On 10-30-08, BOB KLAHN said to TIM RICHARDSON:


BK>...

BK>>>You are the one who called him a 'pathological liar'.

TR>>>And so he is. I did not put the `mental illness' definition
on it. *You*
TR>>>did, just recently.

BK>>Which is exactly what it is.

TR> Ok........lets go with this `exactly what it is' scenario
TR> for a short distance.

TR> First of all....I'd have to know exactly what your medical
TR> degree is in. Are you an MD with a specialty in psychiatry?
TR> On what do you base your `medical diagnosis? How long have
TR> you been treating Sauer for this mental illness of his?


BK>Before you question me on any of it, deny it. Claim it is not a
BK>mental disorder.


Nice try. But no cigar. *You* are the one making the claim of his `mental
illness.......back it up.


All there is so far is his claim to be mentally ill, and you trying to go with
that for your own purposes.


TR>> Federal and most state laws on firearms forbid individuals


BK>>Note that the digression from the subject shows his pathological
BK>>fixation on attack by any means available.


TR> Secondly....that wasn't any `diversion', its a pretty scary


BK>It is a diversion from the topic under discussion.


It most certainly is not. We are talking about (according to *you*) a mentally
ill person, in possession of (according to *him*) four firearms. That is part
and parcel of `the topic under discussion.


*If*.....and he has claimed (and *you* are now claiming), he is mentally ill,
his being in possession of `any' firearms becomes of deep concern.


Or are you wanting us to believe that a mental case with guns is of no concern
to you?


TR> Being the upright, law-abiding individual you always claim
TR> you are....you should be greatly concerned with that.


BK>When did I claim that?


You have for many years pretended to have the moral high ground here in Fido,
are you now finally admitting that you are no pillar of moral virtue after
all?


TR> If Sauer is, in fact, `mentally ill' (as you are now
TR> claiming), lets see him gotten into a closely supervised
TR> treatment program of some sort.


BK>Not all mentally ill people require "closely supervised"
BK>anything. There are degrees you know. Is Mimi in a closely
BK>supervised treatment program?


TR> One of the specific questions on that declaration document
TR> openly asks if you suffer from a mental illness. In order
TR> to purchase and take possession of afirearm, Sauer would
TR> have had to state `NO' to that question; knowing that was
TR> false. Which makes the document a deliberate falsification
TR> on his part: a felony.


BK>If he is compelled to lie, as you suggest, by reason of mental
BK>defect or disorder, then he would not be guilty of a crime.


That wasn't *my* suggestion.....it was *yours*.


TR> Diversion? Not hardly.


BK>Yes, it is.

TR> You can't have it both ways: Either
TR> Sauer is a deliberately provocative, lying braggart, whos
TR> every claim and statement is a lie......or Sauer is
TR> mentally ill, and feloniously purchased, owns, and is in
TR> possession of firearms, unlawfully.


BK>I never disputed that point. Nor did I admit it. I did not
BK>discuss it at all.


BK>Nor do I see any reason to.


Then you have ended the discussion. Because that was the subject of the
discussion in the first place.



---
*Durango b301 #PE*