From: denisgiron1978@gmail.com   
      
   Matt wrote:   
   > In the post where you claim to have   
   > no knowledge about the death of    
   > Wahid's wife, Roya, beyond what    
   > Wahid has publicly revealed, you    
   > admit to having made other facetious    
   > statements that you don't mean?    
      
   I’d be interested in seeing precisely which post of Nate’s you’re   
   referring to, so that one might get a better idea of what you mean. Could you   
   share a link, or at least quote an excerpt or otherwise elaborate?   
      
   Matt continued:   
   > While on a legal level such may be    
   > meaningless,  if you really wanted    
   > to express such lack of knowledge    
   > or involvement,  you need to make    
   > an isolated post stating such (too    
   > late for that now).    
      
   When Roya first passed, Nate sent condolences (which Nima later tried to   
   bizarrely cite as a sign of culpability). Since then, Nate has made clear that   
   he had nothing to do with her passing multiple times (in response to Nima’s   
   insane accusations).   
      
   Matt closed with:   
   > I'm more suspicious of you than    
   > ever now   
      
   Okay, let’s explore this. Do you intend this to mean you’re suspicious   
   that Nate did play a role in her passing? If so, elaborate on what you think   
   points to such. Let’s examine the evidence you feel points in that direction.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)