🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:<vo64avos2p3a86@corp.supernews.com>...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> "John Bartley I solved my XP problems w/ Service Pack Linux"
> <johnbartley@email.com> wrote in message
> news:f90c7f43.0310070946.4935719a@posting.google.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>  news:<vo44aqer3e7882@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Looks to me like the WSJ -Opinion- piece (and your post) is the
>  last-minute
> > > political dirty tricks.  Particularly since they've not been
>  substantiated -
> > > it's just allegations at this point.  Arnold's, peccadillo's, on the
>  other
> > > hand, have been documented - and he's even admitted that they're
>  essentially
> > > true.
> >
> > And he's apologized for _old_ behavior.
> 
> But not the behavior on the set of his last movie?  We're not talking just
> "old" behavior here, we're talking ongoing.
> 
> > Davis' alleged behavior, however, is still perpetrating - and, isn't
> > it funny how the anti-Arnold folks are not sourced, whereas the WSJ
> > has _named_ a _credible_ witness?
> 
> On the contrary - some of Arnold's accusers have been identified, and some
> of his grouping was on camera - the identities are not in question.  And do
> provide a link to the WSJ editorial naming your so-called "credible
> witness". 

See the original post.

> 'Cause I went there and could find nothing.

URL in original post.

<snip>