Future Headline: SOARES, BANKOWSKI EAT CROW

[Guest guest]

Dave,

I hope you are right and Lp's come our President does a great job.

One thing you are doing that's wrong is making this about me vs. Matt.

Now I know you have this mild obsession with me and anything I say, but for

the life of me I can't understand why your theory and opinions don't apply to

others like Irene, Rick Speigal and others who stated their cases far more

eloquent than I...

By the way Mr. Bradford I 'm paid well to handle public perception and deal

with the media, my advice to Matt and LPA was free.

Take it or leave it.

I will however not knock you for your judgment as an amateur you don't

deserve that.

Sincerely,

PS I also hope the producers from Fox know that someone is rigging the debate

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/04 10:02:24 PM, dbradfor@... writes:

> Do your employers know they're getting gypped? I mean, when you admit that

> you can't even state your case as eloquently as Irene Yuan, it must make

> for a real crisis of conscience when you go to cash their checks....

>

Believe me they get their monies worth.

They don't pay me to debate on here. Just as your employers don't either.

Also I'm reserving judgment on the lil bachelor, just like anyone should.

What I am judging is our officers speaking on the show without seeing it.

I always said that I support 99.9% of what Matt's doing.

Why do you have an issue with me opposing one thing?

Are we now intolerant of free opinion in your LPA?

[Guest guest]

I've been working in the office with Matt Roloff now for the past 6

months, and believe me, despite our successes, it has not been all wine

and roses. I am often Matt's harshest critic, and Leslye has even told us

to " take it outside " a few times.

But it has always been very clear to me is that Matt cares deeply for LPA

and its members, and for our future in society. And it is with great

excitement that I await this nationally televised " mini-debate " , because:

a) it is going to give LPA vital national exposure, and

I get to watch a few clueless critics suddenly get a clue.

When all is said and done, people are going to realize that Matt played

this thing perfectly. It's going to become completely irrelevent whether

he was on the " in favor " side or the " against " side. The message he is

going to deliver is going to make that argument seem, in hindsight,

utterly ridiculous.

-Dave

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 TonySoares551@... wrote:

> One thing you are doing that's wrong is making this about me vs. Matt.

This isn't just about you, , as much as you would clearly like it

to be.

> ...I can't understand why your theory and opinions don't apply to

> others like Irene, Rick Speigal and others who stated their cases far more

> eloquent than I...

My theory and opinions apply to all hypocrites; that is, those who would

tell someone they should watch the show before passing judgement, yet

cannot extend that person the same courtesy.

> By the way Mr. Bradford I 'm paid well to handle public perception and deal

> with the media, my advice to Matt and LPA was free.

Do your employers know they're getting gypped? I mean, when you admit that

you can't even state your case as eloquently as Irene Yuan, it must make

for a real crisis of conscience when you go to cash their checks....

> I will however not knock you for your judgment as an amateur you don't

> deserve that.

Thanks, you're most kind.

-Dave