Family Protective Trust
in [Adoption]
|
Prev: Testing again
Next: Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI) and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
From: Greegor on 18 Mar 2010 01:47 m(a)rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here? http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm KBW > Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board? KBW > Anyone? Either directly or through implication? KBW > Oops. Another of your deceptions (lies) has KBW > been exposed. You're welcome. m(a)rl@go > Merely checking resources, no harm in that. G > Kent acts like he can't tell a "what if" G > discussion or a question from an assertion. m(a)rl@go > He certainly jumped on that one quickly. Yeah. LOL m(a)rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that. KBW > You can suspect anything you wish. That KBW > you have to dishonestly present that KBW > Lindsay's on the board when no such claim KBW > has been made, directly or through KBW > implication, tells that you aren't being honest. m(a)rl@go > It would be a logical position for someone m(a)rl@go > of her credentials to hold, would it not? G > Kent's probably only sorry HE didn't think of it! G > G > Isn't it incredible that a phone number that G > according to Kent was UNASSIGNED when G > somebody said it was his a few years back G > is now publicly registered to a Kent Wills? m(a)rl@go > It is interesting. G > That's quite a coincidence, that the G > ""other Kent Wills" would be assigned G > a phone number which ""our"" Kent Wills G > was ""mistakenly"" accused of owning before that! m(a)rl@go > And he continues to have issues with m(a)rl@go > your rather obvious use of the m(a)rl@go > "other kent wills" sarcasm. I don't know where I picked up the double double quotes, but I did used to see it in others writing. One of the current definitions did make allusion to non-standard punctuation. To tell you the truth I had never been using double double quotes as scare quotes for decades without knowing they were called inverted reconstruction or scare quotes. Kent was TOLD what my meaning was, but bitched about it over and over. Kent pretended that HE gets to decide which definition of the word "zipperhead" I meant. It seemed to be just so he could announce that his first wife had been Asian, as a way Kent (white guy!) to claim the "race card" and portray me as racist. There are several meanings to "zipperhead" aside from the racist one. Certainly an asian racist slur directed toward Kent himself would not fit. Kent is supposedly a Polish immigrant, but eager to claim the "race card". G > I'm thinking it's probably his fax/computer line. G > Or a hotline to his payee. m(a)rl@go > Plausible. Family Protective Trust http://www.napavalleyregister.com/business/columnists/mcnichol-and-tillem/article_b114b8e0-e9a3-591d-a18e-666e40f04f8c.html
From: Kent Wills on 18 Mar 2010 04:18 At one time, not so long ago, m(a)rl@go <marl(a)inv.alid> wrote: >On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT) >Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> m(a)rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here? >> >> http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm >> >> KBW > Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board? >> KBW > �Anyone? �Either directly or through implication? >> KBW > Oops. �Another of your deceptions (lies) has >> KBW > been exposed. You're welcome. >> >> m(a)rl@go > Merely checking resources, no harm in that. >> >> Kent acts like he can't tell a "what if" >> discussion or a question from an assertion. > >He certainly jumped on that one quickly. More than 12 hours is quick? You must find a cricket test over very quickly as well. > >> m(a)rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that. >> >> KBW > You can suspect anything you wish. �That >> KBW > you have to dishonestly present that >> KBW > Lindsay's on the board when no such claim >> KBW > has been made, directly or through >> KBW > implication, tells that you aren't being honest. >> >> m(a)rl@go > It would be a logical position for someone >> m(a)rl@go > of her credentials to hold, would it not? >> >> Kent's probably only sorry HE didn't think of it! >> >> Isn't it incredible that a phone number that >> according to Kent was UNASSIGNED when >> somebody said it was his a few years back >> is now publicly registered to a Kent Wills? > >It is interesting. > And, as Greg is well aware, an untrue claim. > >> That's quite a coincidence, that the >> ""other Kent Wills" would be assigned >> a phone number which ""our"" Kent Wills >> was ""mistakenly"" accused of owning before that! > >And he continues to have issues with your rather obvious use of the "other kent wills" sarcasm. > Greg is now using scare quotes. He wasn't when he admitted I'm not the person he claims. > >> I'm thinking it's probably his fax/computer line. >> Or a hotline to his payee. > >Plausible. It's POSSIBLE, but not very plausible. If it is my phone number, you are free to call me. You'll do so, unless you've come to the realization that Greg LIED about it. Be sure to record the call. Since you're not in Arkansas, Federal law will apply, and said law permits the recording of phone calls without altering the other party. Of course, if it is my number, I should know you'll be recording. Be sure to make the audio available for everyone's listening enjoyment. Failing to call will be seen as an admission by you that you do know Greg was and is lying. Your move. -- Aibohphobia: The fear of palindromes.
From: m on 18 Mar 2010 12:14 On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:18:48 -0500 Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If it is my phone number, you are free to call me. You'll do so, > unless you've come to the realization that Greg LIED about it. > Be sure to record the call. Since you're not in Arkansas, > Federal law will apply, and said law permits the recording of phone > calls without altering the other party. Of course, if it is my > number, I should know you'll be recording. > Be sure to make the audio available for everyone's listening > enjoyment. > Failing to call will be seen as an admission by you that you do > know Greg was and is lying. > Your move. Let me just say, right here is evidence you are completely nuts and paranoid. And that basically concludes this episode, Kent. I'll return later to work on the suddenly missing Moe. Interesting how she has dropped off. --
From: Kent Wills on 19 Mar 2010 05:17
At one time, not so long ago, m(a)rl@go <marl(a)inv.alid> wrote: >On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:18:48 -0500 >Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> If it is my phone number, you are free to call me. You'll do so, >> unless you've come to the realization that Greg LIED about it. >> Be sure to record the call. Since you're not in Arkansas, >> Federal law will apply, and said law permits the recording of phone >> calls without altering the other party. Of course, if it is my >> number, I should know you'll be recording. >> Be sure to make the audio available for everyone's listening >> enjoyment. >> Failing to call will be seen as an admission by you that you do >> know Greg was and is lying. >> Your move. > > >Let me just say, right here is evidence you are completely nuts and paranoid. > How does my inviting you to call me, if the number is mine, equate to being mentally ill and paranoid? If, as you deceptively claim, I am paranoid, I wouldn't want you to call. You should think through your lies before you post them. >And that basically concludes this episode, Kent. Pulling an El Salvador? > >I'll return later to work on the suddenly missing Moe. > >Interesting how she has dropped off. > Moe will often go days without posting. Her not posting isn't anything unusual. Not so odd that you assign a dishonest meaning to it. -- 2,000 mockingbirds: two kilomockingbirds |