On Jan 9, 9:28*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

....



So I live in an area that is anomalous to what might be described as a
general rule.

No, the anomaly is in the way you listen to radio.

At least he listens. You should try it sometime.

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

dxAce wrote:


It all makes for an interesting story, with little or no paper trail.


As a disinterested observer

Snip

For the second time.

Do continue to post your "disinterest" bozo.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Billy Burpelson wrote:

dxAce wrote:

It all makes for an interesting story, with little or no paper trail.

As a disinterested observer and without taking sides in this Great
Debate, just how much 'paper trail' should be expected from something
that:

a) happened around -40- years ago
b) in a foreign country
c) and occurred during a turbulent government take-over

Do you speak/read Spanish?

Do you have access to the 40 year old foreign newspapers? If so, have
you researched them?

No?

Well then, how do you know there -isn't- a 'paper trail'?

Because I long ago discovered that David 'Eduardo' was a pathological
liar.

With absolutely no proof.

What you have done is trumped up insignificant issues and used them to
support your claim. For example, the NAB's error of incorrectly printing my
title in the program for a convention seminar was seen by you to be evidence
of lying about my title. Despite demonstrating to you how the error occured
and how the title, in fact, did not exist, you laid claim to your belief
that there was some kind of chicanery or deceipt involved.

Even more amusing was the insistence that I could not have editied my high
school´s paper since I was but a Sophomore when I became editior... yet the
totally verifiable fact that in that year, there was no Junior or Senior
class fell on your deaf ears. My class was the first to "extend" the school
from 1st to 9th grade to 1st to 12th grade, meaning that for that first
year, the "High School" had only one grade. You could verify that with an
e-mail, but didn't. You preferred to trump that realtive triviality into a
case to demonstrate your claim I had lied... which is not so.

And on and on with the same sort of thing, none of which proved anything.

Sez you!

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Billy Burpelson wrote:

dxAce wrote:

It all makes for an interesting story, with little or no paper trail.

As a disinterested observer and without taking sides in this Great
Debate, just how much 'paper trail' should be expected from something
that:

a) happened around -40- years ago
b) in a foreign country
c) and occurred during a turbulent government take-over

Do you speak/read Spanish?

Do you have access to the 40 year old foreign newspapers? If so, have
you researched them?

No?

Well then, how do you know there -isn't- a 'paper trail'?

Because I long ago discovered that David 'Eduardo' was a pathological
liar.

With absolutely no proof.

What you have done is trumped up insignificant issues and used them to
support your claim. For example, the NAB's error of incorrectly printing my
title in the program for a convention seminar was seen by you to be evidence
of lying about my title. Despite demonstrating to you how the error occured
and how the title, in fact, did not exist, you laid claim to your belief
that there was some kind of chicanery or deceipt involved.

Even more amusing was the insistence that I could not have editied my high
school´s paper since I was but a Sophomore when I became editior...

I don't believe I ever *insisted* that you were not the editor 'Tardo, the
question was about the date(s) that you were the editor. In the beginning when I
questioned that date, which did not jive with your story, you conveniently tried
to hide the date that was on the document displayed on your website.

Remember, 'Tardo?

Nice try.

yet the
totally verifiable fact that in that year, there was no Junior or Senior
class fell on your deaf ears. My class was the first to "extend" the school
from 1st to 9th grade to 1st to 12th grade, meaning that for that first
year, the "High School" had only one grade. You could verify that with an
e-mail, but didn't. You preferred to trump that realtive triviality into a
case to demonstrate your claim I had lied... which is not so.

And on and on with the same sort of thing, none of which proved anything.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

I did.

Ya know, it would really seem as though there would have been better
remedies out
there to ensure the preservation of his investment.


Again, you are judging by US standards the things that go on in nations that
do not have, or for a period, do not have rule of law.

No, I'm simply judging by your propensity to lie!

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Billy Burpelson wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you did
not stay and fight.

Just asking as a disinterested observer, how could one " *stay* and
fight" if they were " *removed* at gunpoint"? It seems it would be
difficult to stay when you have been removed, does it not?

How does one get confronted *at gunpoint*, then is conveniently released
to go
about his/her business for 24 hours pulling a *Catch 22* on some f00kin
hunta,
then is picked up later on to be brought to the airport *at gunpoint*?


I was confronted and told I had to leave; as I have said for the period up
to the next flight, I was escorted by my new buddies with rifles.

Interesting, if only it were true. Personally, I would have hauled your lying
ass directly to the airport.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

I don't believe I ever *insisted* that you were not the editor 'Tardo, the
question was about the date(s) that you were the editor. In the beginning
when I
questioned that date, which did not jive with your story, you conveniently
tried
to hide the date that was on the document displayed on your website.


The date is the same one as is on the scan today. It's funny that you don't
have anything to say about that.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Billy Burpelson wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you
did
not stay and fight.

Just asking as a disinterested observer, how could one " *stay* and
fight" if they were " *removed* at gunpoint"? It seems it would be
difficult to stay when you have been removed, does it not?

How does one get confronted *at gunpoint*, then is conveniently
released
to go
about his/her business for 24 hours pulling a *Catch 22* on some f00kin
hunta,
then is picked up later on to be brought to the airport *at gunpoint*?


I was confronted and told I had to leave; as I have said for the period
up
to the next flight, I was escorted by my new buddies with rifles.

Interesting, if only it were true. Personally, I would have hauled your
lying
ass directly to the airport.

Yeah, that is what nearly anyone would do: give up about a dozen radio
stations.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Billy Burpelson wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you
did
not stay and fight.

Just asking as a disinterested observer, how could one " *stay* and
fight" if they were " *removed* at gunpoint"? It seems it would be
difficult to stay when you have been removed, does it not?

How does one get confronted *at gunpoint*, then is conveniently
released
to go
about his/her business for 24 hours pulling a *Catch 22* on some f00kin
hunta,
then is picked up later on to be brought to the airport *at gunpoint*?


I was confronted and told I had to leave; as I have said for the period
up
to the next flight, I was escorted by my new buddies with rifles.

Interesting, if only it were true. Personally, I would have hauled your
lying
ass directly to the airport.

Yeah, that is what nearly anyone would do: give up about a dozen radio
stations.

You hang in there 'Eduardo', and continue working on that story.

On Jan 10, 10:39*am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...







David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Billy Burpelson wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

* Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you
did
not stay and fight.

Just asking as a disinterested observer, how could one " *stay* and
fight" if they were " *removed* at gunpoint"? It seems it would be
difficult to stay when you have been removed, does it not?

How does one get confronted *at gunpoint*, then is conveniently
released
to go
about his/her business for 24 hours pulling a *Catch 22* on some f00kin
hunta,
then is picked up later on to be brought to the airport *at gunpoint*?

I was confronted and told I had to leave; as I have said for the period
up
to the next flight, I was escorted by my new buddies with rifles.

Interesting, if only it were true. Personally, I would have hauled your
lying
ass directly to the airport.

Yeah, that is what nearly anyone would do: give up about a dozen radio
stations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, you informed on others in order to save your own miserable hide.