From: pianoforte109@yahoo.com   
      
   On 10/9/23 12:29 PM, ScottW wrote:   
   > On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 8:23:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:   
   >> On 10/8/23 9:30 PM, Art Sackman wrote:   
   >>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/2/23 1:19 PM, Art Sackman wrote:   
   >>>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 9/30/23 12:55 AM, Art Sackman wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:24:05 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 9/29/23 6:14 PM, ScottW wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:07:57 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/23 10:58 AM, ScottW wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> In this case...   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> The topic is Jack Smith.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> So you can't even try to address my points.   
   >>>>>>>>> Why am I not surprised?   
   >>>>>>>> You snipped me addressing your point.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It showed up in your post. No need to keep repeating   
   >>>>>>> the pas conversations.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> When I snip your old stuff, I also snip my own.   
   >>>>>> I was addressing Scott.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I was supporting Scott   
   >>>> Well, then, I'll explain that the objection follows snipping a response   
   >>>> then saying I didn't respond. This is dishonest and objectionable.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your post still stands on the record.   
   >>> Stop being such a crybaby.   
   >>> I have no obligation to replicate your earlier post, being   
   >>> that it still stands.   
   >> It's not your post. It's Scott's and he said, "So you can't even try to   
   >> address my points," when I did in fact address his points.   
   >   
   > No, in fact you did not.   
      
   You: "why haven't the lenders sued?"   
      
   Me: "Trump has been sued by lenders, usually for non-payment."   
      
   Of course, that refers to the Engoron case, not that of Jack Smith which   
   involves national security and unlawful retention of documents.   
      
   No, it doesn't matter why the banks accepted his valuations. He's not   
   charged with deceiving banks, he's charged with submitting false documents.   
      
   If you want even more answer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)