Doan wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 17 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 17 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote:

Kane wrote
Go ahead, asshole. Ask her which she prefers.

Always glad to cheer you up Kane!

Sounded like Kane wanted a "civil" discussion? ;-)

Doan

Can I then presume that you approve of both pieces of
advice he gave
women that were involved as clients with CPS?

Then you must be REALLY STUPID!

I'm not in your league.

You are really STUPID! ;-)

It's stupid to presume that yelling makes it so.

It's so because it is so. Nothing you can do about the fact that you are
STUPID! ;-)

Did I say anything about advices????

It would be stupid of me to say that. It is stupid of you not to
recognize that I had questioned his advice, and asked your opinion,
considering you tried to run interference for him 0:-].

You said you wanted "civil" discussion, did you not?

With Greg? Are you irony impaired as well as being a liar?

So you don't want a "civil" discussion, liar?

All I did was commented on your idea of a "civil" discussion!

Yes. That's obvious. And it's obvious no one asked your opinion
so you
obviously were trying to divert from the question of him that I
posed.

Hence, I presume you wish to ignore the question and attack me
about my
prior questions and the challenge:

So do you want a "civil" discussion? ;-)

Not if you don't. So far I've not seen that from you.

Remember, I am a mirror. ;-)


"Go ahead, asshole. Ask her which she prefers."

Doan

Now I'll ask you again, given that you intruded yourself into
another's
thread. Do you support Greg in the legal advice he gave, or are you
going to try and dodge again?

That is between you and him. Don't cross-post to a.p.s! ;-)

Nonsense. I'll cross post where I wish.

That is why you are STUPID!

Do you then think that aps is YOUR newsgroup?

Do you think this thread is your thread, STUPID?

You aren't required to respond to any post. If you chose to, expect to
included from then on.

Hahaha!

Doan

You'll notice he dodged a very serious accusation. I say he
gave bad
legal advice. Do you wish to involve yourself at this point?

Notice you passed on this?

So why must I answer your question?

I didn't say you must. I asked if you wished to involve yourself at this
point.

I said I don't wish to, STUPID!

No you did not say that. Why would you lie about something so simple as
this? Is it something you can’t help doing?

In this thread, as fully attributed in this post, no one but myself used
the term, “wish.”

And you did not say what you just claimed you said.

In fact, when you ask the question “why must I answer your question?”
you are ignoring my comment, very clearly made:

“You aren't required to respond to any post. If you chose to, expect to
included from then on.”[sic] (should have been “expect to BE included,"
But you understood well enough chuckle).

Your simple conversation is a string of these, and always has been,
strange wanderings, Doan, were you imagine what the other has said and
base your responses on your imaginings instead of the facts in the
other’s comment.

I hope you get some help with this soon. Either reading comprehension or
emotional constipation. There's help for both I've heard.

So, then Doan, who’s stupid?

And as I now have the answer to, “ My bet is you are too cowardly to
give an opinion,” thanks for your response.

0;-]



Doan

So, do you support his legal advice?

I say they risked the person given the advice losing their children and
possibly ending up in prison had they taken his advice.

What do you say?

My bet is you are too cowardly to give an opinion.

Kane



Kane