"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
...

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote in message
...
"Gary L. Burnore" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:12:31 -0600, "Lady Pilot"
wrote:


"Gary L. Burnore" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 19:54:50 -0600, "Lady Pilot"
wrote:


"Gary L. Burnore" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:19:28 -0500, "The AUK WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT
CHAMPION, Emmett BADASS Gulley" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:02:59 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:57:18 -0600, "Lady Pilot"
wrote:


" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote in
message
...

Don't want to rub it in but didn't I warn you from the
git-go not to
trust
the Rube. . . The only reason he gave you a gratis account
was to
try
to
use you. When that eventuality went by the wayside he pulled
the
plug.

Gary is a user. As long as he can use people for something
or other
he
hangs around. As soon as he finds out he can't use somebody
he turns
on
them in a very vindictive manner. Snake in the grass type.


Yes, you were right...I should have listened to you sooner.


Admission you lost a COMP'd account noted. I'd not have been
able to
say if your account was free or not without you admitting it
but
you're right. you're bitching because you got something for
free for
years and then lost it when greg abused.

Feel free to ramble on, but you pretty much screwed the
poochwith
this one.

Neither one of them admitted anything you ****ing asshole.

Actually, e-mutt, they did. You'll not be able to understand
it, but
they did.

Nope, *they* did not.

So you didn't post "Yes, you were right". Got it. Someone's
forging
you or has access to your account again. You should learn how to
control that.

I said, "yes

Exactly. (And knew you weren't going to stop posting. You sit and
wait for me to post, don't ya).


Perhaps she sits waiting for you to stop lying and tell the truth
just once in your pathetic lifetime.

Here's a good example of which I type:


1) You claimed that you nuked Lady Pilot's account because she
allowed me to post using it and you said that was a clear violation
of the TOS. But, she counters that by posting a document that shows
her account still existed years past your claimed nuke date.

2) Then when you get slapped upside the head that it was seven or
eight years after I allegedly used her account that you nuked it
(conveniently during the Novins trial discovery process perhaps due
to your paranoid state of mind).

3) So then you change your story and say you nuked her account
because I was "trying'' to log on using her password. Which is a
clear admission that her account still existed seven or eight years
after you originally claimed to have nuked it.

So, tell me, Gary, how is it possible to nuke an already nuked
account?

Enquiring minds wish to know.

Excellent! You would have made a great attorney, my dear.

LP




Yes I would have, sweetheart. Did I tell you what the verdict in my
marine sanitation device trial is?

NOT GUILTY! Another victory for good ole Gregory. You should have seen
the FWC officer and the judge working their asses off trying to find me
guilty but they could not. The judge even called for a dictionary to
look up the word "preclusion" after I had already informed the court
that it meant "to prevent or make impossible". This after the state said
they had charged me with violating the wrong paragraph of the statute.
They had charged me with violating chapter (1) on the citation and
wanted to change it to chapter (2). The judge asked me if I wished to
have a continuance. Chapter (2) is for houseboats and the state was
trying to claim my vessel was a houseboat. \

I replied, "Your honor, I am prepared to defend against chapter (2.) I
don't think the state expected that at all. Anyway I proved to the
satisfaction of the court that chapter (2) did not apply to my vessel so
they fell back on chapter(1) anyhow. Then I proved to the courts
satisfaction that my vessel was in full compliance which chapter (1).
So, I set some excellent precedence for other boaters who've been
similarly harassed by ignorant or overzealous officers.

The judge told the state, "I don't like it any more than you do, officer
________, but I'm going to rule not guilty because the way I read it
he's complied with the law."

--
Gregory Hall