• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Bearing False Witness, and where it fits in

Wraith said:
Why did you not object to that exact same wiki link being posted in the other 3 threads regarding Jeane and Wendy by 3 different people back in 2006....? You were a member a good 7 months prior to the original posting of the link. Why are you jumping all over Rich for posting a link now in the 4th existing thread?
Click to expand...

Because that thread (which, incidentally, turned out to be completely bogus) was about Jeanne, not her daughter.

I was not going to review thousands of those old posts to see what went on there.
 
Adrian,
So if someone did not object to something two years ago, in a different thread and bogus scenario, where you haven't a clue if they were even aware of it, that means they gave tacit approval to it at the time. Interesting concept you got there. OR ! They have somehow forfeited any credibility to object to it happening now because they did not then ? That is a very difficult bit of logic to embrace, but you can certainly own every measure of it here. Bill may have also thought it inappropriate for the source now, which would seem a logical consideration to some, and which I believe was indicated.

Sammy. Two plus years later. Same silliness (OK, maybe thinking another word) Different day is all. No real surprise around here, just some resurrected disappointment is my understanding. My take upon further review was that you got a bit caught up in things back then, a little carried away. As they say "Everyone has a right to silliness. Some folks abuse it though" (OK, maybe not silliness).

Bill. It was quite bogus, and not the only bogus either. Well put !
 
ClayShack said:
Blinders. Backbone. You seem to be choking on your own words there big fella. I work with Jim, and know him better than most. Its your kitchen .
Click to expand...

ClayShack said:
If there is bias, the higher degree would be to not acknowledge the relationship in posting, which seems to be the norm so often here. I live and work on the same property, and we share the same couple of computers. My ticket is therefore likely already punched. It will always to be an imperfect world, but we keep trying. Maybe your cup is too often half empty Sammy. Jim takes the heat in the kitchen. Always has. Always will.

Sammy, back in the original threads about Wendy and Jeane, you were one, not the only one, that referred to the mother Jeane as a slut and a whore. Some of us did not feel the mother was guilty of the sins of the daughter. Jim was a friend of Jeane's long before he had a clue about Wendy. It was pretty low-class on your part. Never saw a retraction from you. To coin Rich, Jim never "stoops that low". Everyone has a bias, it would seem. Jim says to wish you well. I wish you well.
Click to expand...

ClayShack said:
Adrian,
So if someone did not object to something two years ago, in a different thread and bogus scenario, where you haven't a clue if they were even aware of it, that means they gave tacit approval to it at the time. Interesting concept you got there. OR ! They have somehow forfeited any credibility to object to it happening now because they did not then ? That is a very difficult bit of logic to embrace, but you can certainly own every measure of it here. Bill may have also thought it inappropriate for the source now, which would seem a logical consideration to some, and which I believe was indicated.

Sammy. Two plus years later. Same silliness (OK, maybe thinking another word) Different day is all. No real surprise around here, just some resurrected disappointment is my understanding. My take upon further review was that you got a bit caught up in things back then, a little carried away. As they say "Everyone has a right to silliness. Some folks abuse it though" (OK, maybe not silliness).

Bill. It was quite bogus, and not the only bogus either. Well put !
Click to expand...

Interesting...... So you not only live and work with Jim and also share the same computers, but apparently are narrowly and intensely focused on this one issue, it seems. :rolleyes: Is that a requirement of "working and living" with Jim? Or does Jim merely live on on side of a mirror and you on the other?

Tell you what, a lot of people, Jim included, have wanted me to verify members on this site. So tell you what, I'm curious to see how much trouble that will be. And you can be the guinea pig here. Email me some kind of proof to [email protected] that proves you are who you say you are and I WON'T ban you for being an alternate registration of Jim Flaherty being used to bypass "his" ban. Let's play this game then... :thumbsup:
 
We call this "Smile at the Birdie". The dog doesn't know how to use the camera, lest we would be in the same shot. You can figure out which is which. Would you like us to log in on separate computers at the same time too ? Post credit cards and driver's licenses ?

Now, when more serious matters arise in the future, half the effort you have made here towards a little due diligence when it matters would be cool. :thumbsup:

You want to call and here us both talking at the same time too :rofl:
 

Attachments

  • Smile at the birdie.jpg
    Smile at the birdie.jpg
    121.5 KB · Views: 312
I took the liberty of removing Mr Shackleford for a number of reasons...and saw no reason to leave the image viewable, since it was yet another message from Jim F.
 
ClayShack said:
We call this "Smile at the Birdie". The dog doesn't know how to use the camera, lest we would be in the same shot. You can figure out which is which. Would you like us to log in on separate computers at the same time too ? Post credit cards and driver's licenses ?

Now, when more serious matters arise in the future, half the effort you have made here towards a little due diligence when it matters would be cool. :thumbsup:

You want to call and here us both talking at the same time too :rofl:
Click to expand...


Thank you. I like to be fair and have someone actually give me a solid reason to ban them. And you played this exactly how I figured "Jim" would tell you to..
 
I re-allowed the picture, so we would have it to remember ClayShack and Jim F.
 
Mooing Tricycle said:
Dont most cameras today have a timer feature? Pretty simple.....
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean a "time stamp" feature, although I could be wrong. Those are meaningless, as they can be easily manipulated.

I did find this post interesting, though. I could not stop myself from picking up a guitar, and playing the tab in your sig.

"I am Iron Man"... da da dadada dadadadum da dada.:rofl:
 
Back
Top