New Information

On Saturday, 16 August 2014 09:33:40 UTC-7, twobuddha wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:18:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Friday, 15 August 2014 20:39:23 UTC-7, twobuddha wrote:



Having fun stalking?











What part of "Public Profile" are you having trouble comprehending, ****tard?



****tard, you're stalking. You know it. You have info about me and you try to use it to intimidate and harass like the ****tard you are.

You need to buy a dictionary and look up the word 'Public', ****tard. Don't paste stuff to a PUBLIC area of the interwebz if you don't want people to see it. Get it? Probably not.


Whereas I do not even know your name, you stalking coward piece of ****. What part of that are you having trouble comprehending, freak?







Maybe you need to adjust your Facebook settings... but that's probably more than your alcohol-addled brain can manage.



And there you go again. Over twenty five years of continuous sobriety, and you still have to pull a whopper of a lie out of your ass.

So, you're dumb enough to believe that after soaking your brain in alcohol and drugs for decades, it suddenly repairs all the damage because you quit drinking? You're even dumber than I thought... but I suppose that's to be expected from an alcohol-addled brain.


You're foaming at the mouth and bragging about what a coward you are. Typical rsa freak. Now go change your diapers.

You really need to work on getting over your obsession with diapers, **** and ****.

On 8/16/14 9:41 AM, Richard Henry wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:35:45 AM UTC-7, Richard Henry wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 6:23:21 AM UTC-7, pigo wrote:
...
You've got a thug that just robbed a store and without doubt had a juvenile record.
...
Without doubt? Do you know what they call that?

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/n...al-record.html

"Doubt" is a good thing - it helps us reason correctly.
Try some, pigo. Many of your "facts" could benefit from applying
judicious "doubt."

On Saturday, 16 August 2014 10:44:52 UTC-7, twobuddha wrote:


And of course, you cannot comprehend that you are a stalking coward piece of **** and ignore the question, freak.

OK, one more type and I'll type real s-l-o-w so you can maybe comprehend: Replying to posts in a PUBLIC forum is not stalking. Get it?

Looking at (Facebook) links posted in a PUBLIC forum is not stalking. Not quit playing the ****ing victim and grow set, you nut less, whining coward.




And there you go again. Over twenty five years of continuous sobriety, and you still have to pull a whopper of a lie out of your ass.

Did you get a brain transplant in the last 25 years... if not, then it's still the same alcohol-and-drug-addled brain that you abused for all those decades.


Tell me, is that your excuse for your impotent rage? The ridiculous lies, the foaming at the mouth attacks. Looks to me like YOU are off your bi-polar meds. Discuss. Twenty five years, idiot. Educate yourself before you make a complete fool out of yourself.

Is that your (chuckle) PROFESSIONAL opinion? You should really stick to giving advice on things you are actually qualified for. Oh, right, that would be NOTHING. Oh, wait, bragging, exaggerating, making up self-gloryfing stories, they're all things you're an expert at.

Now, dance some more for me, ****tard... while I laugh at you.

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:36:29 AM UTC-7, twobuddha wrote:
On Saturday, August 1
Dickless, you are betraying your buddy. Whassup?

Speaking of buddies, where did you get your information regarding James Arthur Strohm beating the rap?

How about a pic of the officer who blew you off with a FORM EMAIL? You're protecting his identity even more than the Ferg cops protected their officer.

I'm not surprised that you see a polite conversation as betrayal. It's a symptom of your illness.

On Saturday, 16 August 2014 10:44:52 UTC-7, twobuddha wrote:

On Saturday, 16 August 2014 10:44:52 UTC-7, twobuddha wrote:


And of course, you cannot comprehend that you are a stalking coward piece of **** and ignore the question, freak.

OK, one more time and I'll type real s-l-o-w so you can maybe comprehend: Replying to posts in a PUBLIC forum is not stalking. Get it?

Looking at (Facebook) links posted in a PUBLIC forum is not stalking. Now quit playing the ****ing victim and grow set, you nut less, whining coward.




And there you go again. Over twenty five years of continuous sobriety, and you still have to pull a whopper of a lie out of your ass.

Did you get a brain transplant in the last 25 years... if not, then it's still the same alcohol-and-drug-addled brain that you abused for all those decades.


Tell me, is that your excuse for your impotent rage? The ridiculous lies, the foaming at the mouth attacks. Looks to me like YOU are off your bi-polar meds. Discuss. Twenty five years, idiot. Educate yourself before you make a complete fool out of yourself.

Is that your (chuckle) PROFESSIONAL opinion? You should really stick to giving advice on things you are actually qualified for. Oh, right, that would be NOTHING. Oh, wait, bragging, exaggerating, making up self-gloryfing stories, they're all things you're an expert at.

Now, dance some more for me, ****tard... while I laugh at you.

On 08/16/2014 06:23 AM, pigo wrote:
On Friday, August 15, 2014 10:27:45 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

So you're all cool if police officers start shooting anyone who is
6'4" and 300#... ...or just the black ones?

I'm giving the cop (that needed medical attention after the incident)
the benefit of the doubt over a robber. His size is relevant to the
officers legitimate fear for his life. So are his actions just prior
to the shooting.

You've got a cop with a clean record and no complaints.

You've got a thug that just robbed a store and without doubt had a
juvenile record.

Who's side would you come down on with what we have so far? I'm not
saying it's the final story. But at this point it looks worse for the
thug.

The cop didn't know the kid had taken a box of cigars without paying.
All he saw was a couple of kids, one of them HUGE, walking in the middle
of the street. Given the rest of the equipment the police possessed,
the absence of a dashcam seems inexcusable.

http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close

--
Cheers, Bev

Please hassle me, I thrive on stress.

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:52:33 AM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:

The cop didn't know the kid had taken a box of cigars without paying.

All he saw was a couple of kids, one of them HUGE, walking in the middle

of the street. Given the rest of the equipment the police possessed,

the absence of a dashcam seems inexcusable.



http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close



--

Cheers, Bev



Please hassle me, I thrive on stress.

The police chief changed his story again, saying that the cop knew there had been a robbery and "might have" seen the stolen cigars.

If the chief keeps his job more than 6 months I will be surprised.

lal_truckee wrote:
On 8/16/14 9:41 AM, Richard Henry wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:35:45 AM UTC-7, Richard Henry wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 6:23:21 AM UTC-7, pigo wrote:
...
You've got a thug that just robbed a store and without doubt had a
juvenile record.
...
Without doubt? Do you know what they call that?

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/n...al-record.html


"Doubt" is a good thing - it helps us reason correctly.
Try some, pigo. Many of your "facts" could benefit from applying
judicious "doubt."

Trying to reason with him is like chewing on razor blades, it is
pointless and unhealthy.

On 08/16/2014 12:34 PM, Richard Henry wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:52:33 AM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:

The cop didn't know the kid had taken a box of cigars without
paying. All he saw was a couple of kids, one of them HUGE, walking
in the middle of the street. Given the rest of the equipment the
police possessed, the absence of a dashcam seems inexcusable.

http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close

The police chief changed his story again, saying that the cop knew
there had been a robbery and "might have" seen the stolen cigars.

If the chief keeps his job more than 6 months I will be surprised.

He switched back again. I'm glad nothing like this happens in
California. Oh, wait...

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ===========
My house isn't a pigsty, it's an Immunity Enhancement Center.

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:01:26 PM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/16/2014 12:34 PM, Richard Henry wrote:

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:52:33 AM UTC-7, The Real Bev wrote:



The cop didn't know the kid had taken a box of cigars without

paying. All he saw was a couple of kids, one of them HUGE, walking

in the middle of the street. Given the rest of the equipment the

police possessed, the absence of a dashcam seems inexcusable.



http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close



The police chief changed his story again, saying that the cop knew

there had been a robbery and "might have" seen the stolen cigars.



If the chief keeps his job more than 6 months I will be surprised.



He switched back again. I'm glad nothing like this happens in

California. Oh, wait...



--

Cheers, Bev

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

My house isn't a pigsty, it's an Immunity Enhancement Center.

In addition to contradicting himself in two responses in the same news conference, when he broke the news of the cigar robbery he seemed to be reading it off the paper like he had never seen it before.

I'm reading in his eyes "I wonder how much my severance pay will be".