On Jun 20, 4:17?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd



Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure

......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

I am not ruling for the court. I never said anyone was guilty of
anything, but the law is clear on receiving funds that do not belong
to you, it is against the law no matter what the receiving party
believe's. Common sense does come in to play. I have no comment on
whether the DA is bargining the case. However, I do know that the
case originally was a misdemeanor, but was changed to a Felony H, I
find it hard to believe that they would bargin back down.

Dloyd

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:56:36 -0700, Dloyd Lavies
wrote:

On Jun 20, 4:17?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd



Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure

......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

I am not ruling for the court.

sure you are
I never said anyone was guilty of
anything,


sure you did

but the law is clear on receiving funds that do not belong
to you,........

ana another ruling you have ruled a person may not lawfully recieve
money from strangers


....... it is against the law no matter what the receiving party
believe's.

you are claiming in this particular case that it is crime for the
recieving to who had made interapeals for fincail aid in crisis to
assume that the money that arived in her mailbox was not upposed to be
there

Common sense does come in to play.

common sense and th e aw rarely meet anymore Dloyd if you had REAL
knowledge youd know that

I have no comment on
whether the DA is bargining the case. However, I do know that the
case originally was a misdemeanor, but was changed to a Felony H, I
find it hard to believe that they would bargin back down.

again you porve you have little knowledge fo real LE Dloyd



I have indulged you I don't supose you would Indulge ME by answering
why you seem to have Delusion I want to be "normal" ? that has NEVER
(except for a monets of weakness) been an ambition of mine.

Aspire to far more than that, and I have to guts to go for it

If I end up looking like Don Quoxte (soory that may be mispelled)from
tiem to time that is the price of aspiring to greatess

when I die dloyd it will be after having lived my life in something
otrher than an endless fear of dying, that at leats will give
something in comon with great Men. Like Ceaser Alexander Napeolen
Hitler, Satlin Moes and the young rabbi from Judea

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jun 20, 8:01?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:56:36 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 20, 4:17?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd

Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure

......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

I am not ruling for the court.

sure you are

Where?

I never said anyone was guilty of
anything,

sure you did

Where?

but the law is clear on receiving funds that do not belong
to you,........

ana another ruling you have ruled a person may not lawfully recieve
money from strangers

I have not ruled, but the law states that it is illegal to receive
funds from an illegal enterprise, i.e. fraud.

....... it is against the law no matter what the receiving party
believe's.

you are claiming in this particular case that it is crime for the
recieving to who had made interapeals for fincail aid in crisis to
assume that the money that arived in her mailbox was not upposed to be
there

No, I claimed that in this particular case (based upon the information
posted by indivduals who were defrauded, that the individual in
question offered for sale amateur gear, and once payment was made, the
gear was never mailed. Your the one that came up with the bogus ad
defense.

Common sense does come in to play.

common sense and th e aw rarely meet anymore Dloyd if you had REAL
knowledge youd know that

I actually have something you don't have, which is real knowledge of
the Law. FYI I have worked directly with the United States District
Court system for well over 25 years, which means that I know a hell of
a lot more than you about the Law.

I have no comment on
whether the DA is bargining the case. However, I do know that the
case originally was a misdemeanor, but was changed to a Felony H, I
find it hard to believe that they would bargin back down.

again you porve you have little knowledge fo real LE Dloyd

No, you prove that you don't know squat because DA's aren't LE, Mark.
DA's work with LE to adjudicate the law and Judge's aren't LE either,
Judges are the finder of fact.


I have indulged you I don't supose you would Indulge ME by answering
why you seem to have Delusion I want to be "normal" ? that has NEVER
(except for a monets of weakness) been an ambition of mine.

I have no delusions and never said that I thought you wanted to be
normal. Stop making **** upt again. At least me and you can agree on
one thing, that you are not normal, and by your own rationale your are
not sane either.

Aspire to far more than that, and I have to guts to go for it

Go for what? I think you daydream too much.

If I end up looking like Don Quoxte (soory that may be mispelled)from
tiem to time that is the price of aspiring to greatess
when I die dloyd it will be after having lived my life in something
otrher than an endless fear of dying, that at leats will give
something in comon with great Men. Like Ceaser Alexander Napeolen
Hitler, Satlin Moes and the young rabbi from Judea

I don't know anyone who lives in endless fear of dying. How crazy is
that, I think you've read too many bedtime stories and other
extrapolations from the truth. Half of the men you mentioned were
nothing more than deranged tyrants or cowards, and in the end, these
people didn't stand in the face greatness on their deeds, but instead
coward down like the sniviling scumbags they were, and died cowardly
meager deaths.

If your looking for greatness, you better get started, because most of
the individuals you mentioned were well on the paths to their destiny
of "greatness" before age 40.

Dloyd

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com

"one useless Mark forging ahead"

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:36:27 -0700, Dloyd Lavies
wrote:

On Jun 20, 8:01?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:56:36 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 20, 4:17?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd

Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure

......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

I am not ruling for the court.

sure you are

Where?

I never said anyone was guilty of
anything,

sure you did

Where?

but the law is clear on receiving funds that do not belong
to you,........

ana another ruling you have ruled a person may not lawfully recieve
money from strangers

I have not ruled, but the law states that it is illegal to receive
funds from an illegal enterprise, i.e. fraud.

no Dlyd the law say you may not knowingly do so to comit a crime one
must always have criminal intent

....... it is against the law no matter what the receiving party
believe's.

you are claiming in this particular case that it is crime for the
recieving to who had made interapeals for fincail aid in crisis to
assume that the money that arived in her mailbox was not upposed to be
there

No, I claimed that in this particular case (based upon the information
posted by indivduals who were defrauded, that the individual in
question offered for sale amateur gear, and once payment was made, the
gear was never mailed.

Indeed you claim the original ad was made by the accused, she says
and has evdence to support hhe claim that she MADE no such ad

sh has proven this sort effort to smear her in other matters

Your the one that came up with the bogus ad
defense.

no dloyd you are not reading

Common sense does come in to play.

common sense and th e aw rarely meet anymore Dloyd if you had REAL
knowledge youd know that

I actually have something you don't have, which is real knowledge of
the Law. FYI I have worked directly with the United States District
Court system for well over 25 years, which means that I know a hell of
a lot more than you about the Law.

right Dloyd that is why you think it is ok to enage in thief and and
fraud yourself

give us a break first you are a cumputer sevices now the courts


I have no comment on
whether the DA is bargining the case. However, I do know that the
case originally was a misdemeanor, but was changed to a Felony H, I
find it hard to believe that they would bargin back down.

again you porve you have little knowledge fo real LE Dloyd

No, you prove that you don't know squat because DA's aren't LE, Mark.

sure they are Dloyd you are geting just plain demtend now

DA's work with LE to adjudicate the law and Judge's aren't LE either,
Judges are the finder of fact.

Cop DA's Judges can all be rightly termed LE, even defense attorneys
for tha matter but you are ibessed with some narow vison Dloyd sad
realy



I have indulged you I don't supose you would Indulge ME by answering
why you seem to have Delusion I want to be "normal" ? that has NEVER
(except for a monets of weakness) been an ambition of mine.

I have no delusions and never said that I thought you wanted to be
normal.

you have plenty of delsuion Man

Stop making **** upt again. At least me and you can agree on
one thing, that you are not normal, and by your own rationale your are
not sane either.

lying again Dloyd not Normal does not mean not sane Dloyd

Aspire to far more than that, and I have to guts to go for it

Go for what? I think you daydream too much.

read

If I end up looking like Don Quoxte (soory that may be mispelled)from
tiem to time that is the price of aspiring to greatess
when I die dloyd it will be after having lived my life in something
otrher than an endless fear of dying, that at leats will give
something in comon with great Men. Like Ceaser Alexander Napeolen
Hitler, Satlin Moes and the young rabbi from Judea

I don't know anyone who lives in endless fear of dying.

you do
woger certainly does

it s a turn of phrase but you are to stupid for that
How crazy is
that,
acording to hinks it is more or less normal

Half of the men you mentioned were
nothing more than deranged tyrants or
all achived grea thing terible thing yes but great


If your looking for greatness, you better get started, because most of
the individuals you mentioned were well on the paths to their destiny
of "greatness" before age 40.

I am well on the way indeed I have achived a certain measure of
greatness which you valiadte everytime you post about me



"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jun 21, 1:02?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:36:27 -0700, Dloyd Lavies





wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:01?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:56:36 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 20, 4:17?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:14?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:45:52 -0700, Dloyd Lavies

wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:37?pm, wrote:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/2007/06/m...tion-with.html

that is hteh gist of Dloyd is asserting that if someone places say an
ads in my name (or caitlyn in this case) that the perosns whoose name
is being falsely used is somehow respoble the criminal action of a
party or indeed parties unkown

Indeed If as has been threatened ads wil l palced in my name or
sactions with a check arriving in my mail box the money legaly is MINE
the sender has been vitumized but not by me

the sdame thing applies to Caitlyn the victum of being accused of
being transgendered (i do not know or care wether is the case)

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

"bruning through Dloyds jamming why do you claim recieveing a check in
the maile is a crime asshole?"

I never said receiving it was a crime.

you certainly did imply that and you go on to state in this post

What's wrong Mark, can't you
read English. Nevertheless, it is a crime to keep the check and cash
it, retard.

nope, or more accurately it is not a crime for the reciever to keep
and cash it it is crime but the criminal is the one that placed the
flase ad or uction not the one set up to receive the proceeds, unless
it can be proven the receiver KNOWS the chceck ill gotten

IYO, is it a crime or not?, fyou say "nope, or more accurately it is
not a crime for the reciever to keep and cash it it is crime. First
you say "nope" then you say it is a crime. Make up your twisted mind.

all is coorect in Contest Dloyd

Nevetheless, most normal people know if they start receiving checks
from people they don't know for no reason, something is awry......

awry sure

......., and know
better then to cash the check, and that is the way the law views it as
after the fact, and apparantly LE and the prosecuters in Wisconsin see

no it is not apeerant that they see it that if they did they would nt
be engaged in serious pleabargaining of 5 felony counts to one
misdomeneaor

it that way. So we will see what the court decides,

no you are not wating for that court you are ruling FOR court (which
is a bad aidea if you ever get in front of a judge BTW they tend not
to like that

I am not ruling for the court.

sure you are

Where?

I never said anyone was guilty of
anything,

sure you did

Where?

but the law is clear on receiving funds that do not belong
to you,........

ana another ruling you have ruled a person may not lawfully recieve
money from strangers

I have not ruled, but the law states that it is illegal to receive
funds from an illegal enterprise, i.e. fraud.

no Dlyd the law say you may not knowingly do so to comit a crime one
must always have criminal intent

That is not true. Many have been charged with crimes out of neglect,
such as negligent homicide, without any criminal intent to commit a
crime.


....... it is against the law no matter what the receiving party
believe's.

you are claiming in this particular case that it is crime for the
recieving to who had made interapeals for fincail aid in crisis to
assume that the money that arived in her mailbox was not upposed to be
there

No, I claimed that in this particular case (based upon the information
posted by indivduals who were defrauded, that the individual in
question offered for sale amateur gear, and once payment was made, the
gear was never mailed.

Indeed you claim the original ad was made by the accused, she says
and has evdence to support hhe claim that she MADE no such ad

No, I claimed that is what the people who were defrauded claimed. I
don't care what he/she says. However, if he/she has proof then why
hasn't the case been dropped If there is evidence which proves the
defendant is innocent. This case has been going on for almost six
months, what is he/she waiting for if he/she can prove they are
innocent.

sh has proven this sort effort to smear her in other matters

Your the one that came up with the bogus ad
defense.

no dloyd you are not reading

Yes I am reading, you are the one who introduced a claim of bogus ad,
never heard of such until YOU mentioned a claim of bogus ads.


Common sense does come in to play.

common sense and th e aw rarely meet anymore Dloyd if you had REAL
knowledge youd know that

I actually have something you don't have, which is real knowledge of
the Law. FYI I have worked directly with the United States District
Court system for well over 25 years, which means that I know a hell of
a lot more than you about the Law.

right Dloyd that is why you think it is ok to enage in thief and and
fraud yourself

Still waiting for your to prove your claims of theif and fraud. I
don't have anything that belonged to you or defrauded you of anything
of value.

give us a break first you are a cumputer sevices now the courts

What break, I told you once before I have multiple business ventures.
Unlike you, I don't limit myself to just one occupation and unlike you
I don't view dyslexia as a disability. I view it as something which
just drives me further to succeed. Where others see limitation, I see
oppourtunity.


I have no comment on
whether the DA is bargining the case. However, I do know that the
case originally was a misdemeanor, but was changed to a Felony H, I
find it hard to believe that they would bargin back down.

again you porve you have little knowledge fo real LE Dloyd

No, you prove that you don't know squat because DA's aren't LE, Mark.

sure they are Dloyd you are geting just plain demtend now


No, DA's aren't LE they are prosecutors. Look in any law dictionary,
such as Black's or google the term, LE is defined as Police.

DA's work with LE to adjudicate the law and Judge's aren't LE either,
Judges are the finder of fact.

Cop DA's Judges can all be rightly termed LE, even defense attorneys
for tha matter but you are ibessed with some narow vison Dloyd sad
realy

No they are not known as LE. If you knew anything about the law, you
would know why there is a noted distinction between the titles used
and the role each plays in the judicial system. Even first year law
clerks know the reason for the distinction.


I have indulged you I don't supose you would Indulge ME by answering
why you seem to have Delusion I want to be "normal" ? that has NEVER
(except for a monets of weakness) been an ambition of mine.

I have no delusions and never said that I thought you wanted to be
normal.

you have plenty of delsuion Man

Stop making **** upt again. At least me and you can agree on
one thing, that you are not normal, and by your own rationale your are
not sane either.

lying again Dloyd not Normal does not mean not sane Dloyd

Not lying at all, you said on RRAP that if I went to prison, you would
contact the inmates so I would be abused including gang rape, yet on
NIM you said that a sane person would not wish that on anyone. So
therefore, by your own admission you are not sane because you wished
me to be gang raped.



Aspire to far more than that, and I have to guts to go for it

Go for what? I think you daydream too much.

read



If I end up looking like Don Quoxte (soory that may be mispelled)from
tiem to time that is the price of aspiring to greatess
when I die dloyd it will be after having lived my life in something
otrher than an endless fear of dying, that at leats will give
something in comon with great Men. Like Ceaser Alexander Napeolen
Hitler, Satlin Moes and the young rabbi from Judea

I don't know anyone who lives in endless fear of dying.

you do
woger certainly does

I can't speak for Roger, but I don't have a fear of dying. Everybody
dies, it is just a matter of how and when.

it s a turn of phrase but you are to stupid for that How crazy is
that,

acording to hinks it is more or less normal

Half of the men you mentioned were
nothing more than deranged tyrants or

all achived grea thing terible thing yes but great

Not too great, because anything they accomplished has been washed away
by time.



If your looking for greatness, you better get started, because most of
the individuals you mentioned were well on the paths to their destiny
of "greatness" before age 40.

I am well on the way indeed I have achived a certain measure of
greatness which you valiadte everytime you post about me

If you think this is any degree of "Greatness" you really need to get
a life. There is no significance to this, only words that will wash
away with time.

Dloyd

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com (Available for Lease)

On Jun 21, 5:54 pm, Dloyd Lavies wrote:

one day perhaps you will be less arogant

On Jun 21, 9:38?pm, an_old_friend wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:54 pm, Dloyd Lavies wrote:

one day perhaps you will be less arogant

Maybe one day you will admit that I am more knowledgble than you about
many subjects, not because I am better than you, but because I don't
view my impairment as a crutch, but as a tool to motivate and succeed.

Dloyd

"one useless Mark forging ahead"

www.kb9rqz.blogspot.com (for lease)