Justice Watch Support JW "SOS & BS Sources cont...." [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... SOS & BS Sources cont...., v_p, 15:18:03, 3/21/2001 Well, darby, 17:35:19, 3/21/2001, (#1) darby, enlighten me, please...., LurkerXIV, 18:11:23, 3/21/2001, (#2) LOL, that wasn't very clear? , darby, 18:25:44, 3/21/2001, (#3) Oh...Now I get it! LOL!!, LurkerXIV, 19:05:15, 3/21/2001, (#4) Note to fly., Holly, 22:23:25, 3/21/2001, (#5) Well, where is it?, janphi, 10:56:30, 3/22/2001, (#6) Actually, fly , darby, 11:09:05, 3/22/2001, (#7) Are you sure - gloves, Darby?, Holly, 11:20:16, 3/22/2001, (#8) darby & Holly, fly, 11:22:25, 3/22/2001, (#9) repost with a note to Holly, fly, 11:28:21, 3/22/2001, (#10) fly, darby, 11:34:26, 3/22/2001, (#11) darby, fly, 11:52:12, 3/22/2001, (#12) fly, darby, 11:53:14, 3/22/2001, (#13) Fly, ayelean, 13:21:00, 3/22/2001, (#14) darby & ayeleen, fly, 13:47:28, 3/22/2001, (#15) Postal?, RiverRat, 14:37:58, 3/22/2001, (#16) Fly, Gemini, 15:37:19, 3/22/2001, (#17) Fly, you scamp, Watching you, 16:30:14, 3/22/2001, (#18) WY..., Pedro, 20:50:29, 3/22/2001, (#19) Pedro, Watching you, 06:26:04, 3/23/2001, (#20) Gem, fly, 07:43:51, 3/23/2001, (#21) WY, fly, 08:03:29, 3/23/2001, (#22) Well...., Pedro, 08:28:19, 3/23/2001, (#23) Pedro. And Fly, Watching you, 08:58:11, 3/23/2001, (#24) What news?, darby, 11:39:53, 3/23/2001, (#25) Thanks, Darby, mary99, 13:35:54, 3/23/2001, (#29) If AK, Morgan, 13:05:33, 3/23/2001, (#26) Question, janphi, 13:27:15, 3/23/2001, (#27) janphi.., Pedro, 13:31:11, 3/23/2001, (#28) LOL, Pedro, janphi, 17:02:00, 3/23/2001, (#37) Janphi..., Pedro, 09:19:39, 3/25/2001, (#76) Hi, Pedro, janphi, 16:44:51, 3/25/2001, (#83) Janphi..., Pedro, 18:03:41, 3/25/2001, (#85) Here's what I hate -, Holly, 15:44:31, 3/23/2001, (#33) Holly, mary99, 16:24:08, 3/23/2001, (#34) WOW, mary99., Holly, 17:04:33, 3/23/2001, (#38) hold it, fly, 14:41:41, 3/23/2001, (#30) WY & Pedro, fly, 14:47:33, 3/23/2001, (#31) Fly.., Pedro, 14:49:47, 3/23/2001, (#32) Now what the heck, Watching you, 16:39:07, 3/23/2001, (#35) fly, darby, 17:23:42, 3/23/2001, (#40) Now that's a shock - WY, Holly, 16:59:44, 3/23/2001, (#36) For heaven's sake, fly., Holly, 17:07:30, 3/23/2001, (#39) Ah, but Holly, Watching you, 17:58:56, 3/23/2001, (#41) Vewwy, vewwy bad, Morgan, 19:14:08, 3/23/2001, (#43) huh?, Scully, 18:45:39, 3/23/2001, (#42) Scully -, Holly, 05:39:09, 3/24/2001, (#59) mame cares, v_p, 19:14:38, 3/23/2001, (#44) Scully, FT, 19:30:51, 3/23/2001, (#45) Vewwy, vewwy cwafty..., LurkerXIV, 20:40:44, 3/23/2001, (#49) Holly, Morgan, & darby, fly, 20:04:04, 3/23/2001, (#47) Scully, Gemini, 19:59:03, 3/23/2001, (#46) you're on to somethin' FT.., Scully, 20:23:47, 3/23/2001, (#48) As long as we're guessing, driver, 21:14:26, 3/23/2001, (#51) Cindy Adams.., LurkerXIV, 21:20:04, 3/23/2001, (#52) wisdum, darby, 21:04:38, 3/23/2001, (#50) darby, FT, 21:23:43, 3/23/2001, (#53) Ouch, mary99, 21:58:54, 3/23/2001, (#56) ..........IF, jonesy, 21:53:30, 3/23/2001, (#55) How mean-spirited, Morgan, 21:37:27, 3/23/2001, (#54) Driver, Gemini, 22:29:52, 3/23/2001, (#57) I have trouble, Grace, 05:11:35, 3/24/2001, (#58) I like have a question, Watching you, 06:14:15, 3/24/2001, (#60) I agree, v_p, 08:12:16, 3/24/2001, (#61) WY, darby, 09:35:53, 3/24/2001, (#63) For Pure Entertainment..., shadow, 09:35:05, 3/24/2001, (#62) Grace, shadow, darby, 09:38:28, 3/24/2001, (#64) Question?, 1000Sparks, 10:43:16, 3/24/2001, (#65) Overview, Scully, 14:10:02, 3/24/2001, (#66) WY, Gemini, 15:52:05, 3/24/2001, (#67) Well, I don't agree, Watching you, 18:18:53, 3/24/2001, (#68) Gem, v_p, 20:07:12, 3/24/2001, (#69) I am jealous of mame, AK, BobC,, LurkerXIV, 20:22:20, 3/24/2001, (#70) ....Lurker, jonesy, 20:31:33, 3/24/2001, (#71) Well v_p,, Gemini, 22:56:57, 3/24/2001, (#72) It just seems, Holly, 05:59:55, 3/25/2001, (#73) Okay, Gem, Watching you, 06:54:40, 3/25/2001, (#74) Well..., Pedro, 09:03:32, 3/25/2001, (#75) A personal thougt..., Pedro, 09:32:01, 3/25/2001, (#77) Amen to that, Brother!, LurkerXIV, 12:26:32, 3/25/2001, (#80) For whatever it's worth, Pedro, Watching you, 09:47:01, 3/25/2001, (#78) WY..., Pedro, 10:21:29, 3/25/2001, (#79) ah c'mon WY, Gemini, 15:59:27, 3/25/2001, (#81) More selective hearing/reading?, Watching you, 16:37:56, 3/25/2001, (#82) Just one more itty bitty thing, Watching you, 17:04:57, 3/25/2001, (#84) Selective memories, Gemini, 18:12:27, 3/25/2001, (#86) Well put, Pedro!, shadow, 19:08:00, 3/26/2001, (#87) ................................................................... "SOS & BS Sources cont...." Posted by v_p on 15:18:03 3/21/2001 Had to include fly's post cuz of the "my bad." Made me laugh. Carry on ... paleeeeeeeze... ~*~*~**~*~*~*~**~*~**~~* 100. "promises, promises" Posted by fly on 12:37:57 3/21/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:37:57, 3/21/2001 Holly - And what about that big MW article from some major investigative reporter we've been promised? My bad. A.K. wasn't the one to break that news, was she? I can't think of a single person who has posted "inside information," or "scoops," or whatever, who hasn't been wrong at times. No need to play Queen of the Scoops - either of you two. A.K. has provided some accurate information in the past. Others have too. Those of us in the dark appreciate that information, and don't really care how many notches anybody thinks they have on their guns. (No offense intended, mame. Unfulfilled promises are common, and do not necessarily reflect on the integrity of the reporter.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99. "fly" Posted by darby on 12:27:45 3/21/2001 Yep, now THIS is was I call a WOR thread. LOL--I got stuff to say too, but it'll have to wait a few hours. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 98. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 12:23:34 3/21/2001 Since you so grandly announced that it was YOU who provided the Bruno Magli pic to the lawyers in the civil case, couldn't you produce for us at least one picture of Gil Garcetti smooching you in gratitude? Oh, yeah, you were just kidding, right? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 102. "Fly" Posted by Morgan on 13:22:07 3/21/2001 There is an issue here of INTENT. Sometimes all knowing hacks use deceit and lies and the anonymity of the internet to pump up sagging careers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101. "PooperScooper had the best Scoop..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 13:13:50 3/21/2001 ...when he gave us inside information that Fidel Castro was dead. Folks, it's the Internet. Don't believe everything you read in cyberprint. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103. "Morgan" Posted by fly on 14:10:05 3/21/2001 Morgan - Perhaps you'd like to be brave enough to report how "some people" have used deceit and lies to boost their sagging careers? If you're going to make such thinly veiled accusations, you ought to be willing to back it up with the real story. The last person to obliquely allude to something similar wasn't. I'm sure lots of folks would be interested. I just hope this episode of character trashing proves to have a bit more substance than FW's saga. Of course, such tawdry practices wouldn't make the accurate information inaccurate, would it? It just makes the information provider a possible slimeball. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 105. "yoo hoo, AK" Posted by mary99 on 14:22:17 3/21/2001 Gee whizzikers, why dint you tell me twas just a widdle bitty joke when you said I went to a Satanic Ritual Abuse Convention and yekked about Fleet White at a private dining room where you were lurking behind a potted palm (or were you just potted, period?) My, you bashed me here there and everywhere for what, a week, posting your BS about Lyin' Nancy too. Was that just a little joke too? Impersonating a big time reporter isn't nice, or were your fingers crossed? BTW, do you still have that picture of JAR in Atlanta at the ATM? Or did your pet eat it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104. "Fly" Posted by Morgan on 14:17:50 3/21/2001 Wouldn't you rather hear it from the horse's mouth? Or should I say jackass? She's right here kicking and braying. Hee haw, hee haw! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 107. "Morgan" Posted by fly on 14:29:41 3/21/2001 Morgan - Well if that person is such a masochist that s/he'd like to shoot him/herself in the character, that would be fine, but I think that's asking a bit much. You are the one making the allegations, so you are the one who should load up and fire. And, I'd hate to deprive you of that pleasure anyway. You take the first shot, and then perhaps s/he will address how good your aim is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 106. "Holly & Morgan" Posted by A.K. on 14:29:13 3/21/2001 You both make me sick so this will be my last post on the subject. Believe what you want. The FW scoop didn't need to come out because everything aligned itself in another way despite your best efforts to try to see him smeared. I disappear at times because I'm WORKING. On REAL cases. I don't need to spin nonsense to keep myself busy. It also is why I'm so good at spotting BS when I see it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108. "Well," Posted by v_p on 15:14:39 3/21/2001 There ya go... lol, i love this room. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Well" Posted by darby on 17:35:19 3/21/2001 I hardly need to say anything. Re-read AK's posts on the first thread. Her grandiose self-praise provides an inkling of what she's all about. I'll give her Deadra, but that's hardly a case breaker. Anyway, the accuracy (or lack thereof) of AK's "scoops" are almost irrelevant compared to her willingness to do almost anything (and I do mean anything) for a story. And yes, there is a reason why she has tried to keep her identity a secret. In the spirit of AK, I'll say no more about this--in fact I can't without breaking the forum rules. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "darby, enlighten me, please...." Posted by LurkerXIV on 18:11:23 3/21/2001 ...who or what is Deadra? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "LOL, that wasn't very clear? " Posted by darby on 18:25:44 3/21/2001 Deadra = Dead Nedra [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Oh...Now I get it! LOL!!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:05:15 3/21/2001 I thought there was a new suspect. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Note to fly." Posted by Holly on 22:23:25 3/21/2001 There IS a very credible investigative reporter who has been involved in looking and investigating Nancy's story for a long time. mame knows the name and maybe she can provide an update. mame does not lie. So far as a big FW story - it won't be one I tell. I scoured the net for FW info and didn't find a whole lot. But a blockbuster someday would not surprise me. I only say that, because it would not be a shocker to me if Nancy told the truth. And since FW didn't call her a liar, didn't seek judicial relief, didn't make a public statement, and despite post after post of threats and promises to expose her - no one has. If McKinley, Barrie Hartman, BJ Plasket, mame, Hunter, Hill, Singular and others found this woman's story credible, it may well be. And I wonder what (if anything) the FBI has discovered. I think the FBI would love to find a federal angle to the JB murder - and snatch jurisdiction from the BPD. It's what I pray for every day. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Well, where is it?" Posted by janphi on 10:56:30 3/22/2001 Somebody on the other thread posted that something big was happening or had already happened and I've looked everywhere. What is it? Hirer of HitBoy Arrested? TallBlackInturder Captured? No? More John Douglas Chit? I hope not! Oh, prolly Steve Thomas lawsuit filed, huh? Notice jams rolled back linnie's deadline for him from "the end of the month" said in February to "the end of the month" said in March to now April 11. What's that, the last time Steve Thomas mentioned Patsy's name publicly? Ha ha, they prolly have to time it so that the nets aren't sick of linnie's "appearances" and can schedule an "opening" for him with Katie! Hope the alarms are turned on at Paces Ferry! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Actually, fly " Posted by darby on 11:09:05 3/22/2001 I believe AK took credit for a photo of OJ wearing his gloves (not the shoes), and this was ON THE JW FORUM--not in chat or in gossip as you had guessed. Holly and I both saw the post as I'm sure others did, but I think Holly mis-remembered the photo to be of the shoes and not the gloves. (Is there anyone else here who saw it? If so, please reassure fly.) In that same post, AK also said that Gil Garcetti kisses her every time she sees him because of that photo. The reason you didn't see it--AK took a walk and came back to alter that post (COMPLETELY!), saying she had posted in anger (as is AK's MO). But not before I saw the first (unaltered) post. BTW, AK is the number one offender of posting something and then altering it. I see she did just that yesterday, toward the end of the daily thread. Word to the wise: If you ever want to reference anything that AK (or Lethal) has said in a post, I would highly recommend a copy-and-paste first. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Are you sure - gloves, Darby?" Posted by Holly on 11:20:16 3/22/2001 That certainly makes more Garcetti sense. He had nothing to do with the civil case, of course. So much to remember... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "darby & Holly" Posted by fly on 11:22:25 3/22/2001 Holly - I did not say mame had lied about the big story. I thought I made that clear in my comment to mame. You are getting as bad as RiverRat: go postal over one thing and ignore the real message. ;-) I'm sure mame was telling the truth when she said somebody was working on a story. Failure of the story to appear doesn't make mame (or any honest person with a source) a liar, just let down. darby - Must have missed the gloves credit. Skepticism is healthy when the claim is out of the ordinary, but remember, that goes for everybody's claims. Any evidence A.K. is lying about this -- or telling the truth? I'll remember the cut and paste advice, but then I'll have to violate the no-repost rule. LOL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "repost with a note to Holly" Posted by fly on 11:28:21 3/22/2001 Holly - I'll try to pay attention the the fact there's a #2 thread if you'll pay attention to what I actually post. Deal? LOL But heck, we were told on the #1 thread to reply where the original post was. The thread police will get me either way, it seems. reposting from #1 Gem - Let me make my position clear, because I think you might have misunderstood. A.K. has contributed information. A.K. has been wrong at times. The latter doesn't negate the former, although that is how some folks act. I don't think that appropriate. It is good reason to be wary, of course, but not nasty. Some folks seem hell-bent to discredit A.K., conveniently elevating their own position while they're at it in some cases, rather than just putting pond scum back where it belongs. Now if A.K. deserves to be down in the muck, so be it. I certainly don't see A.K. as compeletely innocent and pure, because she does sometimes stir the pot, but what I've observed hardly seems to put her in the "most evil" category. Perhaps if somebody would provide some information I'd start frothing at the mouth like Morgan and Holly. It is only appropriate that the name-calling be accompanied by a few facts, especially when "unethical" gets bandied about. (Did A.K. really take credit for OJ's shoes? Surely not ;-) ) What might have been revealed in chat or email doesn't count. We're on the forum now. Those alleging horrific character flaws need to shit or get off the pot. As usual, scratch off the surface of this, and we find MW. And that almost always means that the true situation is somewhere between the snarling and snapping positions on either extreme. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "fly" Posted by darby on 11:34:26 3/22/2001 LOL--you ARE getting yourself into big trouble lately. I know you know, in spite of Nedthan, that there are no cut-and-dry cut-and-paste rules on this forum. What most of us have suggested are a few common-sense guidelines. It's all a matter of degree. There certainly is no reason to do it every single time (as Neddy does). If you'll check what *I* said on the first thread, I actually did include a provision for copying posts--for AK...er, I mean, those who alter their own posts all the time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "darby" Posted by fly on 11:52:12 3/22/2001 darby - And I know you know that I'm just joking about the reposting issue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "fly" Posted by darby on 11:53:14 3/22/2001 Yes, I know you know I know you know. You know? :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Fly" Posted by ayelean on 13:21:00 3/22/2001 But what I want to know that you said you know is a way to see an individual post when the whole thread is too long to load. I think I know that you said something like that but maybe I don't know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "darby & ayeleen" Posted by fly on 13:47:28 3/22/2001 darby - Word. ayelean - LOL. I'm not that bad am I? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Postal?" Posted by RiverRat on 14:37:58 3/22/2001 Premenstral maybe, you'll know when it's postal. But in general, I wouldn't waste it on someone who is only talking out of both sides of their mouth just so they can be on the safe side. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Fly" Posted by Gemini on 15:37:19 3/22/2001 uh oh ... you've left me unsure of whether you actually read my post for content of whether I just didn't make myself clear. My prob with A.K. has nothing really to do with her MW (wanna-be, as I understand it) connection. Sounds like you're having a little trouble separating your strong feelings about that long enough to think of A.K. in any other context. That's not like you, but I'll chalk it up to "pet peeve", which is only fair since I'm grouching about one of my pet peeves A.K. habitually kicks around on. A.K. has sugared up to a number of JW folks by flashing credentials. That's obvious from all the posts (several) saying things like "if you only knew WHO A.K. is, you'd be stunned", etc.. O.K. ... so far so good. Everybody needs a hero I guess, and if A.K. suits their standards ... that's fine with me. Sheeze ... who am I to question? BUT! The problem starts when A.K. uses the weight her admirers give her opinion to attempt to discredit other posters with ad hominum attacks (and in the case of Darby and Holly and Mary99, more overt and personal attacks) on open forum and ... assure herself she'll have back-up. To me (and I try to use IMO most of the time), that's low ... ethics wise, human decency wise. It does not matter whether she does these things to me, or someone I agree with ... or to people I most often disagree with ... from my POV, it's scummy. Oh, did I call A.K. a name? If so, I'm going to have to apologize and stop posting when I'm in a hurry. I deplore her actions, but do not know her; so I may stick an ugly label or two on what I believe is cheap conduct, but have no reason to call the person behind the A.K. hat any kind of name ... tho I think I once told her (and IMO, A.K. is female)she was a diplomat (she gave that up as soon as she wrangled enough support to manipulate forum opinion). So, it's JMO, as usual, but A.K.'s need to use less than up front tactics to pump up her importance here (and, Fly, I see that much more from A.K. than from anyone else), causes her stock to drop with me ... more everytime she starts suggesting someone here is a paid RST employee ... or tells someone they "make me sick". My creep-o-meter starts to scream when I see that stuff from someone who demands respect. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Fly, you scamp" Posted by Watching you on 16:30:14 3/22/2001 you can no longer fool me. You gave it away when you said Word. You are my youngest daughter. You must be. She says "Word" all the time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "WY..." Posted by Pedro on 20:50:29 3/22/2001 ...are you telling me Fly is cute too? Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Pedro" Posted by Watching you on 06:26:04 3/23/2001 Fly has to be cute, cause my daughter's cute. Of course, "cute" is relative, and all my relatives are cute. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Gem" Posted by fly on 07:43:51 3/23/2001 Gem - No, you were clear enough in your feelings, but I might have been unclear. I was not addressing only, or even primarily, your comments or behavior in my post. You did not name-call, and you at least provided some context for your opinions of her. You are wrong about this being a MW issue with me. The events of that saga just provide ample memorable examples of how errors cut both ways. And I think that the MW saga is a major source of the antagonism between A.K. and some of her most rabid critics. Like you, my comments and opinions are focused on the principles, not the specific person. I'm with you all the way in believing that it doesn't matter whether the person being treated badly is friend or foe - they are being treated badly and a comment is in order. That is why I'm commenting now. I think some people's behavior toward her and her news is out of line, and in some cases pretty darn hypocritical. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "WY" Posted by fly on 08:03:29 3/23/2001 WY - Being your daughter would probably be a very interesting experience, but I'm going to have to pass. You wouldn't want to have to be that old anyway. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Well...." Posted by Pedro on 08:28:19 3/23/2001 ...at least seems to me Fly is young enough tobe WY's daugther. Fly didn't you knew Wy was a member of the OBC?. So Fly is cute, right WY? as cute as you? I'm calling Sailer now!!! Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Pedro. And Fly" Posted by Watching you on 08:58:11 3/23/2001 Smooch [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "What news?" Posted by darby on 11:39:53 3/23/2001 Honestly, fly, I just looked over AK's list of "news" that she herself compiled and bragged about, and I don't see where it amounts to anything even close to what, say, mame has brought us. AK's crowning glory was the Sneaky Pete thing, which I enjoyed. Deadra was a not-so-close second. That's it. The rest is either inaccurate, unproven or not news at all, because AK didn't actually tell us anything. One glaring "news" story she left out was her "outing" of mary99 as one of the folks at a Satanic cult conference in Miami last year. And no, she wasn't joking when she did that, as everyone here can attest. I've never seen anything close to an apology or even an admission of a mistake. All I ever see is a feeble attempt to revise the truth. That's the kind of person AK is. Mary Suma spent day after day at the courthouse during the grand jury and reported back all the happenings there. She hooked up with BJ Plasket and Frank DeFreitas and brought us numerous audio reports about her experiences. She has interviewed Judith Phillips, Alex Hunter and many others close to the case. Her sources include top case investigators, several folks from the DA's office and lots of case reporters, which include Carole McKinley, the guy from Westword (name escapes me) and BJ Plasket. I know mame has had many more contributions to JW that I failed to mention, as I'm doing this all from memory. The point is, mame has worked damned hard doing real legwork and has shared each and every thing she has been allowed to share. She has made every attempt to be honest and up-front, without an "I know something you don't know--and I'm not going to tell you, either" attitude. And yet, I notice that AK feels entitled to take every opportunity to blast away at mame's credibility as a "real" journalist. I know that mame's detractors like to focus on the "Mystery Woman" account. (As I recall, there was a time when those very detractors were begging mame for all the details--which mame willingly shared.) But despite what AK has said, nothing has been proven one way or the other about the validity (or lack thereof) concerning the claims of Nancy Krebs. As it stands, nobody can pronounce the whole thing "over," especially when she has't told us how or why this is so. Typical of AK--She has already told us she won't be telling us that information. So why should we believe her? In any event, mame has brought the forums a whole lot more than MW. fly, I know you are attempting to focus on the fact that some of the forum posters have criticized AK for bringing us misleading or false information while giving others a pass. You do have a point; virtually every case reporter has missed the mark at one time or another. Nobody is exempt, including AK and mame. And yes I agree with you on that one point. However, you said that you think that some people's behavior toward not only AK's "news" but also her(self) is hypocritical. I agree about the "news," but I think that most of the criticism I've seen about AK as a person is warranted. I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but I felt it had to be said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Thanks, Darby" Posted by mary99 on 13:35:54 3/23/2001 Darby, I would only like to add: Mame's interviews with Alex Hunter, Andrew Hodges, Judith Phillips and Nancy, still remain a groundbreaking use of the internet, thanks to Toppcat, which gave (and still give) posters access to people they would never get to see or hear through mainstream TV interviews. (Not that mainstream TV would ever devote relatively vast amounts of time to our specialized JBR interests) Aside from the length of the interviews, which consisted of far more than the typical soundbite, they were unedited and conversational, iow, REAL. One enduring injustice, though, is that people who didn't believe Nancy's allegations took their wrath out on Mame... with mocking 'tributes', namecalling and attacks. Many of those who did so based their perceptions of Nancy's story on the 'truth' according to A.K. Where's the proof, A.K.? I remember the 'hoax' myth involving Singlar and Nancy that made the rounds--that was beyond being merely wrong, it was deliberate and devious, imo. Did anyone apply the standards to A.K. they applied to mame? Would mame even present such a rumor as fact without substantion? Most recently, mame said she 'heard' that more lawsuits would be filed--and now 'another' forum is reporting that the Rams will be suing Steve Thomas. (Deadline, April 11) Whether this comes to pass or not, it was a heads-up and I give credit for mame scooping jams. A.K. is now trying to re-insert herself into the Simpson case via Diwi. Assessing the tone and quality of the so-called 'information' is up to the individual poster and people here can figure out who's been honest over the long haul. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "If AK" Posted by Morgan on 13:05:33 3/23/2001 thinks she can waltz back here and crow about some story she got of the wire, and pat herself on the back, while starting in on Nancy Krebs again, she's got another think coming. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Question" Posted by janphi on 13:27:15 3/23/2001 In a few more days, I will have been lurking and/or posting here for one year. In all that time, I have only seen a handful of posts by "A.K." and don't know who he/she is. I don't WANT TO know hir name or anything, but hir has implied several times that hir writes for a national publication--someone else posted that hir is a tabloid writer. Is this person the former JBR writer for the Camera by those initials? Or is that what we are supposed to think? I mean, is this something that everyone else already knows except me? Is there a reason, if so, that this person doesn't share REAL news? Everyone knows who Masked Man is--wouldn't this be the same thing? Personally, I wouldn't post here if my professional life had anything at all to do with this case, but I understand that we like to have inside "peeks" at things. Just wondered what all the brouhaha is. Even I knew Mary99 wasn't Mary Bienkowski! And I also know one story you got for free that A.K. didn't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "janphi.." Posted by Pedro on 13:32:06 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:32:06, 3/23/2001 ...posters real life can only be disclosed by themselves, if AK wants to tell you, is their right. No one else is allow to do that in here. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "LOL, Pedro" Posted by janphi on 17:02:00 3/23/2001 See how quickly things pass in here? One week ago, I was told to leave JW and leave the Internet completely because I was fighting for my privacy. All I was asking for here was that I wanted someone to say "yes, we all know it's A---- K------ because she told us she was, back in the summer of '98" but "we don't know where she works now" or something to that effect. No one said that, so I will assume it isn't. I was hoping it was, so I could ask her about those long-ago JR allegations she said she had, then backed off of. Have always wondered about those. I'm not a troublemaker, Pedro! Trouble just seems to find me, without my trying at all! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Janphi..." Posted by Pedro on 09:19:39 3/25/2001 ...just in case... Nobody from JW, webmaster or moderator, have EVER told you to leave the internet for defend your privacy. Nobody have post your real name in JW forums, in any of them. The mIRC chat rooms are a complete different issue as it is live, is happening right then. Don't try to make a point about differences of behavior because is just not true. JBRModerators has defend the posters privacy to the extreme and will continue doing so. Janphi a twisted truth or half-truth or misleading implication, won't be tolerated any further...In other words, and this is the WOR... Quit that crap or write your congresman. And more than anything, I like you, I like all of you. Some of my own friends have been baned from JW for post someone's real name, sometimes people I don't agree with at all in the case arguments, but that isn't important to me, privacy is protected in JW. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Hi, Pedro" Posted by janphi on 16:44:51 3/25/2001 I think you took what I said wrong, maybe. I was poking fun at MYSELF for wondering who another poster was, which was ironic in regard to what happened to me here last week. I didn't see the "hats" of the people who said the nasty things to me on the Daily or the other thread, so I don't know if they were regular JW people or not. As I read the posts, I happened to have been crying my eyes out and hurt beyond belief. I posted my reply and never went back to look at the thread to see who it was. I'm not a masochist in that regard. One did say he/she was a moderator, but I'm clueless as to who-all you are. That one said people had punched the "alert" button on my posts, when all I had posted in several days was a quote on Ruthee's tribute thread. Stuff like that baffles me. I'm not in "private" contact with many others here, so I don't really know what's going on most of the time, but I've tried to be and wanted to be a part of things. It just hasn't happened, maybe because I don't "chitchat" much. Chris knows how I feel about JW. Sorry it comes off differently from that sometimes. I truly thought everyone -- except me -- knew who this AK was (it sure sounded like it on this thread) and I was just trying to be "one of the group" who knew. I hated being left out and feeling stupid. I've already had two bad experiences for not asking questions. The AK hat had told others to ask me to get in touch with him/her about a story last year, but I didn't. For the record, NO, NO ONE has posted my name on JW, ever. I didn't ask for any of this. All I want to do is try to figure out the mystery of JonBenet's death and see if I can help JW come closer to solving it before my time to do things like this ends. Besides, I thought you and I were OK. Aren't we? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Janphi..." Posted by Pedro on 18:03:41 3/25/2001 ..As I told you back then, most of the posters who addressed you that day aren't regulars in JW. No JW moderator addressed you but me that day and I say no personal information was going to be disscloseed in JW. As far as I know, no body punched the alert button on you. I don't have private corrspondance with nobody really, I just expend long time reading here and one come to know folks. YOU ARE ONE OF THE GROUP, got it? We all are. Janphi this is the WOR and we can say whatever we want here, I was answering your post just to avoid go in to another thread like the one you mention, here in the WOR our moderation instruments are very much restricted and I didn't want a fire to start, that's all. JANPHI, YOU AND I ARE OK, I SAY IT CLEAR NOW, WE ARE OK. :-) Take care. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Here's what I hate -" Posted by Holly on 15:47:05 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:47:05, 3/23/2001 the arrogance of ignorance. What the hell do I know about Nancy? Not too damn much, that's for sure. Never met her. Never talked to her. Never emailed her. Is her story wild? I don't know - I've heard ones that make Nancy's taste like cold oatmeal. But where does AK get this BIG conspiracy crap? Nancy Krebs conspiring with Stephen Singular who conspired with the faded blonde actress, who conspired with Mary Bienkowski, who conspired with victim advocates, who conspired with Lee Hill, who made up a scam to sucker punch poor Fleet White. Puleeze. An arrogant and half ass theory built on total ignorance. And she doesn't have the guts (and AK is a she, since I heard her on the radio)to fess up that she can't prove a damn thing. I wonder if AK ever participated in any effort to sucker punch Nancy? How far would someone go to provide a BIG media event, where that god Fleet would emerge as the victim? Ah yes. That BIG event wasn't necessary because there was a timely "alignment" of ...things? And the faded actress found other ...things...to do. Again, promises and predictions and cryptic statements - not a single fact or detail. Why would someone spend day after day spewing hatred for Nancy Krebs? Why would someone joke about the details of a brutal rape? Why would someone foment hatred for posters who were suspicious of FW's agenda and critical/curious regarding his behavior? Why would someone assure posters that mary99, as Mary Bienkowski, was heckled out of a NOVA conference? And also dissed FW publicly. And had Satanic abuse as an agenda. Maybe some have forgotten the ugliness AK and others spewed last summer in the WOR - I haven't. If there is information AK has that proves a conspiracy, she should contact the producers of DATELINE or maybe - 60 MINUTES. I called 60 MINUTES once, tracking down a rumor. Very insightful... Stop pitting posters against posters with nothing more than cryptic promises. Stop fueling the hositility that emerges every time the pro-FW and anti-FW forces collide. Stop acting like a two year old, telling posters, they make you sick. Theory is one thing. News is one thing. Discussion - even heated- is constructive. But if you want to expose a sham that is researched and backed up with facts, don't talk about doing it - DO IT. And if you can't do it, shut the hell up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Holly" Posted by mary99 on 16:24:08 3/23/2001 Very good description of an ugly segment I'd rather forget. I totally agree with you about calling a show like 60 Minutes or Dateline if I had information that would lead to exposing a conspiracy. But lacking that information, would it be wrong to try to contact a ritual sex abuse victim and pretend to be a big reporter so I could get her story? Yeah, that would be bad. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "WOW, mary99." Posted by Holly on 17:04:33 3/23/2001 Call me... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "hold it" Posted by fly on 14:41:41 3/23/2001 I am not saying anything about the relative contributions of mame versus AK. Were I to do so, I'd agree fully that mame has provided more information. I used one memorable example that involved mame, because it was probably something most folks would remember and clearly has not developed, and because a popular person was involved. I could have used BobC as an example, only several folks here are too recent to know about that, and of course, people did eventually start bashing BobC after the string of "fasten your seat belt" alerts that proved to be false alarms. If I kept archives of posts, or even paid really close attention to who posts what, I'm sure there are other examples, too. My comments do not depend on which side of the MW story is true. It doesn't matter now, and it won't matter later. I did't even associate AK with the majority of the MW-damaging information, although as I think more about it, I see I probably shortchanged her about that. AK is/was most memorable for the mary99 debacle - not something in AK's favor. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "WY & Pedro" Posted by fly on 14:47:33 3/23/2001 WY - I'm blushing, I do believe. Pedro - Don't get all worked up. I'd recommend you stick to WY's daughter if your thoughts stray from China. And surely WY is just an honorary member of the OBC, or their definition of "old" is closer to a 20-year-old's idea of old than that of a 40-year-old. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Fly.." Posted by Pedro on 14:49:47 3/23/2001 ..heh, I snitch from her to post that, and yes I know about WY been only honorary at the OBC, just don't tell on me to China!!!! Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Now what the heck" Posted by Watching you on 16:39:07 3/23/2001 are you two talking about? You are right, I am an honorable member of the OBC. The sexetary, to be precise. My mother is 85 years old. My oldest daughter is 38. I am somewhere between those two ages, hahaha. I am young and sprightly at heart, sprightly - that doesn't look right, is it spritely? Hell, who cares? Anyways, I'm pretty good looking, too, heh. Pedro, stay away from my daughters, or China will kill you for sure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "fly" Posted by darby on 17:23:42 3/23/2001 I absolutely knew (and still know) what you are saying. I know it, and yet I just can't sit still when you tell people they're being hypocritical to criticize AK's misfires on scoops on the grounds that many others have done the same thing. AK is not even in the same league as earnest reporters such as mame, plasket, kingd, Carole M. and others who have occasionally made honest mistakes. Instead of just admitting she made a mistake, AK tells people off, brags about all the perceived great things she has ever done, tells posters they sicken her, and then goes ahead and boasts that she knows something they don't know--and no, she's not about to reveal what that something is. AK attempted to tell two forums that fellow poster mary99 had attended a Satanic cult worksop and that mary99 believed that Nancy Krebs and Fleet White were into Satanism. Once AK (hopefully) realized her horrible mistake, she refused to even acknowledge that she had made one, let alone apologize. If this is the kind of person I need to rely on for an occasional scoop, I'll pass. After the mary99 debacle, how can we even trust AK or anything she has to say? She may "get it right" every once in a while, but how will we know when it's time to trust what she has to say? The chance for honest human error is prevalent enough without deliberate subterfuge. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Now that's a shock - WY" Posted by Holly on 16:59:44 3/23/2001 No way are you a senior. I think you were sold into marriage at the age of 10. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "For heaven's sake, fly." Posted by Holly on 17:07:30 3/23/2001 Re-read. I didn't say YOU said mame lied. I'm just stating unequivically that mame does not lie. Although when I was at her house, she said she'd make me Toll House cookies - and didn't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Ah, but Holly" Posted by Watching you on 18:00:10 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:00:10, 3/23/2001 this poor body grows older by the second, the bones creak, and everything goes south except me. Age is a state of mind, you know, and mine varies, depending on the day, the season and the temperature. My body has not yet accepted this fact yet, but I'm working on convincing it. I've always thought that God made us backwards. We should have come into this world with all the knowledge we acquire into our elderliness (yes, I know that isn't a word) and go downhill from there, because when we are young is when we need all that wisdom. When we are old, we can't do anything about it, anyways, so we don't really need all that wisdom, except to tell all you young whippersnappers a thing or two, hahaha. Anyways, it doesn't matter what you think, because I am right and you are wrong, and you know it. No, don't even try to change my mind. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Vewwy, vewwy bad" Posted by Morgan on 19:14:08 3/23/2001 Yes, Mary99, a person who would try to set up a ritual sexual abuse victim by pretending to be a sympathetic reporter or television producer, could be described as unethical. Maybe even a sociopath. At the vewwy least, such a person must be self centered and lacking in empathy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "huh?" Posted by Scully on 18:45:39 3/23/2001 Looks to me like the forum has rapidly developed into some sort of "scoopathon". If so, why? It seems pretty obvious to me that the results of the competition thus far have been counter-productive so what's the point of pursuing this "cloak and dagger" game any further? And does anyone honestly give a crap who A.K. is? Someone suggested in an earlier post that A.K. is a journalist with a sagging career so my best guess is that A.K. is probably Connie Chung. Am I close? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Scully -" Posted by Holly on 05:39:09 3/24/2001 Hah! A K orean? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "mame cares" Posted by v_p on 19:14:38 3/23/2001 and holly cares and mary 99 cares and morgan cares, that's who. The rest of us could give a flucking flip. see? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Scully" Posted by FT on 19:30:51 3/23/2001 My guess is Maury Povich. I think he was disguising his voice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Vewwy, vewwy cwafty..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:40:44 3/23/2001 Scully, FT, I think Morgan is hinting that AK is no other than....TA-DAH: BABA WAWA! janphi, no...definitely NOT Allie Krupski. Allie is twenty-something. AK is my contemporary. She remembers the same sensational cases I do from the 50's and 60's. BTW, who mentioned NYC's Mad Bomber of the 1950's? Was it you, Scully? I remember the case well. Crazy old George Metesky was a mildmannered chemist who lived with his two old maid sisters in Queens. He built the bombs in his garage. He had a grudge against Con Edison, the company that fired him, so he set off bombs all over NYC. He bombed subway trains and movie theaters. He terrorized the whole city. He bombed an outside wall of Con Ed, at 14 St. and East River Drive, when Mr.L worked across the street as a chemist at Eagle Pencil Co. The psychologist who profiled Metesky was right on target...a pioneer profiler. Fascinating case! Now I'll have to go and look it up to refresh my memory on exactly how they caught him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Holly, Morgan, & darby" Posted by fly on 20:04:04 3/23/2001 Holly & Morgan - Well, that's interesting. Thank you for finally at least being more specific. Are you sure? So mame didn't come through with cookies? The heck with the story; that's a much greater offense. :-) darby - Yes, there was a lot of ugliness from a lot of people. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Scully" Posted by Gemini on 19:59:03 3/23/2001 Also, the people who ooooo and aaaahhhh and stroke (stroke stroke stroke) and grow new dimples every time A.K. serves up one of her cutsey-wootsey little tid-bits (or suggestion of same). Yeah, they care. (gag) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "you're on to somethin' FT.." Posted by Scully on 21:08:47 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:08:47, 3/23/2001 Maybe A.K. is Maury Povich and "MW" is Connie Chung!!! Get a load of this: look at the number of posters whose hats begin with the letter "M".... mame, mary99, Morgan, momo, Masked Man, MW and, uh, "Murphy"... Hmmmmmm.....ask your Bunco friends if they don't smell a conspiracy. Somethin' stinks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "As long as we're guessing" Posted by driver on 21:14:26 3/23/2001 I think A.K. sounds more like Cindy Adams. Connie Chung and Barbara Walters are each too classy and conservative in style to post the stuff of A K. JMHO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Cindy Adams.." Posted by LurkerXIV on 21:20:04 3/23/2001 ...would be the right age. But she is gainfully employed by the NY Post, so she doesn't fit the description of "washed-up". This is more fun than Twenty Questions! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "wisdum" Posted by darby on 21:04:38 3/23/2001 It's not who she be. It's what she do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "darby" Posted by FT on 21:23:43 3/23/2001 If this has anything to do with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, you are going to go right over my head again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Ouch" Posted by mary99 on 21:58:54 3/23/2001 I must recuse myself due to a splitting headache~ but before I go, please try to behave yourselves or poor Pedro will have to play reluctant babysitter to the WOR babes. A.K. is not Allie Krupski, nor anyone famous ~~nopey nopey~~ Don't spill AK-Aid on nice peeple like Maury and Connie and Baba and everybody famous, 'cause it leaves a bad stain~~ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "..........IF" Posted by jonesy on 21:53:30 3/23/2001 ....youse guys had been paying 'attention' ya would know who AK is - ...no this sweet little old lady wouldn't 'out' anybody ... ...unless of course she pisses me off.....hahahaha [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "How mean-spirited" Posted by Morgan on 21:37:27 3/23/2001 it would be if someone began a campaign of trashing a ritual sex abuse victim's reputation all over chat forums, so that said victim would feel an urgency to tell her story to a respected television news organization. And then this someone pretended to be employed by the respected TNO, telling the victim that her story would be revealed fairly on this show, and all the while the intent was to sucker punch the victim. Desperate, unethical hacks have been known to resort to such tactics. This is vewwy bad business. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Driver" Posted by Gemini on 22:29:52 3/23/2001 Cindy Adams is the one that crossed my mind, way back when. Maybe a Cindy-wannabe? Louella? : ( No, she died a century or so ago. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "I have trouble" Posted by Grace on 16:04:14 3/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:04:14, 3/24/2001 picturing Cindy Adams being into Eminem. Good posts on the first thread, Gem. I think you're on the money. Likewise, darby. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "I like have a question" Posted by Watching you on 06:14:15 3/24/2001 not that it's important, or anything, but does anyone here really know who AK is? If anyone does, please do not tell me, as I don't have a problem with AK, and besides, the rulz and all, you know. The reason I ask is that with so many making all these allegations against AK, I just assumed y'all must know him/her personally. Now, please don't tell me someone told you, or you think. I want to know if anyone knows for certain who AK is and what s/he is. Hey, Gem, back at ya - double standards? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "I agree" Posted by v_p on 08:12:16 3/24/2001 >>>>Yes, Mary99, a person who would try to set up a ritual sexual abuse victim by pretending to be a sympathetic reporter or television producer, could be described as unethical. Maybe even a sociopath. At the vewwy least, such a person must be self centered and lacking in empathy.<<<<< or someone who thrives on attention and found this a great opportunity to grab some from her faithful fans??? Oh wait, you're still talking about AK aren't ya? Nevermind. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "WY" Posted by darby on 09:35:53 3/24/2001 My "wisdum," above, summed it up. (And FT--it didn't have anything to do with TMNT (at least not this time--LOL). ) It really doesn't even matter what AK's real name is. I have no intention of outing the real name of AK or any other poster. Besides, I know that if I even tried, our astute Senor Ban-dito would ban me before I could even click "Post Message." What's important is not AK's real name, but what she has done. She's done enough on the forums that we can all observe for ourselves possible evidence of AK's pomposity, arrogance and in some cases, lack of ethics. I would imagine that AK's forum antics pale in comparison to what she has done (and attempted to do) in her real life. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "For Pure Entertainment..." Posted by shadow on 09:35:05 3/24/2001 I miss Lake! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Grace, shadow" Posted by darby on 09:38:28 3/24/2001 Grace, thanks--I really enjoy your posts as well. Just wish you would do it more often. shadow, I truly miss Lake, too. Wonder what happened to him/her? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Question?" Posted by 1000Sparks on 10:43:16 3/24/2001 Is A.K. Slinky? If not, where's Slinky? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Overview" Posted by Scully on 14:10:02 3/24/2001 Looks like this thread went nowhere fast. The only thing I gleaned from this conversation is that A.K. is either Barbara Walters or Maury Povich. Guess it's time to move along and trash a different poster. Whose turn is it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "WY" Posted by Gemini on 15:52:05 3/24/2001 Ah ... that got under your skin, did it? I suppose the "back atcha" has to do with A.K. vs mame dialog. Oh sure, they both mess up sometimes ... that's just proof of the pudding ... that reporters are only as on target as their sources. But, I've yet to see mame join a bully-pack or try to manipulate posters the way A.K. does as a matter of routine. What's more, mame has enough sense to qualify her info, and that does carry some weight with me. As for double standards ... I don't think so. The same standards apply where I'm concerned, no matter the POV. The point of my remark to you was that you don't complain about tread police as long as they are targeting those you disagree with ... and vice versa ... or so it appears. Not a big insult at all, just human nature for a lot of people. (thank you, Grace) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Well, I don't agree" Posted by Watching you on 18:45:43 3/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:45:43, 3/24/2001 nevermind, this just isn't worth it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Gem" Posted by v_p on 20:07:12 3/24/2001 >>But, I've yet to see mame join a bully-pack or try to manipulate posters the way A.K. does as a matter of routine.<< Give me a break. Of course mame doesn't join the bully pack, she simply throws a rumor here, a source there and then sits back to watch her ilk run with it, build upon it, and offer it as fact. Only the weak and easily led are manipulated ... enuff said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "I am jealous of mame, AK, BobC," Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:22:20 3/24/2001 Holly, and anyone else who has ever had a scoop. I have never had a scoop on this case. But, then, I don't get out much. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "....Lurker" Posted by jonesy on 20:31:33 3/24/2001 ......I am just now getting up to get some ice cream, would ya like a scoop ?? you must be kidding about being jealous of the above named 'scoopers' - they are 'non entities' on my list of posters - wanna read my list.....hahaha, nevermind ! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Well v_p," Posted by Gemini on 22:56:57 3/24/2001 you could be right. I don't pay much attention to the MW angle ... wish her well, but doubt she has anything solid to contribute to this case. However, I do think mame deserves credit for using qualifiers when passing along things she's heard. Otherwise, and especially in re A.K.'s forum activity, as usual, I stand by my previous posts. Yes L-XIV, I am sure you're a delightful and flattering shade of pea-green by now ... and pouting (lol) . You're right WY ... poster peevishness is never worth much. It wasn't worth it in the original "let's get Ned" thread either. That was pretty much my point in the first place. So. If you start doin' the "thread police" thang on a regular basis, does that mean I can call you Great Auntie Watch? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "It just seems" Posted by Holly on 05:59:55 3/25/2001 that if you have solid information that people are involved in a fraud and a hoax. And if these people are intent on reporting false events in an effort to obstruct justice, then you should turn over your information to the BPD. But either that did not happen, or the information provided by AK and others was not verifiable. Even FW re-called his application for criminal charges. Why argue it on the forums? Evidence of obstrution would lead to criminal charging by local or even federal law enforcement. If I was AK and others, at this and other forums, and I said I knew FACTS that proved Nancy Krebs and others conspired, interstate, to obstruct justice, I would have gone to the FBI. Particularly if I am a confessed true crime enthusiast who drops out of sight to work on "real crimes". And I would never have undermined their investigation of my information by floating it on the forums. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Okay, Gem" Posted by Watching you on 06:54:40 3/25/2001 your little barbs are getting a bit tiresome. I was going to let it go, because I don't want to get into this stupidity, but you keep throwing them out there, so how's this? You are so freaking far off the mark with me, you may as well be in Siberia. You have this annoying habit of lumping me in with others, and that is where you make your mistake. I call them as I see them, it has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with the subject matter. I didn't see AK start thread after boring thread - dozens of them - in just a couple of hours, but that isn't even my point here. Did I take a couple of jabs at Ned? Oh, you bet your ass I did, and he had it coming, IMO. He personally insulted me, called me a liar. I'm a pretty smart lady, Gem, and believe me, I know the difference between what you accuse me of and what's really going on here. Yes indeedy. I didn't flay Ned the way AK's getting flayed on this thread. I didn't beat the shit out of him and then pick at his bones like vultures, like I see going on here - you included. Where the hell were you, Gem, when, as disgusted as I was with mame, I went after the posters on another forum for trashing her dad? I could have gotten into that one, too; in fact, some instigating asshole on this forum (at the time) accused me of doing just that. But, when all that trashing of mame and her dad was going on, I not only wouldn't be involved in it, I told them about it. Did I say I thought mame was way off base? Yes, I did, and I would do it again. But, Gem, you have never ever seen a post from me that is part of the mob scene - that cuts someone's throat, stabs them in the back, kicks the shit out of them, and then still can't leave it alone. Never. I'm not built that way, and your feeble attempts to chastise me for asking if anyone actually knows AK would be laughable if they were not so freaking obvious. For the last time, Gem, WY is not one of the pack. WY stands up for what she believes. WY does not care for the saturation tactics of some posters - i.e., keep posting very inflammatory posts relating to real people - when no one even knows this poster. I have read this thread - I have seen how things get turned around to mame and MW quite often. That isn't even an issue to me anymore, Gem, I could not care less if they want to keep beating on that dead horse. Whatever, Gem, you try to compare what is going on here with the Ned thing, take that however you want to, but what Ned was doing was deliberately hogging a thread, and I said so. I didn't attack Ned personally (like he did me). This thread is personal - it specifically shows in your own posts. What I think you need to do, Gem, is take your opinionated self off your perch and stop trying to make judgments about WY, stop with the thread police remarks, and why don't you just stop reading my posts altogether if they irritate you so much, because I will continue to call them as I see them, whether you like it or not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Well..." Posted by Pedro on 09:03:32 3/25/2001 ...just keep it here, in the WOR, and no Thread Police will get you. this is what normaly happen, begin with one poster, then another, another one and we end up just arguing about whatever. That's why the WOR is great. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "A personal thougt..." Posted by Pedro on 09:32:01 3/25/2001 ...I type and build my sentences like a child that's true; it takes longer for me than for many of you find the right way to say things using your language. Sometimes I have the time to do it right. Sometimes I am wrong and I am sure unfair, I try not to be. I lived before isolated from people in Alaska. This forum give me a life back, give me a beeeg personal problem, give me the blessing of having China in my life, give me the sadness of divorce, give me many friend who supported me while I was alone, isolated and away from everyone and everything I knew. I got that just when I needed it. This case isn't much active, do you know what bring us here day after day to talk about case, life, friends, dead, new born, everything? We area community, a darn community, established, working, with all the greatness and miseries of any other human community, our forum is a community like any village or town and the other forums are the next town down the road. The fact that we use the internet change the traditional concept of community connected to geographic location, that's all, and human relations are proper of human beings regardless of their locations, it has been probe here. This is new, but that's all, new. Isn't wrong, isn't weird, is just new and by been new, unusual. 300 years from now, will be the rule. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Amen to that, Brother!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 12:26:32 3/25/2001 We are just one big crazy (sometimes dysfunctional) family. Each one has his or her place. Each one is unique, and deserves to be heard. Every one has something to contribute, large or small. Every one is missed when he/she does not show up for days or weeks. Thank you for being our moderator: sometimes benevolent dictator; sometimes gracious host; sometimes just Pedro. Who luvsya, baby? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "For whatever it's worth, Pedro" Posted by Watching you on 09:47:01 3/25/2001 I have a lot of respect and caring for you. Wy fires up now and then, as we all know, but I count my blessings every day. Many of my blessings exist right here on this forum, with many good people. As it goes with family, it goes also here - there will always be disagreements and mutterings. That's life. Your words are eloquent, I think so much more so than if your English were perfect. You say your heart, and that goes a long way with me. Suffering often brings new insights along with it. I appreciate your insights very much. WY [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "WY..." Posted by Pedro on 10:21:29 3/25/2001 ...just tell china, she ask me to quit BS.ing you all!!!!! LOL. (just teassing here) Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "ah c'mon WY" Posted by Gemini on 16:04:29 3/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:04:29, 3/25/2001 You've razzed me for years for speaking up when I see bashing posts on the threads ... I mostly take it with good humor. You rarely comment on the stabs and slashes ... even when someone ends up, one against a gang. On the Ned thread, you actually jumped in to sling a billy club. Big deal? Not. But, you were doing just what you've given me grief about, so ... I just had to razz you back. Obviously, your humor doesn't carry that far. Now I know. Carry on. But, the next time you come after me ... remember how you felt when you got it back (only very lightly, BTW ... I like you too much to hit you with rough stuff), and (perhaps) re-think. Pedro, you're one of those increasingly rare individuals ... a gentleman ... in the best sense of the word. It's US who are lucky to have YOU. (edited to correct a big, glaring grammar error : ( ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "More selective hearing/reading?" Posted by Watching you on 16:38:59 3/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:38:59, 3/25/2001 Gem, I told you why, and you choose to ignore it. You keep trying to stuff me in those tiny compartments of yours, and it isn't going to work. As you say, I rarely comment on the stabs and the slabs, which might lead one to think I have damn good reason when I do. I don't do most things without good reason - I've seen first-hand how Ned works - if you challenge him, you're a liar and untrustworthy. I like you, too, Gem, but you might do some of that rethinking yourself, because you are way off base on this one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Just one more itty bitty thing" Posted by Watching you on 17:04:57 3/25/2001 Gem, then I'm done with this subject. I think you have me confused with someone else; either that, or if I ever did what you say, which I certainly don't remember, it must have meant more to you than it meant to me, because I don't recall "razzing you for years" about anything, especially thread policing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Selective memories" Posted by Gemini on 18:12:27 3/25/2001 I'm sorry, WY. I think the last time I saw "thread police" and "Aunt Gem" was just a few days ago. Didn't think you'd have forgotten so soon. Whatever ... I see where you're coming from. We're looking from two different perspectives. If you don't see where I'm coming from with the "double standard" comment (which, incidently, was the only thing I said on the subject 'til you brought it up again), it's not worth a big long explanation. Wasn't meant to upset you, just to razz you back a little. Oh mercy! Just found Tom's song (TFP) on npster ... the Paul Newman one from Cool Hand Luke. Off to dl : ). Now THAT's important. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Well put, Pedro!" Posted by shadow on 19:08:00 3/26/2001 And BTW, LurkerXIV, I was gone for two weeks and no one missed me - :-( shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]