Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

Mighty hollow, anyman. Mighty hollow. If that's the best you can do, then you might as well bow out of this discussion, because you sure aren't helping Danny any.

I could try again: Are you denying that PPPA paid Danny royalties for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets, or are you denying that Remnant paid Danny anything for sales of the PPPA booklets to 3ABN?

Which is it?

[anyman]

Mighty hollow, anyman. Mighty hollow. If that's the best you can do, then you might as well bow out of this discussion, because you sure aren't helping Danny any.

I could try again: Are you denying that PPPA paid Danny royalties for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets, or are you denying that Remnant paid Danny anything for sales of the PPPA booklets to 3ABN?

Which is it?

Your assessment of my relevance in this (or any) discussion matters not a wit, to me or the masses.

Again, I will answer your question and see if you understand:

Yes.

[Murcielago]

"Had they deceived us
Or deceived themselves, the quiet-voiced elders,
Bequeathing us merely a receipt for deceit?
The serenity only a deliberate hebetude,
The wisdom only the knowledge of dead secrets
Useless in the darkness into which they peered
Or from which they turned their eyes."
T.S. Elliot (East Coker)

[Bob Pickle]

I could try again: Are you denying that PPPA paid Danny royalties for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets, or are you denying that Remnant paid Danny anything for sales of the PPPA booklets to 3ABN?

Which is it?

...

Again, I will answer your question and see if you understand:

Yes.

You don't come across as if you're trying to discuss this intelligently.

The PPPA contracts that are a part of court record state quite clearly that PPPA was to pay royalties to Danny. Therefore, you are incorrect in denying that PPPA paid royalties to Danny.

Simpson admitted that Remnant made payments to Danny for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets to 3ABN. Therefore, you are incorrect in denying that remnant made payments to Danny for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets to 3ABN.

Thus, you are wrong.

[anyman]

You don't come across as if you're trying to discuss this intelligently.

The PPPA contracts that are a part of court record state quite clearly that PPPA was to pay royalties to Danny. Therefore, you are incorrect in denying that PPPA paid royalties to Danny.

Simpson admitted that Remnant made payments to Danny for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets to 3ABN. Therefore, you are incorrect in denying that remnant made payments to Danny for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets to 3ABN.

Thus, you are wrong.

Live in delusional comfort, inside your shack of false constructs, built on the shifting sands.

[Bob Pickle]

The two points in question are indisputable, which is probably why you really aren't trying to dispute them. No "delusional comfort," "false constructs," or "shifting sands" here.

From pages 1 to 3 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-96-11.pdf:

Publisher [PPPA] will remunerate Author [Danny Shelton] by paying royalties .... seven percent (7%) of the wholesale price for all copies sold.

From page 5 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-188.pdf:

Their "evidence," however, is not evidence as much as a web of guesswork and speculation that begins and ends with the assumption that the payments were kickbacks. The reason they must be kickbacks, say the Defendants, is that the booklets for which royalties were paid were at one time published by a different publisher at a lower cost. Defendants say "the only logical reason for such an arrangement is that it was a kickback scheme." In other words, Defendants' logic goes, moving to a higher cost publisher is proof of a kickback scheme because they can't think of any other reason for it.

Did not Simpson in the above words admit that Remnant paid Danny for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets to 3ABN?

Simpson tried to excuse the payments by asserting without evidence that PPPA had ceased to be the publisher. But he still acknowledged that payments had been made for those sales.

[anyman]

If you need to manipulate facts to generate a comfortable reality for yourself so you can sleep at night, I guess you  have to live with that in the end.

You don't receive responses from me and many others for one simple reason: You can not be trusted with the facts or presenting the truth in its entirety. When you evidence that you have changed your ways, I am sure more people will engage you in debate - until you decide to be honest you are going to have a lot of lonely one sided experiences.

[Bob Pickle]

No facts manipulated there. It's the truth. And you know it. But this isn't the first time or the first place that someone has felt you were being less than straightforward.

[anyman]

No facts manipulated there. It's the truth. And you know it. But this isn't the first time or the first place that someone has felt you were being less than straightforward.

It's your truth, it's the one you have constructed in your head that gives you the peace you need to sleep at night. I do know the truth. I do know that the truth reveals you lied above when you insinuated that what I know is not the truth.

Again, I don't care what you think, it carries no weight. Manipulate away.

[Bob Pickle]

No, I didn't lie. That word suggests that I knowingly told a falsehood rather than made an honest mistake. And the facts are the facts. Simpson said what he said, Remnant paid what it paid, 3ABN bought what it bought, PPPA paid what it paid, and Danny did what he did for year after year.

And Walt Thompson, rather than put his foot down, helped to enable some of the corruption that took place.

[princessdi]

Now, now, Gailon, be nice.   You know I have yet to me mean or even sarcastic towards you.  I know you get confused with regards to who you are responding.  No worries....proceed!

Gee...you think???

Here, Here...!!!

But, Bob, are you suggesting that Ronnie was mis-informed? And I wonder who would do that at 3ABN??? Or was it sourced from lawyers?

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[anyman]

No, I didn't lie. That word suggests that I knowingly told a falsehood rather than made an honest mistake. And the facts are the facts. Simpson said what he said, Remnant paid what it paid, 3ABN bought what it bought, PPPA paid what it paid, and Danny did what he did for year after year.

And Walt Thompson, rather than put his foot down, helped to enable some of the corruption that took place.

[Cindy]

No, I didn't lie. That word suggests that I knowingly told a falsehood rather than made an honest mistake. And the facts are the facts. Simpson said what he said, Remnant paid what it paid, 3ABN bought what it bought, PPPA paid what it paid, and Danny did what he did for year after year.

And Walt Thompson, rather than put his foot down, helped to enable some of the corruption that took place.

ummm, yeah,  ok.. what He said  ---> Attorney Simpson:

Their "evidence," however, is not evidence as much as a web of guesswork and speculation that begins and ends with the assumption that the payments were kickbacks.

Folks, if it was kickbacks, the IRS would have had a big problem, and both DS and 3abn would have been in trouble, but it has been a couple of years since they investigated both 3abn and DS, and it should be abundantly clear by now for even the most doubtful among you that they found nothing of the kind... despite Bob's motto of "If at first you don't succeed, weave, weave, again..."

[Bob Pickle]

Folks, if it was kickbacks, the IRS would have had a big problem, and both DS and 3abn would have been in trouble, but it has been a couple of years since they investigated both 3abn and DS, and it should be abundantly clear by now for even the most doubtful among you that they found nothing of the kind...

It is indisputable that it was kickbacks.

If the IRS felt that those kickbacks were private inurement, then the presence of kickbacks is evidence against the mere assertions of Gerald Duffy, Ronnie Shelton, Danny Shelton, and Walt Thompson that the IRS found nothing.

It also suggests that the allegation that there was a huge payment made to the IRS along with a consent decree is in fact true.

[Cindy]

Folks, if it was kickbacks, the IRS would have had a big problem, and both DS and 3abn would have been in trouble, but it has been a couple of years since they investigated both 3abn and DS, and it should be abundantly clear by now for even the most doubtful among you that they found nothing of the kind...

It is indisputable that it was kickbacks.

Quite obviously you are wrong. 3abn, and DS have disputed it, I am disputing it and pointing out your opinions aren't facts and aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever...

If the IRS felt that those kickbacks were private inurement, then the presence of kickbacks is evidence against the mere assertions of Gerald Duffy, Ronnie Shelton, Danny Shelton, and Walt Thompson that the IRS found nothing.

But they didn't feel or find that there were any kickbacks or that they were private inurement , Bob, and you can never prove they did as that is false

It also suggests that the allegation that there was a huge payment made to the IRS along with a consent decree is in fact true.

No, this is a fact, Bob.. You can not use unproven and unsubstantiated "IF" scenarios,allegations and claims, to further claim that suggests that your other unsubstantiated and unproven allegations are in fact true.  That is ludicrous and arrogant and proves nothing. You are living in a fantasy world if you actually believe your opinions and conclusions are indisputable facts.

I'm done here, continue to spin and argue by yourself...