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

pjfk wrote:
> On Jul 27, 5:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>>> 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.
>> While you at busy posting private e-mails, why not post your private
>> e-mails to and from McAdams where you discuss how to coordinate your
>> attacks on Martin?
> 
> But Anthony, those don't count.  They are really private, not like 
> anything connected to Judyth.

Here is an example of Pamela pu****ng gossip, something she claimed she 
didn't do.

> 
>>> Barb :-)
>>> On 27 Jul 2008 10:24:51 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>> <msha...@[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" <barbREMOVE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:rkrn84dfiajpaagpfgt918cl44h6u4fjjo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On 26 Jul 2008 23:09:32 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>>>>> <msha...@[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" <paulNOseatonS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:488a2a88$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1pfik.13391$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" <misledrks...@[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.
> 
>