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.

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

 No, you labeled him "pathological".

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

 Are you denying he is mentally ill? Even Mimi, who claims
 training in the field, says he is.

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.

 TR> It most certainly is not. We are talking about (according
 TR> to *you*) a mentally ill person, in possession of

 No, we are talking about you labeling him pathological, then
 attacking him for it. The rest is a diversion.

 ...

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

 He's in Wisconsin, I'm in Ohio.

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

 Unless he has an IRBM it's not a deep concern.

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?

 TR> You have for many years pretended to have the moral high
 TR> ground here in Fido,

 Oh... the *MORAL* high ground. Ok, that I can go with.

 TR> are you now finally admitting that you
 TR> are no pillar of moral virtue after all?

 No, you were talking about legal virtue.

...

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>> 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.

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

 You labeled him pathological.

 ...

BK>> I did not discuss it at all.

BK>>Nor do I see any reason to.

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

 No, the subject was you attacking Ross after you labeled him
 pathological.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a