EC> Then you know that what I said was true, and you know that
 EC> what you said was a lie.  You tried to disguise your lie by
 EC> posting a comment she made SIX MONTHS EARLIER.

-> I nominated her for moderator before all the rest happened. What you
-> are now talking about was SIX MONTHS LATER.

Are you unable to read, or do you just refuse to do it?  I posted what
she told you in August 2007.  (And I even left out the part where she
said to you: " Excuse me but if it had not been for you coming here
crying the sky is falling the sky is falling so to speak, we would not
BE in this current situation. thank you very much."  And I pointed out:

 EC>>> She did not want you to be moderator at that time,
 EC>>> and she blamed you for the whole mess!

And your braindead response was:

-> ->> ->> And that is a lie on your part.

In fact it was true, and your later messages showed that you KNEW it to
be true.  You CLAIMED that she wanted you to be moderator, but that had
nothing at all to do with what I said since you referred to messages
from SIX MONTHS EARLIER.

Oh, by the way, your irrelevant claim was also untrue.  She didn't say
she wanted you to be moderator.  And the messages that YOU posted SHOW
that!  So that too looks pretty intentional on your part, unless you
also don't read your OWN posts.

Also from that time period:

" bk>  Well they have discovered this echo.

CH> Thanks to you. You reap what you sow. Congrats!

CH> We were all fine until you came barreling in here about them.

CH>  And we asked to not to. But you insisted and now you have what you
CH> wanted. Happy now?"

and:

"CH> All that needs to be said has been said, and too many times which
CH> leads me to conclude you do not listen to reason. And you do not
CH> speak reasonably yourself."

And of course she was right!

-> You don't laugh at me

Many people do, Bob.  Many do.  I am just one of them.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10