Re: A statement from Carol Ann, Mary's daughter, on the "Mary Dean"

Want me to post the e-mail, Martin? If you are going to misrepresent
the context ... not to mention your response, I will be happy to post
BOTH in full.

Barb :-)

On 27 Jul 2008 10:24:51 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
<mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>This from the woman who asked me to return to the newsgroup, insisting
>that she wouldn't press for me to post on any particular issues.
>And you wonder why I no longer take you seriously, Barb.
>
>Martin
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVEjfk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:rkrn84dfiajpaagpfgt918cl44h6u4fjjo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 26 Jul 2008 23:09:32 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>> <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>You seem determined to imagine that your posts have great power, Paul.
I
>>>didn't "vanish for two weeks"--I went on a long-planned visit to my
>>>family. It had
>>>
>>>NOTHING whatever to do with this newsgroup. But if you want to continue
>>>fantasizing, don't let me stop you.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>
>> Well, you've been back quite awhile now ... and still avoid the
>> questions.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"paul seaton" <paulNOseatonSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:488a2a88$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> "Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:1pfik.13391$LG4.12939@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> When someone asked Judyth for copies of her evidence, or information
>>>>> relating to her
>>>>> account, prior to the publication of her book, she agreed on
condition
>>>>> that they agree
>>>>> not to pass the information on to others.
>>>>> If someone was on her e-mail list for this information, they had so
>>>>> agreed.
>>>>> Some of the e-mails even had a paragraph repeating that
specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Martin, if i hadn't posted Judyth's vituperative email to Mary
>>>> Ferrell, you would still be maintaining the flat falsehood you were
>>>> merrily peddling, namely that MF was unaware of the true contents of 
>>>> that
>>>> email attachment until Judyth read it to her , wouldn't you ?
>>>>
>>>> There would , in fact, have been no reason to post it at all, if you
had
>>>> admitted that you knew damn well what the true situation was, and
that 
>>>> it
>>>> was not as you were presenting it.
>>>>
>>>> The awareness that you were knowingly peddling stories here that bore
no
>>>> relation to the truth ( and these were stories that you demonstrably 
>>>> KNEW
>>>> bore no relation to the truth ) put me in a bit of a difficult 
>>>> situation.
>>>> I could let you carry on with your inventive story telling, or put
the
>>>> evidence on the table for all to see.
>>>>
>>>> Since the truth or falsehood of Judyth's yarn is a matter of public
>>>> im****tance, I judged that posting that email was a lesser evil than
>>>> allowing you to carry on posting witting falsehoods that go somewhere

>>>> near
>>>> the heart of the credibility of Judyth's story.
>>>>
>>>> I recall I warned you beforehand two or 3 times, in posts here, in a
>>>> somewhat coded manner, that I had evidence proving beyond doubt you
were
>>>> ... what can I get away with here ? - let's say, 'being over-flexible

>>>> with
>>>> the facts'. You either didn't notice or thought i was bluffing.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you vanished for a couple of weeks right after I posted
it
>>>> suggests to me that it had more impact on you than you like to
pretend.
>>>> You finally re-emerged claiming that, yes, you were cc'd on Judyth's
>>>> email, but that *you get so many emails you had forgotten all about
it 
>>>> *.
>>>> (Which is a bit like Winston Churchill saying , yes, he had got Ultra
>>>> de-crypts providing advance warning of Pearl Harbour but that he
didn't
>>>> warn Roosevelt *because he had fogotten all about them* ) I mean, it 
>>>> just
>>>> doesn't gel, Martin.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, people are obviously free to draw their own conclusions from
the
>>>> whole saga, as I have drawn mine.  Posting that email was indeed a 
>>>> little
>>>> morally ambiguous. In an ideal world , it wouldn't have been
neccessary.
>>>> But it was your behaviour that made it neccessary, if only to remind
you
>>>> that you cannot just sit there & invent stories & not bear in mind
the
>>>> possibility that people may actually get off their respective arses &
>>>> check them out.
>>>>
>>>> Once bitten, I would hope, twice shy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Steve Thomas" <misledrkstar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>
news:9e0a6bbf-8f2f-4f83-a2cc-30d4f1249d60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Jul 25, 7:21 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 23, 10:29 am, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Jul 23, 11:00 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > How about McAdams taking down the purloined do***ents from his
web
>>>>>> > > page on
>>>>>> > > Judyth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > That was stuff Judyth was sending out to people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She did not send it to McAdams. And the emails were supposed to be
>>>>>> kept private.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Show me the evidence that the mail was supposed to be kept
private. I
>>>>> havent seen anything showing people agreeing to keep these emails
>>>>> private,
>>>>> so untill you come up with a list of people and the do***ents to 
>>>>> sup****t
>>>>> your allegation that these recipients agreed to keep these mails 
>>>>> private,
>>>>> we can gather from your lack of evidence that your making stuff up 
>>>>> again
>>>>> like a good little Judyth defender.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Somebody unethically gave them to McAdams who posted
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   prove it was done unethically.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 
>