"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:39:02 -0400, "JimH" wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Nope, it was a statement of fact. He is a tax cheat.

Nope. He did owe taxes, but in fact, it was a long battle with the
IRS which was settled out of court. He never cheated on his taxes -
he had a disagreement on what was owed.

He is a drug addict.

No, he is not. He is the same as you. You partake, he partakes.
Both just use different substances.

I made no judgement on the man or his behavior.

Yes you did.

You are barking up the wrong tree. ;-)

No I'm not.

Later,

Tom


Did you ever admit when you were wrong Tom? If not, this is a good time to
start. ;-)

Jim

On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:23:46 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...



"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
JimH wrote:


Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that he is a tax cheat and

drug

addict.


He's paid for his tax problems. So that is a non-issue.
Please show what evidence you have the Willy is a "drug addict".
Surely
you aren't confusing his free and open stance on legalization of pot
as
an addiction, are you?



Hmmm. George W. Bush cheated the taxpayers with some of his business
deals in Texas and, of course, he's a drug addict, too. But Hertv still
kisses Bush's butt.



What does my statement about Willie Nelson have to do with GWB asshole?
But since we are on the subject of cheating please tell us how your
company Ullico cheated it's customers (unions) out of millions of dollars.

Here is the story in case you forgot it:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/au...ulli-a29.shtml

http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2003/01/c.html

I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about this
"issue" unless they approve of what he is saying.

Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the little
man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got caught.

Harry wount' chime in on this issue.


No, but he'll make a big deal of two soldiers who screw up, acting as though the
entire military is corrupt. Of course, if someone calls him on it he is quick to
say how much 'respect' he has for them. Thank God for filters and that fact that
he is seldom quoted. Either he is posting much less or he is being answered very
seldom.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about
this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying.

Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the
little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got
caught.

Harry wount' chime in on this issue.


Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits
here is true.

So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of
directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the backs
of the working man?

It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your
patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers.

Bert,
Harry has delivered the ultimate threat. Clean up your act or he will
ignore you. I am sure you are running for the hills in fear.


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:


I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about
this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying.

Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the
little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got
caught.

Harry wount' chime in on this issue.



Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits
here is true.


So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of
directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the
backs of the working man?

It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your
patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers.


As I stated, none of your posits is true.

You said:

I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have.

You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this
issue. I haven't.

No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to do
with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know, no
one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men or
women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those who
bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done so,
and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far as I
know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a civil
matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too.

End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go
for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits.

So, Bert, when are you going to stop posting as our anonymous intruder
here?

You're on the edge of the infamous bozo bin, Bert. As I stated last week,
I only keep you out of it because there is a requirement tbat I keep at
least one asshole out of it. You are the designee. But that can change.

Go play with one of your low-brain output buddies here, like Hertvik or
Fritz. They're more your style and speed.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:


I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about
this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying.

Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the
little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got
caught.

Harry wount' chime in on this issue.



Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits
here is true.


So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of
directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the
backs of the working man?

It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your
patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers.


As I stated, none of your posits is true.

You said:

I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have.

You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this
issue. I haven't.

But, you have been sat down and told what you can say, what you cannot say
and what questions to avoid altogether.

No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to do
with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know, no
one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men or
women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those who
bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done so,
and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far as I
know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a civil
matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too.

That's because they got caught and had to disgourge their ill gotten gains.

End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go
for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits.

No, the stain of this affair will forever haunt Ullico and taint its image.

So, Bert, when are you going to stop posting as our anonymous intruder
here?

Annoymous intruder? You refer to me by name and then say I am an anonymous
intruder.

You're on the edge of the infamous bozo bin, Bert. As I stated last week,
I only keep you out of it because there is a requirement tbat I keep at
least one asshole out of it. You are the designee. But that can change.

Go ahead and put me in your infamous bozo bin. I would be the first person
you ever put in the "bozo" bin.

Go play with one of your low-brain output buddies here, like Hertvik or
Fritz. They're more your style and speed.

Pathetic, try again!

I am not now and never have been afraid of Harry.


"Dr. Dr. K.aren Smithers" Call180bucme@foragoodtime wrote in message
...
Bert,
Harry has delivered the ultimate threat. Clean up your act or he will
ignore you. I am sure you are running for the hills in fear.


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:


I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about
this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying.

Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the
little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got
caught.

Harry wount' chime in on this issue.



Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits
here is true.


So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of
directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the
backs of the working man?

It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and
your patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers.


As I stated, none of your posits is true.

You said:

I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have.

You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this
issue. I haven't.

No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to
do with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know,
no one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men
or women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those
who bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done
so, and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far
as I know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a
civil matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too.

End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go
for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits.

So, Bert, when are you going to stop posting as our anonymous intruder
here?

You're on the edge of the infamous bozo bin, Bert. As I stated last week,
I only keep you out of it because there is a requirement tbat I keep at
least one asshole out of it. You are the designee. But that can change.

Go play with one of your low-brain output buddies here, like Hertvik or
Fritz. They're more your style and speed.

On Wed, 4 May 2005 21:18:31 -0400, "Dr. Dr. K.aren Smithers"
Call180bucme@foragoodtime wrote:

Bert,
Harry has delivered the ultimate threat. Clean up your act or he will
ignore you. I am sure you are running for the hills in fear.


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:


I'll bet Ullico's legal counsel has instructed Harry not to talk about
this "issue" unless they approve of what he is saying.

Ullico management saw that they could get rich off the backs of the
little man, they were supposed to protect, and they did it and got
caught.

Harry wount' chime in on this issue.



Yeah, I will. As usual, you are full of crap. None of your three posits
here is true.


So, you are willing to talk about Ullico management and its board of
directors screwing over the clients by enriching their pockets on the
backs of the working man?

It doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it the facts are out and your
patron saint of the laborers was ****ing the laborers.


As I stated, none of your posits is true.

You said:

I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have.

You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this
issue. I haven't.

No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to do
with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know, no
one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men or
women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those who
bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done so,
and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far as I
know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a civil
matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too.

End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go
for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits.

So, Bert, when are you going to stop posting as our anonymous intruder
here?

You're on the edge of the infamous bozo bin, Bert. As I stated last week,
I only keep you out of it because there is a requirement tbat I keep at
least one asshole out of it. You are the designee. But that can change.

Go play with one of your low-brain output buddies here, like Hertvik or
Fritz. They're more your style and speed.

If you get filtered by Harry, you'll have a lot of his posts to answer. He seems
to respond mostly to those he's filtered, from what I see.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message

As I stated, none of your posits is true.

You said:

I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have.

You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this
issue. I haven't.


But, you have been sat down and told what you can say, what you cannot
say and what questions to avoid altogether.


Nope. Never.






No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to
do with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know,
no one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men
or women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those
who bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done
so, and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far
as I know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a
civil matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too.


That's because they got caught and had to disgourge their ill gotten
gains.


Yes, the new management team forced the issue, and the money was returned.
Too bad that doesn't happen at other US corporations, eh?




End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go
for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits.


No, the stain of this affair will forever haunt Ullico and taint its
image.

Naw. The company has recovered, and its primary investment vehicle is
doing better than ever. It is divesting itself of many of its insurance
offerings, though, but that is unrelated.

By the way, I stopped consulting at Ullico a year ago. I have no business
relationship whatsoever with that company. The investment company I
consult for now is much larger. Maintaining a relationship with both would
have been a conflict of interest.

You got thrown out with the dirty water. I guess you were stained.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Doesn't matter. The fact that you use/partake/imbibe a mood altering
substance at any time disqualifies you from making any moral judgement
of another.

Food is a mood altering substance.

On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:18:25 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Doesn't matter. The fact that you use/partake/imbibe a mood altering
substance at any time disqualifies you from making any moral judgement
of another.

Food is a mood altering substance.

Yes it is. However, the difference is that you need food to survive
and function.

Later,

Tom