>>> their thousands of offices is beyond absurd. Lafferty didn't know this.
>>> You can work for a big corporation without their even knowing your name,
>>> because you did the job for an intermediary. That is how it goes. It is
>>> no surprise that Lafferty did not think of this.
>>> Your Brain is FUBAR, Brian. As Sam said, you don't know anything. Do you
>>> need to consult instructions when you have to crap?
>>> You have demonstrated by your long, malicious vendetta that you are most
>>> unfit to hold any public office of responsibility.
>>> Case closed.
>>> Has your wife yet agreed which jewelry is to be surrendered to Susan?
>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 7:50 pm EST, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I understand that letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the
>>>> Fortune Top 100 corporations inquiring if Paul Truong had ever worked
>>>> for them. Evidently, all denied ever employing him.
>>>> Note to John Hillery--Paul can tell us in his deposition which of those
>>>> Fortune 100 or 500 corporations he did work for. Maybe Susan knows and
>>>> can tell us about Hubby in her deposition.
>> Archived with two points for Paul:
>> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
>> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
>> as kitchen help, will come out.
>
> Will we ever learn the reason Mr. Truong cannot enter California?
Perhaps. Stay tuned.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:34:38
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Bigmouth Lafferty: why should Paul tell you anything except to fuck off?
> Susan has too much class to say it, but her friends . . .
>
> Your stupid is so big, no one knows where to start. How many mistakes?
>
> Which Fortune Top 100? The present top, or the top ones at various times
> when Paul provided them with services over the course of 15 years? No,
> Lafferty never thought of that.
>
> Did Paul ever claim he worked for more than 60 of the Fortune Top 100?
> No. So what relevance are the "letters of inquiry" "sent to about 40"
> of them? None. Lafferty never thought of that either.
>
> "letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the Fortune Top 100 [snip]
> Evidently, all denied ever employing him" implies all of those that were
> written to replied, which is an obvious lie. Lafferty never thought that
> would be evident to all readers.
>
> Silence is agreement is a bogus legal concept, so the non-replies (the
> non-reply rate could be nearly 100%) cannot be counted as agreeing that
> Paul was not "employed". But Lafferty can't understand that.
>
> "employing" is not the same as "providing contractual services to", as
> anyone except a dog-catcher-supervising administrative law clerk would
> know. Somehow Lafferty did not know that.
>
> Can any sane person think the unsolicited fishing "letters of enquiry"
> to most top corporations would go anywhere but into the trash can? No.
> But Lafferty thought differently.
>
> Even in the unlikely event that such a big corporation should wish to
> waste its time replying, to think that they would reply on behalf of all
> their thousands of offices is beyond absurd. Lafferty didn't know this.
>
> You can work for a big corporation without their even knowing your name,
> because you did the job for an intermediary. That is how it goes. It is
> no surprise that Lafferty did not think of this.
>
> Your Brain is FUBAR, Brian. As Sam said, you don't know anything. Do you
> need to consult instructions when you have to crap?
>
> You have demonstrated by your long, malicious vendetta that you are most
> unfit to hold any public office of responsibility.
>
> Case closed.
>
> Has your wife yet agreed which jewelry is to be surrendered to Susan?
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 7:50 pm EST, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I understand that letters of inquiry were sent to about 40 of the
>> Fortune Top 100 corporations inquiring if Paul Truong had ever worked
>> for them. Evidently, all denied ever employing him.
>>
>> Note to John Hillery--Paul can tell us in his deposition which of those
>> Fortune 100 or 500 corporations he did work for. Maybe Susan knows and
>> can tell us about Hubby in her deposition.
>
Archived with two points for Paul:
1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
as kitchen help, will come out.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 20:20:03
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Bigmouth Lafferty: why should Paul tell you anything except to fuck off?
>> Susan has too much class to say it, but her friends . . .
>> [snip]
>Archived with two points for Paul:
Why address me as "Paul"? I am not Paul. Is this evidence of dementia?
>1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
Your understanding is wrong. Telephone the attorneys momentarily. This
time, listen with attentiveness, Ray.
>2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
>as kitchen help, will come out.
BS. It lacks subject relevance. As does the boat voyage. You "may well"
have so grown obsessed with hounding a lady and family that you failed
to observe that by remarking "in due course it will all come out," you
are employing the same construction that you earlier derided. Dementia?
Be my guest, archive this too. With efforts, you "may well" make a good
filing clerk. It is "my understanding" that, by making such temporary
comment permanent and publishing it, you "may well" be endorsing it.
Love and kisses from misc.legal, where you have attained full celebrity
status. Information that follows is to assist piece development. :^)
Cyber Narcissist
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal67.html
============================
The Narcissist and Psychopath in Society
============================
The Narcissist and Psychopath as Criminals
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/5003
The Narcissist is Above the Law
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4983
The Narcissist as Liar and Con-man
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4951
Does the Narcissist Have a Multiple Personality (Dissociative Identity
Disorder)?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4950
Narcissists as Drama Queens
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4948
The Narcissist as Know-it-all
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4945
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 19:28:12
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: 40 Fortune Top 100 Never Heard of Truong
|
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Bigmouth Lafferty: why should Paul tell you anything except to fuck off?
>>> Susan has too much class to say it, but her friends . . .
>>> [snip]
>> Archived with two points for Paul:
>
> Why address me as "Paul"? I am not Paul. Is this evidence of dementia?
>
>> 1. My understanding is that all 40 corporations replied.
>
> Your understanding is wrong. Telephone the attorneys momentarily. This
> time, listen with attentiveness, Ray.
>
>> 2. In due course Paul's complete employment history, including his work
>> as kitchen help, will come out.
>
> BS. It lacks subject relevance. As does the boat voyage. You "may well"
> have so grown obsessed with hounding a lady and family that you failed
> to observe that by remarking "in due course it will all come out," you
> are employing the same construction that you earlier derided. Dementia?
> Be my guest, archive this too. With efforts, you "may well" make a good
> filing clerk. It is "my understanding" that, by making such temporary
> comment permanent and publishing it, you "may well" be endorsing it.
> Love and kisses from misc.legal, where you have attained full celebrity
> status. Information that follows is to assist piece development. :^)
>
> Cyber Narcissist
> http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal67.html
>
> ============================
> The Narcissist and Psychopath in Society
> ============================
>
> The Narcissist and Psychopath as Criminals
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/5003
>
> The Narcissist is Above the Law
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4983
>
> The Narcissist as Liar and Con-man
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4951
>
> Does the Narcissist Have a Multiple Personality (Dissociative Identity
> Disorder)?
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4950
>
> Narcissists as Drama Queens
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4948
>
> The Narcissist as Know-it-all
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4945
>
archived
|
|
