Moderator: Andrew
Deb wrote:SteveForever wrote:Saint John wrote:cyndy! wrote:sj, did sp or one of his lawyers tell you sp initiates gag orders? is it like a one-way gag order? was the GQ interview scripted? did alex pappademas tell you that? who are these "legacy preservers" you speak of?
LOL...You know the answers to the questions you've asked so I see no reason to answer them. I did get a rise out of "one-way gag order" though.![]()
![]()
![]()
Dude, I totally knew you were a faker!
Yep.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5dqQGQp ... re=related
cyndy! wrote:Saint John wrote:cyndy! wrote:sj, did sp or one of his lawyers tell you sp initiates gag orders? is it like a one-way gag order? was the GQ interview scripted? did alex pappademas tell you that? who are these "legacy preservers" you speak of?
LOL...You know the answers to the questions you've asked so I see no reason to answer them. I did get a rise out of "one-way gag order" though.![]()
![]()
![]()
ok, so what you're trying to say is:
you do not know the details of this gag order
the GQ interview was not scripted
the legacy preservers are the people at sony
Saint John wrote:"one" vitamin B-12 shot...lol.
brywool wrote:Saint John wrote:"one" vitamin B-12 shot...lol.
you're saying there were more? Do tell...
I've ALWAYS suspected more. Hip degeneration is a symptom of over usage of steroids. When I read the '1 shot' thing in the GQ interview I thought, "hmm, maybe I'm mistaken".
Is there more info?
Saint John wrote:brywool wrote:Saint John wrote:"one" vitamin B-12 shot...lol.
you're saying there were more? Do tell...
I've ALWAYS suspected more. Hip degeneration is a symptom of over usage of steroids. When I read the '1 shot' thing in the GQ interview I thought, "hmm, maybe I'm mistaken".
Is there more info?
Go with your gut instinct on this one. Let common sense be your guide, brother.
Red13JoePa wrote:
In the word "there's" which, as people may or may not know, is a contraction for "there is" Neal is confirming that PRESENTLY, CURRENTLY there is no agreement or "gag order" in effect. He is not speaking of the prior 10 years. Of course we all know that now, we're outside the originally spoken of and much repeated and talked of decade.
I also detect sarcasm and flippancy in his comments, ala "OK, I will not talk about what an A-hole he is."
Michigan Girl wrote:Toto!!!!
You are REALLY starting to Dazzle me with Brilliance......
rather than the Baffling me with Bullshit stuff....
you know that I mentioned before!!!!!
Tito wrote:Michigan Girl wrote:Toto!!!!
You are REALLY starting to Dazzle me with Brilliance......
rather than the Baffling me with Bullshit stuff....
you know that I mentioned before!!!!!
I do NOT bullshit.
Tito wrote:Michigan Girl wrote:Toto!!!!
You are REALLY starting to Dazzle me with Brilliance......
rather than the Baffling me with Bullshit stuff....
you know that I mentioned before!!!!!
I do NOT bullshit.
I googled nomota. I posted the first sentence before, but I just copied and pasted the whole thing this time. I just read the whole thing myself. That was someone else. I've never been to Bejing. Since, that was not me, but someone else's description that does not count as bullshiting. But the main point is that is what Nomota means, not no more tails.
Michigan Girl wrote:Tito wrote:Michigan Girl wrote:Toto!!!!
You are REALLY starting to Dazzle me with Brilliance......
rather than the Baffling me with Bullshit stuff....
you know that I mentioned before!!!!!
I do NOT bullshit.
I googled nomota. I posted the first sentence before, but I just copied and pasted the whole thing this time. I just read the whole thing myself. That was someone else. I've never been to Bejing. Since, that was not me, but someone else's description that does not count as bullshiting. But the main point is that is what Nomota means, not no more tails.
I really don't want to like you, but this is pulling at my heartstrings.....!!!
Tito wrote:Michigan Girl wrote:Tito wrote:Michigan Girl wrote:Toto!!!!
You are REALLY starting to Dazzle me with Brilliance......
rather than the Baffling me with Bullshit stuff....
you know that I mentioned before!!!!!
I do NOT bullshit.
I googled nomota. I posted the first sentence before, but I just copied and pasted the whole thing this time. I just read the whole thing myself. That was someone else. I've never been to Bejing. Since, that was not me, but someone else's description that does not count as bullshiting. But the main point is that is what Nomota means, not no more tails.
I really don't want to like you, but this is pulling at my heartstrings.....!!!
Once all the Revelation talk dies down, we'll start talking about Soto again. That should make you hate me.
EightyRock wrote:brywool wrote: "Hip degeneration is a symptom of over usage of steroids."
I
Wow, glad you enlightened us. I've got to go phone my Granny who had her hip replaced and tell her she should have laid off those steriods!![]()
![]()
![]()
Does a possible INHERITED degenerative bone disease ring any bells with you Einsteins? If you've ever read anything about Perry and his Mother's condiiton, you could put two and two together alot faster.
Red13JoePa wrote:I was asked and gave a very specific, accurate answer.
I notice there are no denials from the camp, just questions designed to IMPLY denials.
cyndy! wrote:Red13JoePa wrote:I was asked and gave a very specific, accurate answer.
I notice there are no denials from the camp, just questions designed to IMPLY denials.
i understand that you've come to your conclusions by piecing together bits of information you've read on the internet. you did not supply the details of said agreement because you do not know them. it's all circumstantial evidence.
i don't post about any agreements because i don't know all the details. i never claimed that i did. i just wanted to get all the info from you & SJ since you guys seem to "know" things & state them as fact.
i guess if sp's lawyers can't be bothered to search the web & deny the "facts" that you & SJ post, then they must be true, ya?
Saint John wrote:cyndy! wrote:Red13JoePa wrote:I was asked and gave a very specific, accurate answer.
I notice there are no denials from the camp, just questions designed to IMPLY denials.
i understand that you've come to your conclusions by piecing together bits of information you've read on the internet. you did not supply the details of said agreement because you do not know them. it's all circumstantial evidence.
i don't post about any agreements because i don't know all the details. i never claimed that i did. i just wanted to get all the info from you & SJ since you guys seem to "know" things & state them as fact.
i guess if sp's lawyers can't be bothered to search the web & deny the "facts" that you & SJ post, then they must be true, ya?
The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true.
cyndy! wrote:Red13JoePa wrote:I was asked and gave a very specific, accurate answer.
I notice there are no denials from the camp, just questions designed to IMPLY denials.
i understand that you've come to your conclusions by piecing together bits of information you've read on the internet. you did not supply the details of said agreement because you do not know them. it's all circumstantial evidence.
i don't post about any agreements because i don't know all the details. i never claimed that i did. i just wanted to get all the info from you & SJ since you guys seem to "know" things & state them as fact.
i guess if sp's lawyers can't be bothered to search the web & deny the "facts" that you & SJ post, then they must be true, ya?
Red13JoePa wrote:cyndy! wrote:Red13JoePa wrote:I was asked and gave a very specific, accurate answer.
I notice there are no denials from the camp, just questions designed to IMPLY denials.
i understand that you've come to your conclusions by piecing together bits of information you've read on the internet. you did not supply the details of said agreement because you do not know them. it's all circumstantial evidence.
i don't post about any agreements because i don't know all the details. i never claimed that i did. i just wanted to get all the info from you & SJ since you guys seem to "know" things & state them as fact.
i guess if sp's lawyers can't be bothered to search the web & deny the "facts" that you & SJ post, then they must be true, ya?
![]()
Mother of Christ.
Are you going to make an accusation and call me a liar because I wasn't actually in the printshop doing the typesetting on perry's legal motions against the band or not?
I'm simply calling a spade a spade based on my beliefs and I think he's the culprit behind 98 % of the crying and gnashing of teeth on his own part and that of his overwraught fanbase.
No insider info here, nor claim thereof, just what's been made public knowledge and the conclusions it led me to.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests