🚀 go-pugleaf

Charlie McCann wrote:
> 
> Mike Hales wrote:

<snip>

> > Charlie, if _you_ took this to court the judge would slam you to the mat
> > in a heartbeat for wasting his time.
> 
> This part is really funny. I've not mentioned courts, lawyers, etc. ,
> yet it seems many people see it as becoming a component necessary to
> resolve this conflict. I've received a number of messages from various
> legal professionals showing an interest in this issue. While they're not
> soliciting business, but merely showing interest , I find it remarkable.

You misunderstand me. I was pointing out that you have no case, so why
not give it up? There is no conflict, you are merely confused, wrong,
and too stubborn to admit it. While you've not specifically mentioned
courts, etc., your arguments and accusations are pointed at what you
perceive to be wrongs against you that would be actionable. Otherwise,
why all the fuss? 

I am truly puzzled by your seemingly warm reception to the "number of
messages" you've received from "various legal professionals". "Not
soliciting business" my dying ass! Can you spell "Ambulance Chaser"?
Anything from a member of the legal profession that comes my way
unasked-for I would consider the worst possible kind of SPAM, yet you
flaunt the fact that these parasites are courting your pleasures! You,
Charlie, are a wonder beyond all wonders. You find it remarkable? I
would find it disgusting.

<snip, more die-hard third-party crapola>

> Oh, and if you still can't understand it, you really ought not dabble in
> legal opinion either. IMHO

At least I know the difference between SPAM and customer relations,
greedy, self-serving solicitation from honest service-minded inquiries,
and third-party from contract _employees_. (I know a shark when one's
swimming in the water nearby too. They smell like lawyers.) 

> 
> Charlie McCann
> --
<snip>

Cheers

-- 
Mike Hales
http://www.primenet.com/~mhales/