ChrisE said:
I'm blunt and write what I think. Some people can handle it, some can't.
ChrisE said:
Don't waste your time with neworld. He/she has been beyond repair in terms of reaction to my posts ever since I wrote LA's "duping" of cancer survivors should play no part on how somebody on a jury should interpret the case.
A little out of context Chris. "Don't waste your time with Neworld"...but in a later post you state "I am blunt and tell it like it is"... you may be, but then you slander posters in third person; not very blunt or time-effective/saving.
As for Aphro and Chris, thank you for the feedback. You two seem to have it all worked out, but are far from angelic or straightforward.
Chris tries to reserve his overt fondness of Lance, even though he states he knows he's guilty and a liar, by arguing 'issues' from all sides, oh and 'tells it like it is".
Aphro appears by way of the sniff test to be very well versed in almost everything and may just be the first CN poster with heightened qualities of ethics, lexicology, philosophy, and moral code...just as long as its a legal discussion of course. An Ombudsman with egalitarian qualities of legal topics and Lance.
What is really exhaustive is when someone continually tries to justify, legal or otherwise, a person like Lance who is clearly a liar and of minimal moral fibre. Yes Chris I still feel that someone who primarily plays on the heart strings, and siphons money, from dying Cancer patients and their families as unforgiveable and something that jurors may use when making decisions. Only a defence lawyer could behave like that.
Just come out and say, "hey I like all things Lance, but as a Devil's advocate why couldn't Lance... ?" I am sure that people would be more affable when discussing topics with you. When you don't your design appears just as unimaginable as the dismissal of the Federal investigation of Lance/USPS.
NouveauMonde