Typed accusations, on the other hand, without concrete evidence, isn't considered, and ignorance or the law is no excuse. You guys might want to consult your attorney friend from ISAC whose, from what I hear, and hearsay, got her documentary screwed up. But that's just me talking again, you know, we are not in it for the money thing. Bollocks. Which Swiss account do you want me to wire money too?
Back to top
=================================================
Guest
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Attorney friend from ISAC? Didn't know any attorneys were associated with ISAC.
What "documentary" got screwed up?
Who or what is BOLLOCKS?
Why are you offering money to be deposited into a Swiss Bank account?
This makes no sense.
Back to top
================================================
Guest
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:07 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Attorney from ISAC? Documentary screwed up? What kind of gibberish is this? Where's my cryptic magic reader ring? I don't understand a single word of the above post. Am I the only one?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your not alone. It makes no sense. But it is interesting someone thinks it does (as they posted it) and I wonder what they think they know - and how they think they know it? Care to explain guest?
Sandy - I feel for you (a little) I know how it is being caught in the controversy that is always swirling around PURE and CACA. I was once often battered for my friendship with Sue, and thus my apparent (tho untrue) support of PURE.
Eventually, proof was offered that Sue's critics were right - and I was wrong. I could no longer find a shed of hope, or the least doubt, that Sue was motivated by profit, and the welfare of the children was in no way a factor.
Much the same must be said of Izzy.
You will have to look at the evidence and make up your own mind Sandy; but I do hope you will look at the evidence and not let yourself be led by the nose to the Kool-aid vat.