Mudlsininging finally pays off

Bill C said:

http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
having his credibility judged.
But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
Bill C

Let's try this again! "Mudslinging". Damn got to make sure my fingers
are actually putting down what I'm thinking. The scary part is that
once upon a time I was required to type accurately, and could once in a
while. I do appreciate the accomadation made for my imbecility.
BC

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
having his credibility judged.
But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
Bill C

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this statement.-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the future," said
the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was " prone
to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at stop lights
and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin American-Statesman.

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
having his credibility judged.
But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
Bill C

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this statement.-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the future,"
said the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was " prone
to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at stop
lights and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin
American-Statesman.

I think the threat of a viable action for defamation is what moved Armstrong
to settle. If you recall some of the pleadings and correspondence that was
released by Anderson's attorney, there was a claim made that Anderson stole
at least one lap top computer. Given Armstrong's SOP of trashing any former
associate who turns on him in any critical way, I would expect more
defamation actions like that threatened by Anderson and brought by Simeoni.
Sir Lance is learning that other people have rights that can't simply be
walked over by him. I imagine it's going to be a difficult and somewhat
expensive lesson for him. It's nice that he can afford it. Who's next with
a defamation action? Emma O'Reilly?

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
having his credibility judged.
But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
Bill C

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this statement.-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the future,"
said the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was "
prone to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at
stop lights and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin
American-Statesman.

I think the threat of a viable action for defamation is what moved
Armstrong to settle. If you recall some of the pleadings and
correspondence that was released by Anderson's attorney, there was a
claim made that Anderson stole at least one lap top computer. Given
Armstrong's SOP of trashing any former associate who turns on him in any
critical way, I would expect more defamation actions like that threatened
by Anderson and brought by Simeoni. Sir Lance is learning that other
people have rights that can't simply be walked over by him. I imagine it's
going to be a difficult and somewhat expensive lesson for him. It's nice
that he can afford it. Who's next with a defamation action? Emma
O'Reilly?

Maybe Lance will pursue one against you.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

B. Lafferty said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
having his credibility judged.
But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
Bill C

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this statement.-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the future,"
said the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was " prone
to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at stop
lights and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin
American-Statesman.

I think the threat of a viable action for defamation is what moved Armstrong
to settle. If you recall some of the pleadings and correspondence that was
released by Anderson's attorney, there was a claim made that Anderson stole
at least one lap top computer. Given Armstrong's SOP of trashing any former
associate who turns on him in any critical way, I would expect more
defamation actions like that threatened by Anderson and brought by Simeoni.
Sir Lance is learning that other people have rights that can't simply be
walked over by him. I imagine it's going to be a difficult and somewhat
expensive lesson for him. It's nice that he can afford it. Who's next with
a defamation action? Emma O'Reilly?

Brian I'm not sure how you can still support someone who has lost
every single court trial to this point. Unfortunately in our system
it's a lot cheaper to settle than be proven inocent a lot of times, and
that's a huge part of corporate procedure.
You've invested huge amounts of faith and belief in Anderson from all
the postings here, but there hasn't been a single court to find him
credible so I can see why you're trying to spin this.
Bill C

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 21:57:32 +0100, "trg" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
having his credibility judged.
But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
Bill C

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this statement.-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the future," said
the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was " prone
to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at stop lights
and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin American-Statesman.

That's only part of the story. Anderson claimed that it was part of his job
duties to follow up and pay off or mollify them, lol.

-jet

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

B. Lafferty said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
having his credibility judged.
But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
Bill C

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this statement.-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the future,"
said the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was "
prone
to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at stop
lights and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin
American-Statesman.

I think the threat of a viable action for defamation is what moved
Armstrong
to settle. If you recall some of the pleadings and correspondence that
was
released by Anderson's attorney, there was a claim made that Anderson
stole
at least one lap top computer. Given Armstrong's SOP of trashing any
former
associate who turns on him in any critical way, I would expect more
defamation actions like that threatened by Anderson and brought by
Simeoni.
Sir Lance is learning that other people have rights that can't simply be
walked over by him. I imagine it's going to be a difficult and somewhat
expensive lesson for him. It's nice that he can afford it. Who's next
with
a defamation action? Emma O'Reilly?

Brian I'm not sure how you can still support someone who has lost
every single court trial to this point. Unfortunately in our system
it's a lot cheaper to settle than be proven inocent a lot of times, and
that's a huge part of corporate procedure.

You've invested huge amounts of faith and belief in Anderson from all
the postings here, but there hasn't been a single court to find him
credible so I can see why you're trying to spin this.

Again, how much is the truth is for everyone to decise on their own. Too

BL replies:
It isn't about my personal opinion as to Anderson's story. The court
dismissed his contract case and that was clearly a weak one. What is quite
clear is that Armstrong essentially called Anderson a thief. If he can't
prove that is a true statement and Anderson can show that he has been
actually damaged in his trade or profession, then Armstrong has a problem
legally. What I do find interesting is Armstrong trashing people who dare
to tell a critical story, especially if it involves drugs. We still await
the Simeoni defamation decision in Italy. Recall if you will, that
Armstrong also trashed Emma O'Reilly making it seem as though she was fired
for cause when, as the heart and soul of Postal, she apparently was not.

It's really funny to consider Armstrong's deciding to settle in light of
multiple stories from people saying that he threatened to sue them claiming
that he had the time and money to do so. IMO, he's a bully who's in the
process of learning an important life lesson. The next couple of months
should be interesting with the Times defamation action going to trial and
the insurance case going forward.

BTW, please use Google in a manner that sets your comments off in some way.

B. Lafferty said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

B. Lafferty said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242..shtml
> Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
> Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
> that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
> this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
> how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
> If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
> him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
> wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
> having his credibility judged.
> But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
> because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
> Bill C
>

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this statement..-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the future,"
said the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was "
prone
to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at stop
lights and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin
American-Statesman.

I think the threat of a viable action for defamation is what moved
Armstrong
to settle. If you recall some of the pleadings and correspondence that
was
released by Anderson's attorney, there was a claim made that Anderson
stole
at least one lap top computer. Given Armstrong's SOP of trashing any
former
associate who turns on him in any critical way, I would expect more
defamation actions like that threatened by Anderson and brought by
Simeoni.
Sir Lance is learning that other people have rights that can't simply be
walked over by him. I imagine it's going to be a difficult and somewhat
expensive lesson for him. It's nice that he can afford it. Who's next
with
a defamation action? Emma O'Reilly?

Brian I'm not sure how you can still support someone who has lost
every single court trial to this point. Unfortunately in our system
it's a lot cheaper to settle than be proven inocent a lot of times, and
that's a huge part of corporate procedure.

You've invested huge amounts of faith and belief in Anderson from all
the postings here, but there hasn't been a single court to find him
credible so I can see why you're trying to spin this.

Again, how much is the truth is for everyone to decise on their own. Too

BL replies:
It isn't about my personal opinion as to Anderson's story. The court
dismissed his contract case and that was clearly a weak one. What is quite
clear is that Armstrong essentially called Anderson a thief. If he can't
prove that is a true statement and Anderson can show that he has been
actually damaged in his trade or profession, then Armstrong has a problem
legally. What I do find interesting is Armstrong trashing people who dare
to tell a critical story, especially if it involves drugs. We still await
the Simeoni defamation decision in Italy. Recall if you will, that
Armstrong also trashed Emma O'Reilly making it seem as though she was fired
for cause when, as the heart and soul of Postal, she apparently was not.

It's really funny to consider Armstrong's deciding to settle in light of
multiple stories from people saying that he threatened to sue them claiming
that he had the time and money to do so. IMO, he's a bully who's in the
process of learning an important life lesson. The next couple of months
should be interesting with the Times defamation action going to trial and
the insurance case going forward.

BTW, please use Google in a manner that sets your comments off in some way.

Sorry I haven't gotten things worked out as to how to handle the new
ISP functions.

Where has a court found against Lance? All if what you are trotting
out is inuendo that has not been supported by a single court decision.
What you seem to be saying is that anyone who is accused should just
keep pumping money into the legal fight no matter how many times the
accuser has lost. Lance would be an idiot to continue to cough up cash
to fight someone who has been totally discredited.
I'm not betting that Lance is clean, but I'm not going to convict him
on the evidence of someone who's been totally discredited. Or are
saying that the courts are totally biased for Lance too?
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

B. Lafferty said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

B. Lafferty said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
> Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
> Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
> that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
> this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
> how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
> If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
> him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
> wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
> having his credibility judged.
> But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
> because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
> Bill C
>

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this
statement.-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the
future,"
said the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was "
prone
to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at stop
lights and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin
American-Statesman.

I think the threat of a viable action for defamation is what moved
Armstrong
to settle. If you recall some of the pleadings and correspondence that
was
released by Anderson's attorney, there was a claim made that Anderson
stole
at least one lap top computer. Given Armstrong's SOP of trashing any
former
associate who turns on him in any critical way, I would expect more
defamation actions like that threatened by Anderson and brought by
Simeoni.
Sir Lance is learning that other people have rights that can't simply be
walked over by him. I imagine it's going to be a difficult and somewhat
expensive lesson for him. It's nice that he can afford it. Who's next
with
a defamation action? Emma O'Reilly?

Brian I'm not sure how you can still support someone who has lost
every single court trial to this point. Unfortunately in our system
it's a lot cheaper to settle than be proven inocent a lot of times, and
that's a huge part of corporate procedure.

You've invested huge amounts of faith and belief in Anderson from all
the postings here, but there hasn't been a single court to find him
credible so I can see why you're trying to spin this.

Again, how much is the truth is for everyone to decise on their own. Too

BL replies:
It isn't about my personal opinion as to Anderson's story. The court
dismissed his contract case and that was clearly a weak one. What is
quite
clear is that Armstrong essentially called Anderson a thief. If he can't
prove that is a true statement and Anderson can show that he has been
actually damaged in his trade or profession, then Armstrong has a problem
legally. What I do find interesting is Armstrong trashing people who dare
to tell a critical story, especially if it involves drugs. We still await
the Simeoni defamation decision in Italy. Recall if you will, that
Armstrong also trashed Emma O'Reilly making it seem as though she was
fired
for cause when, as the heart and soul of Postal, she apparently was not.

It's really funny to consider Armstrong's deciding to settle in light of
multiple stories from people saying that he threatened to sue them
claiming
that he had the time and money to do so. IMO, he's a bully who's in the
process of learning an important life lesson. The next couple of months
should be interesting with the Times defamation action going to trial and
the insurance case going forward.

BTW, please use Google in a manner that sets your comments off in some
way.

Sorry I haven't gotten things worked out as to how to handle the new
ISP functions.

Where has a court found against Lance? All if what you are trotting
out is inuendo that has not been supported by a single court decision.
What you seem to be saying is that anyone who is accused should just
keep pumping money into the legal fight no matter how many times the
accuser has lost. Lance would be an idiot to continue to cough up cash
to fight someone who has been totally discredited.

BL
I'm not talking about innuendo. Armstrong's comments have be made in
public. His words are for him to deal with. I may be a good financial
decision to settle with Anderson but it will send a message that if he
shoots his mouth off he pay when sued.

I'm not betting that Lance is clean, but I'm not going to convict him
on the evidence of someone who's been totally discredited. Or are
saying that the courts are totally biased for Lance too?

BL
This isn't about being clean or not. It's about words that are alleged to
be defamitory.

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
> http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
> Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
> Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
> that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
> this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
> how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
> If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
> him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
> wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
> having his credibility judged.
> But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
> because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
> Bill C
>

I'm more likely to believe that Lance never doped than this statement.-
"Lance and Mike have wished each other the best of luck in the future,"
said the release.

Is it just me, or does this make Lance look good -
Anderson also claimed that during training sessions, Armstrong was "
prone to making obscene gestures at motorists and to catching them at
stop lights and stop signs and cussing at them," reported the Austin
American-Statesman.

I think the threat of a viable action for defamation is what moved
Armstrong to settle. If you recall some of the pleadings and
correspondence that was released by Anderson's attorney, there was a
claim made that Anderson stole at least one lap top computer. Given
Armstrong's SOP of trashing any former associate who turns on him in any
critical way, I would expect more defamation actions like that threatened
by Anderson and brought by Simeoni. Sir Lance is learning that other
people have rights that can't simply be walked over by him. I imagine
it's going to be a difficult and somewhat expensive lesson for him. It's
nice that he can afford it. Who's next with a defamation action? Emma
O'Reilly?

Maybe Lance will pursue one against you.

I'd love to take the boy's deposition.

Bill, when you're a millionaire why would you sweat the small [censored]? Lance
paid off probably a pitance that Anderson finally saw was more than he could
expect from the courts. I'd bet that it was less than Lance would have had
to pay in lawyers fees.

As for Anderson - I'm sorry it came to that but you have to think about
this - he must have been a pretty good guy to do all that stuff for Lance
for so long. He and Lance just got angy at each other and like most angry
people did and said a bunch of stupid [censored]. Steroid precursers my ass! More
like Cheryl's pills to make her smell more feminine.

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/sport_lng0_spo18_sto786242.shtml
Looks like "honesty" Anderson has finally gotten a few bucks out of
Lance even though he's lost at every stage of the game. Seems to me
that Lance settled with this little parasitic tick just to get rid of
this hassle without spending massive amounts on lawyers. I can't see
how Anderson even got close to enough to pay his lawyers.
If he actually had anything worth taking Lance should've gone after
him in countersuits for all the [censored] he tried to get to stick to a
wall. Another "reliable" Lance detractor kicked into the gutter after
having his credibility judged.
But I guess Lance payed off all the judges to cover up his guilt,
because we all know he's guilty as hell right?
Bill C

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:40:40 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What point is that? If your attorney friends had you on retainer, they'd
talk to you all day about any legal matter you like. And here at rbr, it's
all free.

And as always, you choose to miss the real point, which is that a real
attorney with a real practice to protect is a lot more circumspect
about the positions they take, even in private and with people they
know will not repeat what is said. The clear difference between you
and them is that they are extremely clear about qualifying their
comments. Your 'qualifications' are finally arrived at after you are
pushed about three or four replies down the thread - and are often
still unclear or non-existent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't make
them make statements that you make on a regular basis here. Hard to
believe you are in the same profession. And yeah, they are real and
published on a regular basis, either partners in DC law firms or
judges, things like that, so it isn't like they don't know what they
are doing.

Yawn.

Something you appear to have plenty of time to do, more so than almost
anyone working on rbr. Retired? Have to admit, you seem to have a
clear advantage over us posting in the morning and again at lunch -
either a locked office or no work.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:40:40 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What point is that? If your attorney friends had you on retainer, they'd
talk to you all day about any legal matter you like. And here at rbr,
it's
all free.

And as always, you choose to miss the real point, which is that a real
attorney with a real practice to protect is a lot more circumspect
about the positions they take, even in private and with people they
know will not repeat what is said. The clear difference between you
and them is that they are extremely clear about qualifying their
comments. Your 'qualifications' are finally arrived at after you are
pushed about three or four replies down the thread - and are often
still unclear or non-existent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't make
them make statements that you make on a regular basis here. Hard to
believe you are in the same profession. And yeah, they are real and
published on a regular basis, either partners in DC law firms or
judges, things like that, so it isn't like they don't know what they
are doing.

You haven't shown in any way that my ruminations are incorrect. But feel
free to run them by your lawyer friends for a written opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yawn.

Something you appear to have plenty of time to do, more so than almost
anyone working on rbr. Retired? Have to admit, you seem to have a
clear advantage over us posting in the morning and again at lunch -
either a locked office or no work.

Wouldn't you just love to know?

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 17:29:07 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't you just love to know?

Not really. Its enough that I've worked through to my own satisfaction
that you are irrelevant. What's it that you say? Yawn.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 17:29:07 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't you just love to know?

Not really.

Then why did you ask?

Quoted message said:

Its enough that I've worked through to my own satisfaction
that you are irrelevant. What's it that you say? Yawn.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Tom Kunich said:

As for Anderson - I'm sorry it came to that but you have to think about
this - he must have been a pretty good guy to do all that stuff for Lance
for so long.

dumbass,

he was getting $3000/month and was hoping to get a bike shop out of it.
it's not like he was just being nice.

amit said:

Tom Kunich said:

As for Anderson - I'm sorry it came to that but you have to think about
this - he must have been a pretty good guy to do all that stuff for Lance
for so long.

dumbass,

he was getting $3000/month and was hoping to get a bike shop out of it.
it's not like he was just being nice.

As we know on RBR, the fastest way to get your own bike shop is to get
caught blood doping...

I think that Anderson thought that he had an understanding with Lance
and that Lance didn't think that he'd ever committed to such an
understanding. Anderson was well paid for his work but somehow thought
it worth more. Anyone here ever hear of union negotiations?

As I said, this was a case of two hard heads butting. The law is clear
though and Lance had priority.