I have not made up anything. I have expressed my opinion and interpretations of what you and Dana have said - most of the time trying to find some clarity.
Its kind of funny how anyone who disagrees with you eventually gets called a liar and dishonest. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > And that has what to do with what was stated? I am beginning to think you > need some glasses there Scott as you seem to not be able top read very well. > "She bears some blame for not properly securing her account" does not equal > "It's ok if they don't have a warrant if they fiond something illegal". > That's pretty asinine Scott and not based on any form of reality. So > instead of talking about my (and Dana's) opinion, you and Sam feel it > necessary to dishonestly make shit up and claim that Dana and I stated that. > That is called lying and is very dishonorable. Try honesty for a > change...you will feel a lot better about yourselves. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:39 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! > > > You have said that you feel she bears some blame for what happened. > That is an opinion, not fact. (and pretty much the only thing I think > we disagree on - at least on this issue) > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Eric Roberts > <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >> >> Please show where either of us have stated that Sam. I know it's hard to >> argue when the facts are against you, but please stop making shit > up....that >> is very dishonorable and dishonest...granted that is something that is >> expected from teabaggers... >> >> Eric >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:22 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! >> >> >> The kid didn't have a warrant and you've been bitching for years about >> wireless wiretapping. Based on what both of you have said a warrant >> isn't needed if they find something illegal. >> >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think it's called a warrant, lol...that thing you are againt >>> requiring for wiretaps. >>> >>>> So, you are saying the government or anyone else can invade your >>>> privacy as long as they end up finding illegal activity? >>>> How's that saying go? You have nothing to worry about as long as you >>>> don't do anything wrong >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317342 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
