Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

That's Not True » Lou Pilder

Posted by Susan J on August 22, 2003, at 15:24:40

In reply to Lou's response to jlo 820's post » jlo820, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 15:08:07

>>On the contrary. Susan J is representing herself as an attorny and it is my understanding that an attorney would have facts to base a conclusion on and she said that she made a conclusion that she did not tghink that anyone was making defaming statements to me.

<<That's correct, Lou. I do not think anyone has written anything about you that has injured your reputation.


>> That cou;d mean that her being an attorney that she could have reserched the site thgrough the serch function to see for herslf and I made a request to her asking if she did. She wrote back that she did not.

<<That is incorrect, Lou. I never responded to that specific request. I, in fact, have read this site extensively. Additionally, it's very easy to search by poster's name so it's very easy to trace threads that you have posted to.


>>for if an attorny is going to say something, they useually are not going to say something that they do not have some foundation to rest on

<<In all honesty, I find that to be a hurtful comment. I think I can reasonably infer that you are criticizing my legal skills. I must clarify that I am not legally acting as an attorney on these boards. I merely stated my profession so that people would have a reasonable idea of how and why I'm drawing certain conclusions. Just like Larry the chemist. I always find his posts on the medication board to be very interesting and on point.

My comments were based on these recent threads about defamation, requests for determination, civility, and outright insults. I researched these threads very carefully, and put a lot of CARE AND THOUGHT into my posts so that I would not offend you or anyone else.


>>and if it was true that she did do such an examination, then that would be something that would be extreamly relevant to that discussion.

<<I've read back to about March 2003, and I've read a statistically-relevant portion of posts from 2001 and 2002. You can take that as you will.

I can take constructive criticism as well as the next guy, but please don't post untrue things about me.

Susan


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Susan J thread:253019
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/253170.html