*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Yo Ho wrote:
Chuck,
What was your purpose of publishing a 2 yr old ad?


Careful YO HO, you'll blow hell out of JimH's daily story. You rather
obviously saw the ad when the last time JimH had logged on was in 2003.
When pressed yesterday, you backed off your claim that the ad you saw
had JimH's home phone number and you never mentioned his home address.
The latest
version of the truth from Ohio is that the "ad had my home address and
phone number when Gould put up the link, but I went in and edited them
off".
JimH has logged on again since you saw the ad from 2003, and his claim
is now that he edited or erased his home address and phone number from
the ad. I'm going to be fascinated to learn how his name and home
address ever appeared (as he falsely claims) on a standardized form
with *no* category for either item.




Not possible? Go check again because I "totally" edited it.

Here is the original link that you posted....you know the one that had my
name, address and phone number in it.

http://www.mopedarmy.com/resources/mod/boatnut/

I await your apology for stalking me and then posting personal information
about me here, including my address and phone number.


But you have screwed yourself, JimH. Don't you realize that? The link
now goes to the ad as you claim to have changed it on June 29. How does
that establish your lie that the ad from 2003 contained your address
and phone number in the comments section. You, I, and everybody else
who saw that ad from 2003 know that it did not.

You had two possibilities to make your case: 1) If your home address
and phone number were really in the initial ad and had *already* been
revealed, as you falsely claim, you would have had nothing to lose by
leaving the ad alone and saying "Look in the comments section,
dip****". You did not.

2) You could have outed your own home address and phone number when you
logged onto the ad yesterday by adding them to the comments section and
then you could have falsely claimed they had been there all along. Too
late! You did not. Good grief, not only are you not subtle, but not the
least bit clever, either.

You have blown the only two chances that I could see where you would
have been able to make your case. All your fellow travelers who logged
onto that ad
yesterday, (such as Smithers who acknowledges that he saw the 2003
version), would have been on my butt like a case of acne each time I
pointed out that the ad never contained your home address and phone
number if it had been in the "comments" section.

I suppose you *have* taken the only (very weak) course of action open
to you when confronted with the truth. Change the ad as it existed, and
then hope to
turn this into a "did-so/ did-not" discussion after the actual evidence
was destroyed. Wow. This whole episode is so very revealing.

I will not apologize for doing something that I did not do.

Will you apologize for piling lie, upon lie, upon lie, upon lie?