Re: police

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <GsSdnYpR94Uu_mfanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bert Hoff <bert.h.hoff@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <cc2d7ad2-9062-4a7c-a6d0-e6840f56ff5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
twobuddha <scottabe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 7, 1:47 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<9896803c-cede-4e5a-837a-ec7c632f4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





twobuddha <scott...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 5, 7:30 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<ae0d3af3-1ae2-4f41-9652-fdaadee96...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
twobuddha <scott...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:54 am, kurtstocklm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
For years police have done crimes. If a lot of people look at my
video the truth might be exposed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV_RaVVGrt8
Kurt Stocklmeir
I understand, Kurt. Detective Leanne Shirey of the Seattle Police
Department suborned perjury and committed perjury in a court hearing.
Shame we don't have video.
What a shame you don't have the balls to try making that charge stick in
a court of law...
SPD covered up. What's new? What is truly laughable is that you
could have tried to make YOUR charges stick, in person, at
Whistler.....you knew exactly where I would be, and when I was there.
No, I didn't. That's why I asked for clarification: to take away your
weasel room and I said as much.
Wrong again, dumb***. You were weaseling yourself, and continue to
weasel. No clarification needed: I was where I said I would be when I
said I would be there, and you have admitted you knew exactly where
that place was.
Nope. I admitted that I *believed* I understood where you'd be, but that I wanted to remove any weasel room.
Ah, the truth comes out! You understood where he would be. Or are you saying you don't believe your own beliefs?

The truth has "come out" numerous times, Bert. I'm saying that I didn't want there to be any weasel room, so I insisted on absolute clarity.

The same weaseling as when you were caught in that other lie, that the PBS documentary didn't exist.

I never said that.

The Google record confirms this.
So you say. Proof? Where in the Google record?

I've posted it before.

Or is it the infamous Alan Baker double-standard? Yo demand that other provide links, but you don't need to do so yourself.

LOL

There is no such double-standard, Bert:

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.skiing.alpine/msg/fa9a40ea81d3127f>

"But since you want to ensure that you can show me up, be specific. Or are you trying to weasel out of it? "

As for you being there:

A. You knew I wouldn't be because you failed to meet my condition of clarification.
Did you actually say that you would not meet him unless he clarified?

Yes.

Caught in yet another lie!!

"But since you want to ensure that you can show me up, be specific. Or
are you trying to weasel out of it? "

That does NOT say you would not meet him unless he clarified.

Thanks for providing the Google proof that you lied.


Did you ask for clarification?

Yes.

Or go the next step and tell him you would not meet him unless he clarified?

Yes.

You did no such thing.

"But since you want to ensure that you can show me up, be specific. Or
are you trying to weasel out of it? "

Nothing there about refusing to meet with him unless he clarified.



Caught in another lie.

LOL

B. You could have proved that if you'd used the video camera you claimed you were going to have with you.
How would a video camera prove that he knew you would not be there unless he provided you with the clarification you requested?

It would prove *he* was there which he's failed to prove.

That's not what you claimed. You claimed that a video camera would prove that he knew you would not be there, as you so clearly stated?

And you're caught in yet ANOTHER lie!

Scott did not propose to bring a video camera. YOU proposed to bring a video camera.

=================================

Nope. I'd rather meet at the bottom because I'm really only coming to
call your bluff. I'll be bringing a video camera.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Here's a picture of me, although I'll be returning the ski school jacket
> > to Cypress when I go up there on Monday or Tuesday to pick up my gear.

> > <http://www3.telus.net/bakermedia/AtPlay-Pages/Image2.html>

> > So, where precisely are you inviting me to meet you?

> You don't know where the information tower is at Whistler? What utter crap.
> What a lying coward!

No, I don't recall. I meant to get up to Whistler this year, but I
didn't. Too many days skiing for free at Cypress.

But since you want to ensure that you can show me up, be specific. Or
are you trying to weasel out of it?

--
Alan Baker
===============================

Thanks for providing the Google link to this proof that you lied yet again.


The clarification didn't come...

No need. You have admitted you knew what I was talking about. No
balls. Coward. Freak. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yup, he did admit it ... and re-confirmed it even more strongly in this post.

I've always admitted that I believed I knew what he was talking about, Bert.


So you didn't need the clarification on where to meet. You admit it.

The clarification you sought was about the *location*.

Here's the proof that YOU provided:
======
> You don't know where the information tower is at Whistler? What utter crap.
> What a lying coward!

No, I don't recall. I meant to get up to Whistler this year, but I
didn't. Too many days skiing for free at Cypress.

But since you want to ensure that you can show me up, be specific. Or
are you trying to weasel out of it?
==============


...until after.
Here is a clue, freak. I do not negotiate with stalkers, freaks, and
nutcases: ie, you.
I challenge you to show up. You didn't. And you keep on making
pathetic excuses for your dickless cowardice.
You had a condition, I met it. I had a condition, you ran.
You had a request for clarification. You lie when you say that was also a condition.

Nope.

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.skiing.alpine/msg/8df053fbbd06885c>

"You've "run me off" by refusing to clarify something that would make it possible for us to meet? "

The clarification was on *where* to meet ... and you admitted in this very post that you knew where it was.


And:

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.skiing.alpine/msg/7b48c47faa81d4ba>

"Funny how you managed to reply to every message except the one where I proposed a meeting place known to both of us"

You did not propose a meeting place known to both of you. Here are your words:
===========================

Nope. I'd rather meet at the bottom because I'm really only coming to
call your bluff. I'll be bringing a video camera.

> > Here's a picture of me, although I'll be returning the ski school jacket
> > to Cypress when I go up there on Monday or Tuesday to pick up my gear.

> > <http://www3.telus.net/bakermedia/AtPlay-Pages/Image2.html>

> > So, where precisely are you inviting me to meet you?

> You don't know where the information tower is at Whistler? What utter crap.
> What a lying coward!

No, I don't recall. I meant to get up to Whistler this year, but I
didn't. Too many days skiing for free at Cypress.

But since you want to ensure that you can show me up, be specific. Or
are you trying to weasel out of it?

--
Alan Baker
==================

You didn't make any proposal of a meeting place you both knew.

AND you lied about Scott bringing a video camera. YOU said you'd bring a video camera.

Bert
.