John Kerry's choice of a malpractice shyster to be his running mate.
If I do vote for him, it will be strictly to punish the current
administration for the Iraq mess.

RHR

RHR wrote: John Kerry's choice of a malpractice shyster to be his running mate. If I do vote for him, it will be strictly to punish the current administration for the Iraq mess.

We need *someone* to sue the Bush Administration.... :)

"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in message
news:pn8le010i5an1ouc1e9mrj6taspjud59oc@4ax.com... John Kerry's choice of a malpractice shyster to be his running mate. If I do vote for him, it will be strictly to punish the current administration for the Iraq mess. RHR

Name an occasion in which John Edwards did something to deserve the name you
give him. Name one occasion in which he did something dishonest or immoral.
You won't, of course.

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:10:18 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in messagenews:pn8le010i5an1ouc1e9mrj6taspjud59oc@4ax .com... John Kerry's choice of a malpractice shyster to be his running mate. If I do vote for him, it will be strictly to punish the current administration for the Iraq mess. RHRName an occasion in which John Edwards did something to deserve the name yougive him. Name one occasion in which he did something dishonest or immoral.You won't, of course.



Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich?
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 20, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The superstar trial lawyer accomplishments of John
Edwards, which allowed this former millworker to amass a personal
fortune, finance his successful U.S. Senate run in 1998 and catapult
himself into the 2004 race for president, may have been partially
built on "junk science," according to legal and medical experts who
spoke with CNSNews.com .

Edwards, who with a late surge finished second in Monday's Iowa
Caucuses, continues to cite one of his most lucrative legal victories
as an example of how he would stand up for "the little guy" if elected
president.

Edwards became one of America's wealthiest trial lawyers by winning
record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the
botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused
infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor
function impairment and lifelong disability.

Although he was involved in other types of personal injury litigation,
Edwards specialized in infant cerebral palsy and brain damage cases
during his early days as a trial lawyer and with the Raleigh, N.C.,
firm of Edwards & Kirby.

Edwards has repeatedly told campaign audiences that he fought on
behalf of the common man against the large insurance companies. But a
political critic with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career in
North Carolina told CNSNews.com a different story

"Edwards always helped the little guy as long as he got a million
dollars out of it," said the source, who did not want to be
identified.

The cause of cerebral palsy has been debated since the 19th century.
Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that
doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the
birthing process. Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the
scientific premise of the high profile court cases that helped Edwards
become a multi-millionaire and finance his own successful campaign for
the U.S. Senate.

Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the
United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, said it is
conceivable for a doctor's incompetence to cause cerebral palsy in an
infant. "There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the
time of delivery. But it's really unusual. It's really quite unusual,"
Goldstein said.

"The overwhelming majority of children that are born with
developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything
about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know,"
Goldstein added.

The medical and legal experts with whom CNSNews.com consulted said
each case of cerebral palsy had to be evaluated on its own, but that
medical science was increasingly exonerating the doctors involved in
the labor and delivery where cerebral palsy resulted.

Eldon L. Boisseau of the Kansas-based firm Turner and Boisseau,
specializing in defending doctors' insurance companies from medical
malpractice lawsuits, agreed that physician-caused cerebral palsy
"occurs only rarely."

"At the end of the day, I verily believe we will find [the cause of
cerebral palsy is] all genetic," Boisseau said in an interview with
CNSNews.com.

Dr. John Freeman, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Johns
Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., also believes there is little
obstetricians can do to prevent cerebral palsy during delivery. "Most
cases of cerebral palsy are not due to asphyxia," Freeman told
CNSNews.com.

"A great many of these cases are due to subtle infections of the child
before birth," Freeman said. "That is the cause of the premature labor
and the cause of the [brain] damage. There is little or no evidence
that if you did a [caesarean] section a short time earlier you would
prevent cerebral palsy," he added.

'Heart wrenching plea'

But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied
more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to
persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in
causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.

Edwards' trial summaries "routinely went beyond a recitation of his
case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken
voices of injured children," according to a comprehensive analysis of
Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a
medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor
and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting
then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this --
right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told
the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's
talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I
don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't
ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a
record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the
girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal.
Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.

Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute
and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in
court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait.

"Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a
trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular
skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law," Olson told
CNSNews.com .

"These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They
can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a
gift," Olson added.

However, Olson believes trial lawyers "have been getting away with an
awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation," by excluding certain
scientific evidence.

"[Trial lawyers] have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's
conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the
child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened
before they ever got to the delivery room," Olson said.

'Junk science in the courtroom'

Peter Huber, a lawyer and author of the book, Galileo's Revenge: Junk
Science in the Courtroom, believes juries are typically manipulated
with emotional arguments to aid the plaintiff's case.

"The jury sees the undisputed trauma first, the disputed negligence
second, the undisputed cerebral palsy third. It is a perfect set-up
for misinterpreting sequence as cause," Huber wrote.

According to Boisseau, the growing body of scientific studies showing
that obstetricians are generally blameless in cerebral palsy cases has
done nothing to alter the trend of multi-million dollar court
settlements. Those settlements are reached, Boisseau said, even though
"a lot of the plaintiff's expert science is unsupported, essentially
junk science."

Many juries never even get to hear about the medical science or the
origins of cerebral palsy because "90 percent of suits for obstetrical
malpractice are settled" out of court, noted Freeman of Johns Hopkins
Hospital.

Huber does not expect cerebral palsy cases to fade away, despite the
growing body of scientific evidence exonerating doctors.

"Despite the almost complete absence of scientific basis for these
[medical malpractice] claims, cerebral palsy cases remain enormously
attractive to lawyers," Huber wrote.

The judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice lawsuits
that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy helped
Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60
million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more than $1
million, according to Edwards' Senate financial disclosure forms.
Edwards' old law firm reportedly kept between 25 and 40 percent of the
jury awards/settlements during the time he worked there.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards was able to win
"more than $152 million" based on his involvement in 63 lawsuits
alone. The legal profession recognized Edwards' achievements by
inducting him into the prestigious legal society called the Inner
Circle of Advocates, which includes the nation's top 100 lawyers.
Lawyers Weekly also cited Edwards as one of America's "Lawyers of the
Year" in 1996.

'The kids and families I've fought for'

Edwards has shifted his emotionally charged speeches from the jury box
to the presidential campaign trail and is fond of re-telling the story
of how his firm sued on behalf of a cerebral palsy-afflicted boy named
Ethan Bedrick in 1996.

Ethan, born in North Carolina in 1992, allegedly developed cerebral
palsy after a botched delivery. Edwards has explained to audiences at
presidential campaign rallies that suing Ethan's insurance carrier,
Travelers Insurance Co., to cover the boy's physical therapy was
necessary because "Ethan's family had no choice.

"[The family was] forced to go to court to get their son the care he
needed," Edwards has said of the case, which his law firm won.

Edwards has repeatedly cited Ethan's case as an example of "the kids
and families I've fought for," and in the minds of many political
observers positioned himself as the classic David against the
insurance industry's Goliath.

However, Edwards has also repeatedly failed to mention that he had
represented Ethan Bedrick in a lawsuit against the boy's obstetrician
a year earlier in 1995. Edwards had alleged that the doctor was
negligent in failing to prevent the boy's oxygen deprivation during
labor and therefore had caused the boy's cerebral palsy.

Edwards settled the malpractice case with the doctor's insurance
company less than three weeks into the trial, enabling Ethan's family
to get a reported $5 million for medical and living expenses. The case
was reportedly the largest medical malpractice settlement in North
Carolina history.

'I'm proud of that'

Edwards is not shy about defending his legal career and says he would
gladly put his record up against that of President Bush in this year's
general election.

"The time I spent in courtrooms representing kids and families
against, you know, big insurance companies and big drug companies and
big corporate America -- I'm proud of that," Edwards told the CBS news
magazine 60 Minutes in December 2003.

But Edwards' critics have a different view of the man; they say he has
repeatedly acted to enrich himself.

"John Edwards' spin is always -- I am helping the little guy. But he
screened his cases to the point that he only helped people that were
going to make him richer," said the CNSNews.com source with extensive
knowledge of Edwards' legal career.

Dr. Lorne Hall, one of the physicians with whom Edwards reached a
confidential settlement in a malpractice case involving cerebral
palsy, agreed, telling The Charlotte Observer in 2003 that "[Edwards]
knows how to pick cases, and he knows the ones he can win."

Hall said Edwards was "very polished, very polite, dressed to the T's,
smiling at the ladies." But the anonymous source for this story said
Edwards displayed a "belligerent attitude" toward the medical
profession.

"He sued nurses, doctors, hospitals. The reputation he had was -- he
never wanted to hear that nobody did anything wrong. If you even
walked by the door of an alleged malpractice incident, you were gong
to cough up money too," the source said.

But John Hood, president of the free-market, Raleigh, N.C.-based John
Locke Foundation said Edwards tailored the evidence in his court cases
for maximum impact.

"In pursuing his client's cases he did what many other trial lawyers
do. He bent the available evidence to fit what he wanted to say," Hood
told CNSNews.com . "That is the nature of an advocacy system," Hood
added

Hood does not fault Edwards for the strategies he used as a trial
lawyer.

"He was an advocate for his clients. It was his job to make the best
possible case for them," Hood said.

Many legal observers agree that Edwards was simply doing his job and
doing it very well.

A North Carolina newspaper, The News and Observer, said Edwards
"forged a reputation as one of the most skilled plaintiff's attorneys
in the business."

Retired North Carolina Superior Court Judge Robert Farmer, who heard
many of Edwards' arguments in court, had nothing but praise for the
abilities of the former trial lawyer, turned senator.

"He was probably the best I ever had in the 21 years I had on the
bench. Lawyers would come in to watch him, to see what he does,"
Farmer told the Chicago Tribune in December 2003.

'Scientifically unfounded'

Olson said lawsuits blaming obstetricians for cerebral palsy and other
infant brain damage "may constitute the single biggest branch of
medical malpractice litigation." Cerebral palsy is diagnosed in about
8,000 infants annually in the U.S.

But the recent scientific studies may make those lawsuits
"scientifically unfounded," Olson explained. He contends that the
medical malpractice suits that enabled Edwards and other trial lawyers
to become rich and famous are crippling medical specialties like
obstetrics, emergency room medicine and neurosurgery.

"A few years ago every neurosurgeon in Washington D.C., had been sued,
and it can't be because the nation's capital gets only bad
neurosurgeons. It's because it's too tempting to file against the
competent ones because so many terrible things go wrong with their
patients," Olson added.

Edwards, who opposes legislation that would cap damages in liability
lawsuits, would not respond to repeated requests through his campaign
offices for comment.

"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in message
news:kuhle0p2nrbk2vvejsh27lttlr4tggdvfv@4ax.com... On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:10:18 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote:"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in messagenews:pn8le010i5an1ouc1e9mrj6taspjud59oc@4ax .com... John Kerry's choice of a malpractice shyster to be his running mate. If I do vote for him, it will be strictly to punish the current administration for the Iraq mess.Name an occasion in which John Edwards did something to deserve the name
yougive him. Name one occasion in which he did something dishonest or
immoral.You won't, of course. Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich? By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer January 20, 2004
<snip>

A lawyer is supposed to be a zealous advocate for his or her client.
Personal injury attorneys usually take cases on contingency. Edwards was an
advocate for injured people. Edwards put experts on to testify that the
cause of his clients' injury was malpractice. Juries that heard all the
evidence found that they believed the injuries in question were caused by
malpractice. Edwards got a percentage of some rather large verdicts that
were paid by malpracticing doctors or their insurance carriers. Large
verdicts come from serious injuries caused by deviation from the standard of
care.

Malpractice kills and maims a lot of people. Without attorneys that are
willing to put up their own time and money to fund these cases a lot of
people would be left without any remedy. When it happens to you or someone
you care about the first thing you'll do is hire a good personal injury
attorney; and I doubt you'll call him or her an ambulance chaser.

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:35:29 -0700, "Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net>
wrote:
Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich? By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer January 20, 2004<snip>A lawyer is supposed to be a zealous advocate for his or her client.Personal injury attorneys usually take cases on contingency. Edwards was anadvocate for injured people. Edwards put experts on to testify that thecause of his clients' injury was malpractice. Juries that heard all theevidence found that they believed the injuries in question were caused bymalpractice.

You have no way of knowing whether the juries were presented with all
the relevant evidence or even if they understood what was presented to
them. If you read the article, you snipped, you would see that
Edwards' shtick is to go well beyond the presentation of evidence and
make emotional appeals to the ignoramuses who are to decide the case.
Truth is much better served in non adversarial proceedings where the
triers of fact also are the ones to question the witnesses.

The best I can say for Edwards is that the frauds he perpetuated in
court, pale besides those, using similar tactics, pulled off by Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, in getting the US in the
unfortunate international situation we now have.

RHR

In article <kuhle0p2nrbk2vvejsh27lttlr4tggdvfv@4ax.com>,
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:10:18 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net>wrote:"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in messagenews:pn8le010i5an1ouc1e9mrj6taspjud59oc@4ax .com... John Kerry's choice of a malpractice shyster to be his running mate. If I do vote for him, it will be strictly to punish the current administration for the Iraq mess. RHRName an occasion in which John Edwards did something to deserve the name yougive him. Name one occasion in which he did something dishonest or immoral.You won't, of course.Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich?By Marc MoranoCNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

Read the fine print, Risch. "CNSNews" is "is a Division of the
Media Research Center." By their own description:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the
news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the
national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's
understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined
conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that
liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also
to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is
the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC).

"CNSNews" is a tendentious right-wing propaganda outlet trying to pass themselves off as
a news service. Ironic that they would be sponsored by people claiming that they are out
to end bias in the media, but there you have it.

On 6 Jul 2004 13:54:57 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich?By Marc MoranoCNSNews.com Senior Staff WriterRead the fine print, Risch. "CNSNews" is "is a Division of theMedia Research Center." By their own description:The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to thenews media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within thenational news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public'sunderstanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determinedconservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - thatliberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but alsoto neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall isthe now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)."CNSNews" is a tendentious right-wing propaganda outlet trying to pass themselves off asa news service. Ironic that they would be sponsored by people claiming that they are outto end bias in the media, but there you have it.
Are you a lawyer or politician, Jabine? You seem to think that the
way to refute an argument is to launch an ad hominem against the
people who published it. So what's your conclusion? Edwards isn't a
shyster?

RHR

In article <49qle016d2g05coi7glghrdm5rmj1mgtou@4ax.com>,
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:On 6 Jul 2004 13:54:57 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich?By Marc MoranoCNSNews.com Senior Staff WriterRead the fine print, Risch. "CNSNews" is "is a Division of theMedia Research Center." By their own description:The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to thenews media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within thenational news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public'sunderstanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determinedconservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - thatliberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but alsoto neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall isthe now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)."CNSNews" is a tendentious right-wing propaganda outlet trying to pass themselves off asa news service. Ironic that they would be sponsored by people claiming that they are outto end bias in the media, but there you have it.Are you a lawyer or politician, Jabine? You seem to think that theway to refute an argument is to launch an ad hominem against thepeople who published it. So what's your conclusion? Edwards isn't ashyster?

That CNSNews isn't a news service.

As for the "argument" it seems to be that the opposing attorneys in
the cases Edwards brought disagreed with his claims. Stop the presses!

RHR wrote: On 6 Jul 2004 13:54:57 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich?By Marc MoranoCNSNews.com Senior Staff WriterRead the fine print, Risch. "CNSNews" is "is a Division of theMedia Research Center." By their own description:The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to thenews media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within thenational news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public'sunderstanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determinedconservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - thatliberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but alsoto neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall isthe now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)."CNSNews" is a tendentious right-wing propaganda outlet trying to pass themselves off asa news service. Ironic that they would be sponsored by people claiming that they are outto end bias in the media, but there you have it. Are you a lawyer or politician, Jabine? You seem to think that the way to refute an argument is to launch an ad hominem against the people who published it.

One should always consider the source of a claim. Are you going to
accept the Palestinian Liberation Organization's image of Jews at face
value and if not, why not?

Ken Smith wrote:
One should always consider the source of a claim.

For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to
submit to a psychological examination.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:One should always consider the source of a claim. For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination.

So what? Let us assume here that if I were as obsessive-compulsive
as you obviously are, and suffered from the same overwhelming oral
fixation as yours
(http://www.geocities.com/mild_colonial_boy/kaldis.html), would it
necessarily invalidate my opinion on country music?

And when we hear your proclamation that your brother-in-law Cam Brown
did not murder his illegitimate four-year-old daughter in cold blood by
throwing her off a cliff, is it relevant that he is your brother-in-law,
and that you have admitted that you are "protecting your sister?" It is
obvious that Cam has received fair treatment at the hands of the police
and court officials, as you have defined it as it applies to me -- hint,
no due process required! -- and that your protestations that he has been
treated unjustly are laughable on their face.

Besides, given the BIZARRE reasons you have offered for his innocence
[restated for maximum comedic effect], it doesn't matter who you are --
it is self-evident that you are a mentally disturbed religious crackpot
and all-purpose whack-job.

Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:
One should always consider the source of a claim.
For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination.
So what?

The above is a true statement. And I say that the rest of your commentary
(which I have elided) should be read in light of the above.
[...]
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Ken Smith wrote:>One should always consider the source of a claim.For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board tosubmit to a psychological examination.So what? The above is a true statement.

So are mine. The only difference is that I give the people the
proper context; my true and *accurate* statements are therefore not
misleading.

>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> Ken Smith wrote:
> One should always consider the source of a claim.
For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to
submit to a psychological examination.
So what?
"The above is a true statement. And I say that the rest of your commentary
(which I have elided) should be read in light of the above."


Well, well, well, its the same old ad hominem attack... hey, are you *sure*
this isnt personal, Ted?

Meanwhile, Cameron Brown has been sitting in jail for about eight months. This,
too, is a true statement.

Ted, are you suggesting that we automatically conclude that Cam *is* a
"baby-killer"... or should we hold off on any judgements concerning the
reputations of either Cameron or Ken until they have at least had their *day in
court?*

------
have a GREAT day !!!!!
Solar

SolarChase wrote:Theodore A. Kaldis wroteKen Smith wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> Ken Smith wrote:>>One should always consider the source of a claim.>> For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination. So what?"The above is a true statement. And I say that the rest of your commentary(which I have elided) should be read in light of the above." Well, well, well, its the same old ad hominem attack... hey, are you *sure* this isnt personal, Ted? Meanwhile, Cameron Brown has been sitting in jail for about eight months. This, too, is a true statement. Ted, are you suggesting that we automatically conclude that Cam *is* a "baby-killer"... or should we hold off on any judgements concerning the reputations of either Cameron or Ken until they have at least had their *day in court?*

Solar, you hit that one out of the park! Barry Bonds-class.
Straight into San Francisco Bay. Past the kayaks. A walk-off job.

Ted Kaldis is like a bloodied bull. I've dinged him so often over
the years -- not just beating him senseless, but holding him up to
ridicule! -- that whenever he sees one of my posts, he sees red. He
wants to beat me so bad he can taste it. He wants to hurt me. But he's
simply not in my league, so he has to play the ad hominem card.

And that's why Cam Brown's arrest and incarceration has been a sort
of divine justice.

Ted's "Because the Examiners asked him to take a psych exam, Ken must
be presumed to be crazy" argument translates logically to "Because the
L.A. Sheriff arrested Cameron Brown for the murder of his illegitimate
four-year-old daughter, he must be presumed to be a cold-blooded child
killer." The notion that government officials can sometimes act out of
malice and/or with ulterior motives was one Teddi was never prepared to
countenance. But now, he *NEEDS* it to be true. :)

I get up in the morning and see elk grazing out my window. Cam Brown
sees three brick walls and iron bars. And I can't imagine what this is
doing to (as I recall, his only sister) Patty. It probably hurts Teddi
more than if it was his sorry *** in the slammer. Thus, in a sense, he
knows the rage I feel -- if you didn't, you wouldn't be human -- and he
doesn't like it one damn bit.

Ted is so obsessed with his quest for revenge that he doesn't see
that every argument he uses to justify his position applies with even
greater force as against Cam Brown. And at this point, Ted's obsession
is such that he would far prefer to see his brother-in-law gassed than
for me to obtain just redress. Personally, I'm just tired of his act.

My position: Both of us deserve our "day in court," sooner rather
than later. And let justice prevail, though the heavens fall!

Just to let you know, Ted, when you get back from Cam's hearing, I'll
be tied up with more important things for a few weeks, and might not be
able to respond in a timely manner to your remarks.

All I can say is that as long as Cam finally gets what I've been long
denied -- the right to challenge his accusers in open court -- that is a
good thing.


Ken Smith wrote: SolarChase wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote> Ken Smith wrote:>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>>> Ken Smith wrote:>>> One should always consider the source of a claim.>>>> For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination.> So what? "The above is a true statement. And I say that the rest of your commentary (which I have elided) should be read in light of the above." Well, well, well, its the same old ad hominem attack... hey, are you *sure* this isnt personal, Ted? Meanwhile, Cameron Brown has been sitting in jail for about eight months. This, too, is a true statement. Ted, are you suggesting that we automatically conclude that Cam *is* a "baby-killer"... or should we hold off on any judgements concerning the reputations of either Cameron or Ken until they have at least had their *day in court?* Solar, you hit that one out of the park! Barry Bonds-class. Straight into San Francisco Bay. Past the kayaks. A walk-off job. Ted Kaldis is like a bloodied bull. I've dinged him so often over the years -- not just beating him senseless, but holding him up to ridicule! -- that whenever he sees one of my posts, he sees red. He wants to beat me so bad he can taste it. He wants to hurt me. But he's simply not in my league, so he has to play the ad hominem card. And that's why Cam Brown's arrest and incarceration has been a sort of divine justice. Ted's "Because the Examiners asked him to take a psych exam, Ken must be presumed to be crazy" argument translates logically to "Because the L.A. Sheriff arrested Cameron Brown for the murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter, he must be presumed to be a cold-blooded child killer." The notion that government officials can sometimes act out of malice and/or with ulterior motives was one Teddi was never prepared to countenance. But now, he *NEEDS* it to be true. :) I get up in the morning and see elk grazing out my window. Cam Brown sees three brick walls and iron bars. And I can't imagine what this is doing to (as I recall, his only sister) Patty. It probably hurts Teddi more than if it was his sorry *** in the slammer. Thus, in a sense, he knows the rage I feel -- if you didn't, you wouldn't be human -- and he doesn't like it one damn bit. Ted is so obsessed with his quest for revenge that he doesn't see that every argument he uses to justify his position applies with even greater force as against Cam Brown. And at this point, Ted's obsession is such that he would far prefer to see his brother-in-law gassed than for me to obtain just redress. Personally, I'm just tired of his act. My position: Both of us deserve our "day in court," sooner rather than later. And let justice prevail, though the heavens fall!

Ken Smith wrote: Just to let you know, Ted, when you get back from Cam's hearing, I'll be tied up with more important things for a few weeks, and might not be able to respond in a timely manner to your remarks. All I can say is that as long as Cam finally gets what I've been long denied -- the right to challenge his accusers in open court -- that is a good thing.

Good for the child he tossed off the cliff to her death ...?

Ken Smith wrote: SolarChase wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote>> Ken Smith wrote: >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: >>>> Ken Smith wrote:>>>> One should always consider the source of a claim.>>> >>> For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination. >> So what?> "The above is a true statement. And I say that the rest> of your commentary (which I have elided) should be read> in light of the above." Well, well, well, its the same old ad hominem attack... hey, are you *sure* this isnt personal, Ted? Meanwhile, Cameron Brown has been sitting in jail for about eight months. This, too, is a true statement. Ted, are you suggesting that we automatically conclude that Cam *is* a "baby-killer"... or should we hold off on any judgements concerning the reputations of either Cameron or Ken until they have at least had their *day in court?* Solar, you hit that one out of the park! Barry Bonds-class. Straight into San Francisco Bay. Past the kayaks. A walk-off job. Ted Kaldis is like a bloodied bull. I've dinged him so often over the years -- not just beating him senseless, but holding him up to ridicule! -- that whenever he sees one of my posts, he sees red. He wants to beat me so bad he can taste it. He wants to hurt me. But he's simply not in my league, so he has to play the ad hominem card. And that's why Cam Brown's arrest and incarceration has been a sort of divine justice. Ted's "Because the Examiners asked him to take a psych exam, Ken must be presumed to be crazy" argument translates logically to "Because the L.A. Sheriff arrested Cameron Brown for the murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter, he must be presumed to be a cold-blooded child killer." The notion that government officials can sometimes act out of malice and/or with ulterior motives was one Teddi was never prepared to countenance. But now, he *NEEDS* it to be true. :) I get up in the morning and see elk grazing out my window. Cam Brown sees three brick walls and iron bars. And I can't imagine what this is doing to (as I recall, his only sister) Patty. It probably hurts Teddi more than if it was his sorry *** in the slammer. Thus, in a sense, he knows the rage I feel -- if you didn't, you wouldn't be human -- and he doesn't like it one damn bit. Ted is so obsessed with his quest for revenge that he doesn't see that every argument he uses to justify his position applies with even greater force as against Cam Brown. And at this point, Ted's obsession is such that he would far prefer to see his brother-in-law gassed than for me to obtain just redress. Personally, I'm just tired of his act. My position: Both of us deserve our "day in court," sooner rather than later. And let justice prevail, though the heavens fall!

--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we
find him." ~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13

"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our
priority." ~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada.
So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
~George W. Bush on how he dodged the
Vietnam draft---1994

=> Vox Populi © wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Just to let you know, Ted, when you get back from Cam'shearing, I'll be tied up with more important things for afew weeks, and might not be able to respond in a timelymanner to your remarks. All I can say is that as long as Cam finally gets whatI've been long denied -- the right to challenge hisaccusers in open court -- that is a good thing. Good for the child he tossed off the cliff to her death ...?
Yes, irrespective of his innocence or guilt.

While the evidence Ted has presented is certainly suggestive of
guilt, and pretty much everyone here who has weighed in on the issue is
leaning toward a conclusion of guilt on Ted's account, both the innocent
and the guilty deserve a fair trial. Besides, we haven't seen all the
evidence.

I have talked about Cam's case with Dr. Henry Lee. His view was
about what I expected: Everything depends on where Lauren landed.
Unless the State's expert witness is as dumb as a Bush, relying
unquestioningly on obviously erroneous intelligence, the State should
win the prelim. Yet, if the case goes to trial, I'd bet against an
eventual conviction.

But I guess that my not believing that little girls are wont to take
running starts before they take flying leaps off of cliffs is supposed
to be <snicker> evidence <snicker> that I am "crazy." ;)

That a guilty man goes free would be, in my estimation, preferable to
putting an innocent man to death -- and it doesn't matter whether it is
Cam Brown or Terry Nichols. But what *Ted* needs to see is that if you
demand justice for you and yours, you have to insist upon ensuring that
others who are equally deserving of it receive it, as well.
Ken Smith wrote:SolarChase wrote:>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote>>>Ken Smith wrote:> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> >>>> Ken Smith wrote:>>>>>>>One should always consider the source of a claim.>>>>> >>> For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar>Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination.>> >> So what?>>>>"The above is a true statement. And I say that the rest>>of your commentary (which I have elided) should be read>>in light of the above.">>Well, well, well, its the same old ad hominem attack...>hey, are you *sure* this isnt personal, Ted?>>Meanwhile, Cameron Brown has been sitting in jail for>about eight months. This, too, is a true statement.>>Ted, are you suggesting that we automatically conclude>that Cam *is* a "baby-killer"... or should we hold off on>any judgements concerning the reputations of either>Cameron or Ken until they have at least had>their *day in court?* Solar, you hit that one out of the park! BarryBonds-class. Straight into San Francisco Bay. Past thekayaks. A walk-off job. Ted Kaldis is like a bloodied bull. I've dinged him sooften over the years -- not just beating him senseless,but holding him up to ridicule! -- that whenever he seesone of my posts, he sees red. He wants to beat me so badhe can taste it. He wants to hurt me. But he's simplynot in my league, so he has to play the ad hominem card. And that's why Cam Brown's arrest and incarceration hasbeen a sort of divine justice. Ted's "Because the Examiners asked him to take a psychexam, Ken must be presumed to be crazy" argumenttranslates logically to "Because the L.A. Sheriff arrestedCameron Brown for the murder of his illegitimatefour-year-old daughter, he must be presumed to be acold-blooded child killer." The notion that governmentofficials can sometimes act out of malice and/or withulterior motives was one Teddi was never prepared tocountenance. But now, he *NEEDS* it to be true. :) I get up in the morning and see elk grazing out mywindow. Cam Brown sees three brick walls and iron bars.And I can't imagine what this is doing to (as I recall,his only sister) Patty. It probably hurts Teddi more thanif it was his sorry *** in the slammer. Thus, in a sense,he knows the rage I feel -- if you didn't, you wouldn't behuman -- and he doesn't like it one damn bit. Ted is so obsessed with his quest for revenge that hedoesn't see that every argument he uses to justify hisposition applies with even greater force as against CamBrown. And at this point, Ted's obsession is such that hewould far prefer to see his brother-in-law gassed than forme to obtain just redress. Personally, I'm just tired ofhis act. My position: Both of us deserve our "day in court,"sooner rather than later. And let justice prevail, thoughthe heavens fall!

Ken Smith wrote: => Vox Populi © wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Just to let you know, Ted, when you get back from Cam's hearing, I'll be tied up with more important things for a few weeks, and might not be able to respond in a timely manner to your remarks. All I can say is that as long as Cam finally gets what I've been long denied -- the right to challenge his accusers in open court -- that is a good thing. Good for the child he tossed off the cliff to her death ...? Yes, irrespective of his innocence or guilt. While the evidence Ted has presented is certainly suggestive of guilt, and pretty much everyone here who has weighed in on the issue is leaning toward a conclusion of guilt on Ted's account, both the innocent and the guilty deserve a fair trial. Besides, we haven't seen all the evidence. I have talked about Cam's case with Dr. Henry Lee. His view was about what I expected: Everything depends on where Lauren landed. Unless the State's expert witness is as dumb as a Bush, relying unquestioningly on obviously erroneous intelligence, the State should win the prelim. Yet, if the case goes to trial, I'd bet against an eventual conviction. But I guess that my not believing that little girls are wont to take running starts before they take flying leaps off of cliffs is supposed to be <snicker> evidence <snicker> that I am "crazy." ;) That a guilty man goes free would be, in my estimation, preferable to putting an innocent man to death -- and it doesn't matter whether it is Cam Brown or Terry Nichols.

Actually the saying used to be, "better that 10 guilty go
free, than one innocent be wrongfully convicted" ...
quaint theory, yet the antithesis of the current 'murrikkan
criminal "justice" system as it has functioned for the last
100 years ...
But what *Ted* needs to see is that if you demand justice for you and yours, you have to insist upon ensuring that others who are equally deserving of it receive it, as well.

No, what KARMA dictates is that Ted and his family suffer
the full burden and penalty of his inbred fascist attitude, and
that he or his own family not only suffer the pain of seeing
an innocent child suffer a horrific death, but suffer additional
torment of having a innocent family member rot away for
the rest of their lives locked in a small, dark, barren prison
cell ... now THAT would be true "justice" ...

Ken Smith wrote:> SolarChase wrote:>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote>>>> Ken Smith wrote:>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> >>>> Ken Smith wrote:>>>>>>>>>> One should always consider the source of a claim.>>>>>>>>>> For example, Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar>> Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological>> examination.>>>>>> So what?>>>>>>> "The above is a true statement. And I say that the>>> rest>>> of your commentary (which I have elided) should be read>>> in light of the above.">>>> Well, well, well, its the same old ad hominem attack...>> hey, are you *sure* this isnt personal, Ted?>>>> Meanwhile, Cameron Brown has been sitting in jail for>> about eight months. This, too, is a true statement.>>>> Ted, are you suggesting that we automatically conclude>> that Cam *is* a "baby-killer"... or should we hold off>> on>> any judgements concerning the reputations of either>> Cameron or Ken until they have at least had>> their *day in court?*>> Solar, you hit that one out of the park! Barry> Bonds-class. Straight into San Francisco Bay. Past the> kayaks. A walk-off job.>> Ted Kaldis is like a bloodied bull. I've dinged him so> often over the years -- not just beating him senseless,> but holding him up to ridicule! -- that whenever he sees> one of my posts, he sees red. He wants to beat me so bad> he can taste it. He wants to hurt me. But he's simply> not in my league, so he has to play the ad hominem card.>> And that's why Cam Brown's arrest and incarceration has> been a sort of divine justice.>> Ted's "Because the Examiners asked him to take a psych> exam, Ken must be presumed to be crazy" argument> translates logically to "Because the L.A. Sheriff> arrested> Cameron Brown for the murder of his illegitimate> four-year-old daughter, he must be presumed to be a> cold-blooded child killer." The notion that government> officials can sometimes act out of malice and/or with> ulterior motives was one Teddi was never prepared to> countenance. But now, he *NEEDS* it to be true. :)>> I get up in the morning and see elk grazing out my> window. Cam Brown sees three brick walls and iron bars.> And I can't imagine what this is doing to (as I recall,> his only sister) Patty. It probably hurts Teddi more> than> if it was his sorry *** in the slammer. Thus, in a> sense,> he knows the rage I feel -- if you didn't, you wouldn't> be> human -- and he doesn't like it one damn bit.>> Ted is so obsessed with his quest for revenge that he> doesn't see that every argument he uses to justify his> position applies with even greater force as against Cam> Brown. And at this point, Ted's obsession is such that> he> would far prefer to see his brother-in-law gassed than> for> me to obtain just redress. Personally, I'm just tired of> his act.>> My position: Both of us deserve our "day in court,"> sooner rather than later. And let justice prevail,> though> the heavens fall!

--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we
find him." ~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13

"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our
priority." ~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada.
So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
~George W. Bush on how he dodged the
Vietnam draft---1994

=> Vox Populi © wrote: Ken Smith wrote:

[snip]
But what *Ted* needs to see is that if you demand justicefor you and yours, you have to insist upon ensuring thatothers who are equally deserving of it receive it, as well. No, what KARMA dictates is that Ted and his family suffer the full burden and penalty of his inbred fascist attitude, and that he or his own family not only suffer the pain of seeing an innocent child suffer a horrific death, but suffer additional torment of having a innocent family member rot away for the rest of their lives locked in a small, dark, barren prison cell ... now THAT would be true "justice" ...

While it would be karmic justice for Ted, I wouldn't want to wish it
on Cam. I don't know what kind of guy he is, but it's a safe bet that
he's a lot more decent than our Ted. Remember, you don't exactly pick
your in-laws. :)

Ken Smith wrote: => Vox Populi © wrote: Ken Smith wrote: [snip] But what *Ted* needs to see is that if you demand justice for you and yours, you have to insist upon ensuring that others who are equally deserving of it receive it, as well. No, what KARMA dictates is that Ted and his family suffer the full burden and penalty of his inbred fascist attitude, and that he or his own family not only suffer the pain of seeing an innocent child suffer a horrific death, but suffer additional torment of having a innocent family member rot away for the rest of their lives locked in a small, dark, barren prison cell ... now THAT would be true "justice" ... While it would be karmic justice for Ted, I wouldn't want to wish it on Cam. I don't know what kind of guy he is, but it's a safe bet that he's a lot more decent than our Ted.

Safest bet out there ...
Remember, you don't exactly pick your in-laws. :)

But you can toss them off a very high cliff ...


--
A multitude of laws in a country is like
a great number of physicians,
a sign of weakness and malady
-- Voltaire

Ken Smith wrote:
[usual bollocks]

Without a computer of my own for the past few days, I haven't been able to
post. It's gonna take me some time to catch up with you tossers. (If it's
even worth it.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40F06800.8DF35A67@worldnet.att.net... Ken Smith wrote: [usual bollocks] Without a computer of my own for the past few days, I haven't been able to post. It's gonna take me some time to catch up with you tossers. (If
it's even worth it.)

http://www.craigslist.org/

Cheap computers

Bootstrap Bill wrote: "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:40F06800.8DF35A67@worldnet.att.net...Ken Smith wrote:[usual bollocks]Without a computer of my own for the past few days, I haven't been able topost. It's gonna take me some time to catch up with you tossers. (If it's even worth it.) http://www.craigslist.org/ Cheap computers

Demonds! Has to be 'dem demonds! :)

Bootstrap Bill wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:
[usual bollocks]
Without a computer of my own for the past few days, I haven't been able to post. It's gonna take me some time to catch up with you tossers. (If it's even worth it.)
http://www.craigslist.org/
Cheap computers

Not interested in a cheap computer. Thinking about getting a new PowerBook.

[BTW, turns out that a memory chip had become unseated. Laptop works fine
now. But it's up for replacement in Sept.]
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:
[what Ted can't bear to hear, much less, deal with -- reattached]
Without a computer of my own for the past few days, I haven't been able to post. It's gonna take me some time to catch up with you tossers. (If it's even worth it.)
At this point, it's probably not,

You got that right, loser.
as Solar has so completely shut you down that further discussion is probably pointless. [...]

One thing about those who are psychologically unbalanced: they often suffer
from delusions.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Ken Smith wrote:
Just to let you know, Ted, when you get back from Cam's hearing, I'll be tied up with more important things for a few weeks,

Thank God for small miracles.
and might not be able to respond in a timely manner to your remarks.

Why even bother? Who gives a toss about whatever the f*** you have to say?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:Just to let you know, Ted, when you get back from Cam's hearing, I'll betied up with more important things for a few weeks, Thank God for small miracles.and might not be able to respond in a timely manner to your remarks. Why even bother? Who gives a toss about whatever the f*** you have to say?

YOU sure do. After all, you always respond....

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Ken Smith wrote:>[what Ted can't bear to hear, much less, deal with -- reattached]Without a computer of my own for the past few days, I haven't been able topost. It's gonna take me some time to catch up with you tossers. (Ifit's even worth it.)At this point, it's probably not, You got that right, loser.as Solar has so completely shut you down that further discussion isprobably pointless. [for reasons Ted can't refute; message reattached....] One thing about those who are psychologically unbalanced: they often suffer from delusions.

Like you. The *REAL* tossers think they are in contact with God.

>Theodore A. Kaldis
Why even bother? Who gives a toss about whatever the f*** you have to say?

Welllllllllll.... based on the sheer volume of posts you have exchanged with
him since the dawn of the cyber era, its a safe bet to say "you do."

--------
have a GREAT day !!!!!
Solar

SolarChase wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:

[to Ken Smith]
Why even bother? Who gives a toss about whatever the f*** you have to say?
Welllllllllll ... based on the sheer volume of posts you have exchanged with him since the dawn of the cyber era, its a safe bet to say "you do."

I care that the truth be told. Consequently, I am compelled to set the
record straight.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40F06800.8DF35A67@worldnet.att.net... Ken Smith wrote: [usual bollocks] Without a computer of my own for the past few days, I haven't been able to post. It's gonna take me some time to catch up with you tossers. (If
it's even worth it.) -- Theodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Thanks for the refreshing reprieve from your usual drivel. If your puter
is kaput gegangen, well, it's trying to be just like you.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: SolarChase wrote:Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: [to Ken Smith]Why even bother? Who gives a toss about whatever the f*** you have tosay?Welllllllllll ... based on the sheer volume of posts you have exchangedwith him since the dawn of the cyber era, its a safe bet to say "you do." I care that the truth be told. Consequently, I am compelled to set the record straight.

Yet, he complains about my responding to his libelous allegations?!?
ShEEEEEsh!

Ted, you should quit while you are behind. Solar has set the record
straight -- by pointing out that the arguments you use to denigrate me
are equally applicable to Cam Brown, and that we are also permitted to
conclude from the fact of his incarceration that he's quite probably a
cold-blooded baby-killer.

You have two and only two rational options, neither of which you find
even the slightest bit desirable on account of your obsessive hatred of
me. You can either concede that the IME request and Cam's arrest show
nothing, or that Cam's arrest *is* substantial evidence of his probable
guilt. Sucks for you, but your obsessed and delusional state makes it
impossible for you to think rationally about this issue.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
I care that the truth be told. Consequently, I am compelled to set the record straight.

Then by all means, let us do so. First and foremost, let us say and
agree -- for the record! -- that Theodore A. Kaldis is NOT a Christian.
And let us take judicial notice of the fact that Ken Smith doesn't say
that but rather, JAMES says so. Your religion is indeed worthless, as
the quotations compiled by John Hattan [URL below] prove conclusively.

[See http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/tedstopten.eml]

Second, let us agree that Ted Kaldis is almost as ugly on the outside
as the inside (http://www.geocities.com/mild_colonial_boy/kaldis.html).
I won't go as far as our friend Peter, who contends that you have bigger
tits than Dolly Parton -- she has some HUGE ones! -- but his remarks are
sufficient to convey his point. That you are not and have never been a
babe-magnet is painfully apparent -- not just from that photo, but from
your astonishingly misogynistic statements. As Moe explained, no woman
would ever be able to put up with you (even for money), which is why you
will remain the eternal bachelor. :)

Third, we can safely say that the Los Angeles authorities have acted
reasonably in incarcerating Cameron Brown for the alleged cold-blooded
murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren -- either on
the facts, or because (as you have suggested) a just God would *never*
punish an innocent man like that. Moreover, as Solar has pointed out,
the fact that Cam has been arrested at all is proof (under your
system of evidence) that he probably killed her. That your arguments
for his innocence are objectively laughable [same URL] is icing on the
cake. :)

Fourth, let us also agree that your continuing campaign against me is
a personal vendetta. While we can all agree that I have a clear right
to defend myself and my reputation against your vicious, malicious, and
unwarranted personal attacks, none of the rest of us seem to be able to
understand why you are so obsessed with me. Why you can't simply debate
the issues -- and leave your unhealthy quest for vengeance off the 'Net
-- remains a mystery. The most plausible explanation is that you suffer
from serious mental infirmities, bordering on a complete breakdown, but
none of us can force you to visit a trained professional.

At this point, you have become more an object of pity than of scorn
-- a real-life "Picture of Dorian Gray." And there is precious little
more that need be said, as your remarks rarely stray far from a
promotion of your hate-encrusted pseudo-Christian Taliban worldview and
the continued prosecution of your personal vendetta. You would be wise
to take notice of the predicament in which Steve Winter finds himself,
as you could be next.

Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
I care that the truth be told. Consequently, I am compelled to set the record straight.
Then by all means, let us do so.

Fine. But are you even capable of doing so? We already know that you are a
hater of God because you have told us many times (indeed, even as you do in
this message), and you have told us in no uncertain terms. And as such -- as
a hater of God -- you are a follower of the devil, for there can be no middle
ground here: either you serve God: or you serve the devil. And you serve the
devil.

So, what does Jesus say about those who follow the devil? "You are of your
father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar,
and the father of it." [Jn 8:44] And the apple doesn't fall far from the
tree. So tell us some more lies.
First and foremost, let us say and agree -- for the record! -- that Theodore A. Kaldis is NOT a Christian.

Truthful men cannot agree with that, for it is a LIE! Theodore A. Kaldis
declares that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, and in Him and Him ONLY
is there redemption for sinful mankind. Theodore A. Kaldis declares that
Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and was resurrected
from the dead, and today sits at the Right Hand of God. And Theodore A.
Kaldis declares that Christ is his Lord and Saviour.
And let us take judicial notice of the fact that Ken Smith doesn't say that but rather, JAMES says so.

Ken Smith LIES! James doesn't say this.
Your religion is indeed worthless,

So says Ken Smith, who in this life may lie with impunity. But when Ken
Smith stands before God at the Final Judgement, what will he say then?
as the quotations compiled by John Hattan [URL below] prove conclusively.
[url elided -- John Hattan also needs to get his heart right with God]
Second, let us agree that Ted Kaldis is almost as ugly on the outside as the inside (http://www.geocities.com/mild_colonial_boy/kaldis.html).

Ken Smith may say this without wrinkling the skin of Theodore A. Kaldis very
much. But let others decide what sort of man Ken Smith is by comments such
as these.
I won't go as far as our friend Peter,

If you declare yourself to be a friend of Peter Wicks, then all I can say is
that you two deserve each other.
who contends that you have bigger tits than Dolly Parton

Peter has apparently never met Dolly.
-- she has some HUGE ones!

Ah, but are they really hers?
-- but his remarks are sufficient to convey his point.

Which one, the one on top of his head?
That you are not and have never been a babe-magnet is painfully apparent

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! You miss the point completely! In Greeley, in the
mid-70's, you didn't have to be a super-stud to score. All you had to be was
half-way decent (and I was more than that in those days) -- and they came to
you!
-- not just from that photo, but from your astonishingly misogynistic statements.

What "misogynistic" statements?
As Moe explained, no woman would ever be able to put up with you

Yeah, well, Moe has just about as much perception as you have common sense.
(even for money),

If they give themselves away for money, I don't even want them.
which is why you will remain the eternal bachelor. :)

No, I am a bachelor by choice.
Third, we can safely say that the Los Angeles authorities have acted reasonably

Psuh. You know squat. And I ain't telling you anything.
in incarcerating Cameron Brown for the alleged cold-blooded murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren

"Alleged" is right. Cameron never killed anyone. Her death was the result
of a terrible, tragic accident.
-- either on the facts,

Which you are completely ignorant of.
or because (as you have suggested) a just God would *never* punish an innocent man like that.

Clue: it isn't God who is responsible for this.
Moreover, as Solar has pointed out, the fact that Cam has been arrested at all is proof (under your system of evidence) that he probably killed her.

No it isn't. It is only your twisted assertion that this must be so. (But
then, we know some things about you.)
That your arguments for his innocence are objectively laughable [same URL] is icing on the cake. :)

What, the silly nonsense that you made up?
Fourth, let us also agree that your continuing campaign against me is a personal vendetta.

What "personal vendetta"? And what "continuing campaign"? The Colorado Bar
Examiners' Board suggested that you might have some psychological issues, and
your behaviour in response to that seems to indicate that you are loonier
than a sh*thouse rat. And I have earned your ire for having the temerity to
point that out.
While we can all agree that I have a clear right to defend myself and my reputation

Such as it is.
against your vicious, malicious, and unwarranted personal attacks,

What "personal attacks"? Telling you the truth about yourself?
none of the rest of us seem to be able to understand why you are so obsessed with me.

I'm not. I could not care less what you do. As long as you don't bother me
or mine.
Why you can't simply debate the issues

Because you think that you also should get to define the rules of the debate.
-- and leave your unhealthy quest for vengeance off the 'Net -- remains a mystery.

What "quest for vengeance"? What form could this vengeance take?
The most plausible explanation is that you suffer from serious mental infirmities, bordering on a complete breakdown,

Hey, I'm not the one who was asked to submit to a psychological examination.
but none of us can force you to visit a trained professional.

Neither, alas, could the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board force you.
At this point, you have become more an object of pity than of scorn -- a real-life "Picture of Dorian Gray."

But I don't seem to see much pity from you.
And there is precious little more that need be said,

Certainly not by a mendacious prevaricator like you.
as your remarks rarely stray far from a promotion of your hate-encrusted pseudo-Christian Taliban worldview

But you're going to say it anyway, apparently.
and the continued prosecution of your personal vendetta.

I'll tell you again: THERE IS NO PERSONAL VENDETTA!
You would be wise to take notice of the predicament in which Steve Winter finds himself, as you could be next.

I don't pay much attention to ol' Steverino. What's his problem?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40F06800.8DF35A67@worldnet.att.net... Ken Smith wrote: [usual bollocks] Without a computer of my own for the past few days, I haven't been able to post. It's gonna take me some time to catch up with you tossers. (If
it's even worth it.) -- Theodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Hey Teddy, your gaawd wants you to eat **** (nothing new there), so chow
down
you blasphemous infidel:


Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.

4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and
thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

2 Kings, 18:27:
Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may
eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

x-no-archive: Yes

why has the real unabomber escaped prosecution all these years?
why is Ted the polish jew sitting in jail while ashcroft's DOJ smugly
assures us that it has jailed the real culprit?

we all know that somewhere the real culprit is out there, waiting for
the right time to send off another pipe bomb.

tariq rahim wrote:
we all know that somewhere the real culprit is out there, waiting for the right time to send off another pipe bomb.

I didn't know you could get internet service in a plywood shack, how's
the tarpaper weathering?

--
ÐÏࡱá