Re: Just curious... Fournier

[Guest guest]

M_Divinci

Are you joking?

Or just trying to stir up trouble???

Sounds like stir

You know what we do in ABA with folks

like you?

We put you on extinction…

From:

EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of m_divinci

Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:32

AM

EOHarm

Subject: Just curious...

Fournier

Fournier. I see where someone has identified you as the

President of NAA. With your important position in

that group I have a

rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an

attempt to re-

write history????

The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an

annoucement passed

on by a close friend of mine advising the

" community " on the release

of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

The release which I belive originated with

Kennedys friend Sara

Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen posting

on this site

in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby

Manning.

Upon your " regurgitation " of the

information/press release you edited

out the original content of the email, by omitting

the three names I

just mentioned.

Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

NAA was one of the groups I was considering

putting my full support

behind. Now..... I have some serious questions

about your motives.

Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the

" community " well

deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

message looks like an

attempt to exclude selected people from getting

too much credit from

this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if

any? What was their

comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did

you omit the names?

Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

[Guest guest]

I once had relations with 42 different men.

BTW - I like cheese

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0000

>From: " m_divinci " <m_divinci@...>

>Subject: Just curious... Fournier

>EOHarm

>

> Fournier. I see where someone has identified

> you as the

> President of NAA. With your important position in

> that group I have a

> rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an

> attempt to re-

> write history????

>

> The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an

> annoucement passed

> on by a close friend of mine advising the

> " community " on the release

> of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> The release which I belive originated with Kennedys

> friend Sara

> Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen

> posting on this site

> in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby

> Manning.

>

> Upon your " regurgitation " of the information/press

> release you edited

> out the original content of the email, by omitting

> the three names I

> just mentioned.

> Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting

> my full support

> behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about

> your motives.

>

> Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the

> " community " well

> deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> message looks like an

> attempt to exclude selected people from getting too

> much credit from

> this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if

> any? What was their

> comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did

> you omit the names?

> Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

I like green eggs & ham.

Relations with 42 men sounds fun.

> I once had relations with 42 different men.

>

> BTW - I like cheese

>

> ---- Original message ----

> >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0000

> >From: " m_divinci " <m_divinci@y...>

> >Subject: Just curious... Fournier

> >EOHarm

> >

> > Fournier. I see where someone has identified

> > you as the

> > President of NAA. With your important position in

> > that group I have a

> > rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an

> > attempt to re-

> > write history????

> >

> > The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an

> > annoucement passed

> > on by a close friend of mine advising the

> > " community " on the release

> > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> > The release which I belive originated with Kennedys

> > friend Sara

> > Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen

> > posting on this site

> > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby

> > Manning.

> >

> > Upon your " regurgitation " of the information/press

> > release you edited

> > out the original content of the email, by omitting

> > the three names I

> > just mentioned.

> > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> > NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting

> > my full support

> > behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about

> > your motives.

> >

> > Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the

> > " community " well

> > deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> > message looks like an

> > attempt to exclude selected people from getting too

> > much credit from

> > this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if

> > any? What was their

> > comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did

> > you omit the names?

> > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

You (whoever YOU are) have officially deemed yourself unworthy of

anyone's time or attention.

-Sue

> Fournier. I see where someone has identified you as the

> President of NAA. With your important position in that group I

have a

> rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an attempt to re-

> write history????

>

> The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an annoucement

passed

> on by a close friend of mine advising the " community " on the

release

> of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> The release which I belive originated with Kennedys friend Sara

> Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen posting on this

site

> in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby Manning.

>

> Upon your " regurgitation " of the information/press release you

edited

> out the original content of the email, by omitting the three names

I

> just mentioned.

> Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting my full

support

> behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about your motives.

>

> Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the " community " well

> deserved credit for their contribution.? Your message looks like

an

> attempt to exclude selected people from getting too much credit

from

> this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if any? What was

their

> comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did you omit the

names?

> Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

[Guest guest]

Yeah... Watch out for the clap

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:40:36 -0000

>From: " Becky " <rescueangel@...>

>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

>EOHarm

>

> I like green eggs & ham.

>

> Relations with 42 men sounds fun.

>

>

> > I once had relations with 42 different men.

> >

> > BTW - I like cheese

> >

> > ---- Original message ----

> > >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0000

> > >From: " m_divinci " <m_divinci@y...>

> > >Subject: Just curious... Fournier

> > >EOHarm

> > >

> > > Fournier. I see where someone has

> identified

> > > you as the

> > > President of NAA. With your important position

> in

> > > that group I have a

> > > rather serious question to ask you. Do I

> detect an

> > > attempt to re-

> > > write history????

> > >

> > > The other day I was privelidged to be copied

> on an

> > > annoucement passed

> > > on by a close friend of mine advising the

> > > " community " on the release

> > > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> > > The release which I belive originated with

> Kennedys

> > > friend Sara

> > > Bridges gave credit to three people I have

> seen

> > > posting on this site

> > > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and

> Bobby

> > > Manning.

> > >

> > > Upon your " regurgitation " of the

> information/press

> > > release you edited

> > > out the original content of the email, by

> omitting

> > > the three names I

> > > just mentioned.

> > > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> > > NAA was one of the groups I was considering

> putting

> > > my full support

> > > behind. Now..... I have some serious questions

> about

> > > your motives.

> > >

> > > Are you affraid to give other hard workers in

> the

> > > " community " well

> > > deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> > > message looks like an

> > > attempt to exclude selected people from

> getting too

> > > much credit from

> > > this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK

> if

> > > any? What was their

> > > comtribution to the article ...if any, and why

> did

> > > you omit the names?

> > > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of

> others?

> > >

> > >

> ----------------------------------------------------

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I once drank human blood. I was young and in college. You can

understand right?

> I once had relations with 42 different men.

>

> BTW - I like cheese

>

> ---- Original message ----

> >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0000

> >From: " m_divinci " <m_divinci@y...>

> >Subject: Just curious... Fournier

> >EOHarm

> >

> > Fournier. I see where someone has identified

> > you as the

> > President of NAA. With your important position in

> > that group I have a

> > rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an

> > attempt to re-

> > write history????

> >

> > The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an

> > annoucement passed

> > on by a close friend of mine advising the

> > " community " on the release

> > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> > The release which I belive originated with Kennedys

> > friend Sara

> > Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen

> > posting on this site

> > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby

> > Manning.

> >

> > Upon your " regurgitation " of the information/press

> > release you edited

> > out the original content of the email, by omitting

> > the three names I

> > just mentioned.

> > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> > NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting

> > my full support

> > behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about

> > your motives.

> >

> > Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the

> > " community " well

> > deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> > message looks like an

> > attempt to exclude selected people from getting too

> > much credit from

> > this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if

> > any? What was their

> > comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did

> > you omit the names?

> > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I used to pick my scabs when I was a kid.

> > I once had relations with 42 different men.

> >

> > BTW - I like cheese

> >

> > ---- Original message ----

> > >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0000

> > >From: " m_divinci " <m_divinci@y...>

> > >Subject: Just curious... Fournier

> > >EOHarm

> > >

> > > Fournier. I see where someone has identified

> > > you as the

> > > President of NAA. With your important position in

> > > that group I have a

> > > rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an

> > > attempt to re-

> > > write history????

> > >

> > > The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an

> > > annoucement passed

> > > on by a close friend of mine advising the

> > > " community " on the release

> > > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> > > The release which I belive originated with Kennedys

> > > friend Sara

> > > Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen

> > > posting on this site

> > > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby

> > > Manning.

> > >

> > > Upon your " regurgitation " of the information/press

> > > release you edited

> > > out the original content of the email, by omitting

> > > the three names I

> > > just mentioned.

> > > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> > > NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting

> > > my full support

> > > behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about

> > > your motives.

> > >

> > > Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the

> > > " community " well

> > > deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> > > message looks like an

> > > attempt to exclude selected people from getting too

> > > much credit from

> > > this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if

> > > any? What was their

> > > comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did

> > > you omit the names?

> > > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

> > >

> > > ----------------------------------------------------

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

If we are going to work together it does us no good to have in fighting.

There was a mix up originally a new article was do out and the old one was posted the next day.

Lets move on.

Km_divinci <m_divinci@...> wrote:

Fournier. I see where someone has identified you as the President of NAA. With your important position in that group I have a rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an attempt to re-write history???? The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an annoucement passed on by a close friend of mine advising the "community" on the release of the RFK article in Rolling Stone. The release which I belive originated with Kennedys friend Sara Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen posting on this site in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby Manning.Upon your "regurgitation" of the information/press release you edited out the original content of the email, by omitting the three names I just mentioned.Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people? NAA was one of the groups I was considering

putting my full support behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about your motives. Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the "community" well deserved credit for their contribution.? Your message looks like an attempt to exclude selected people from getting too much credit from this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if any? What was their comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did you omit the names?Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

[Guest guest]

> Hey ...I picked up the June 16th Roling Stone and did not see the

RKJ article. Is it only an online print??

[Guest guest]

ewwwwww. I'd rather eat cheese or have relations

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:42:46 -0000

>From: " timothybooton " <timothybooton@...>

>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

>EOHarm

>

> I once drank human blood. I was young and in

> college. You can

> understand right?

>

>

> > I once had relations with 42 different men.

> >

> > BTW - I like cheese

> >

> > ---- Original message ----

> > >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0000

> > >From: " m_divinci " <m_divinci@y...>

> > >Subject: Just curious... Fournier

> > >EOHarm

> > >

> > > Fournier. I see where someone has

> identified

> > > you as the

> > > President of NAA. With your important position

> in

> > > that group I have a

> > > rather serious question to ask you. Do I

> detect an

> > > attempt to re-

> > > write history????

> > >

> > > The other day I was privelidged to be copied

> on an

> > > annoucement passed

> > > on by a close friend of mine advising the

> > > " community " on the release

> > > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> > > The release which I belive originated with

> Kennedys

> > > friend Sara

> > > Bridges gave credit to three people I have

> seen

> > > posting on this site

> > > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and

> Bobby

> > > Manning.

> > >

> > > Upon your " regurgitation " of the

> information/press

> > > release you edited

> > > out the original content of the email, by

> omitting

> > > the three names I

> > > just mentioned.

> > > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> > > NAA was one of the groups I was considering

> putting

> > > my full support

> > > behind. Now..... I have some serious questions

> about

> > > your motives.

> > >

> > > Are you affraid to give other hard workers in

> the

> > > " community " well

> > > deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> > > message looks like an

> > > attempt to exclude selected people from

> getting too

> > > much credit from

> > > this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK

> if

> > > any? What was their

> > > comtribution to the article ...if any, and why

> did

> > > you omit the names?

> > > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of

> others?

> > >

> > >

> ----------------------------------------------------

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Don't - they'll get infected

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:44:00 -0000

>From: " Becky " <rescueangel@...>

>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

>EOHarm

>

> I used to pick my scabs when I was a kid.

>

>

> > > I once had relations with 42 different men.

> > >

> > > BTW - I like cheese

> > >

> > > ---- Original message ----

> > > >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0000

> > > >From: " m_divinci " <m_divinci@y...>

> > > >Subject: Just curious...

> Fournier

> > > >EOHarm

> > > >

> > > > Fournier. I see where someone has

> identified

> > > > you as the

> > > > President of NAA. With your important

> position in

> > > > that group I have a

> > > > rather serious question to ask you. Do I

> detect an

> > > > attempt to re-

> > > > write history????

> > > >

> > > > The other day I was privelidged to be copied

> on an

> > > > annoucement passed

> > > > on by a close friend of mine advising the

> > > > " community " on the release

> > > > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> > > > The release which I belive originated with

> Kennedys

> > > > friend Sara

> > > > Bridges gave credit to three people I have

> seen

> > > > posting on this site

> > > > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and

> Bobby

> > > > Manning.

> > > >

> > > > Upon your " regurgitation " of the

> information/press

> > > > release you edited

> > > > out the original content of the email, by

> omitting

> > > > the three names I

> > > > just mentioned.

> > > > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3

> people?

> > > > NAA was one of the groups I was considering

> putting

> > > > my full support

> > > > behind. Now..... I have some serious

> questions about

> > > > your motives.

> > > >

> > > > Are you affraid to give other hard workers

> in the

> > > > " community " well

> > > > deserved credit for their contribution.?

> Your

> > > > message looks like an

> > > > attempt to exclude selected people from

> getting too

> > > > much credit from

> > > > this forum. What was NAA involvement with

> RFK if

> > > > any? What was their

> > > > comtribution to the article ...if any, and

> why did

> > > > you omit the names?

> > > > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of

> others?

> > > >

> > > >

> ----------------------------------------------------

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dora says watchout for the grumpy ol troll !

I love Autistic people.

brian@... wrote:

Don't - they'll get infected---- Original message ---->Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:44:00 -0000>From: "Becky " <rescueangel@...> >Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier >EOHarm >> I used to pick my scabs when I was a kid.>> > > > I once had relations with 42 different men.> > >> >

> BTW - I like cheese> > >> > > ---- Original message ----> > > >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0000> > > >From: "m_divinci" <m_divinci@y...> > > > >Subject: Just curious... > Fournier > > > >EOHarm > > > >> > > > Fournier. I see where someone has> identified> > > > you as the> > > > President of NAA. With your important> position in> > > > that group I have a> > > > rather serious question to ask you. Do I> detect an> > > > attempt to

re-> > > > write history????> > > >> > > > The other day I was privelidged to be copied> on an> > > > annoucement passed> > > > on by a close friend of mine advising the> > > > "community" on the release> > > > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.> > > > The release which I belive originated with> Kennedys> > > > friend Sara> > > > Bridges gave credit to three people I have> seen> > > > posting on this site> > > > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean ,

and> Bobby> > > > Manning.> > > >> > > > Upon your "regurgitation" of the> information/press> > > > release you edited> > > > out the original content of the email, by> omitting> > > > the three names I> > > > just mentioned.> > > > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3> people?> > > > NAA was one of the groups I was considering> putting> > > > my full support> > > > behind. Now..... I have some serious> questions about> > >

> your motives.> > > >> > > > Are you affraid to give other hard workers> in the> > > > "community" well> > > > deserved credit for their contribution.?> Your> > > > message looks like an> > > > attempt to exclude selected people from> getting too> > > > much credit from> > > > this forum. What was NAA involvement with> RFK if> > > > any? What was their> > > > comtribution to the article ...if any, and> why did> > > > you omit the

names?> > > > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of> others?> > > >> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------> > > >> > > >

[Guest guest]

MATT FOLEY, MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER...

THANKS, MATT!

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:56:28 -0500

>From: <tomato@...>

>Subject: Re:  Re: Just curious... Fournier

>EOHarm

>

> >

> >

> >

> > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:37:55 -0700

> > From: <brian@...>

> >Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

> >

> >I once had relations with 42 different men.

> >

> >BTW - I like cheese

> >

> >

>

> Well , Ole Buddy, no problemo

>

> you might just get your wish

>

> If things dont start changing we'll all end up

> eating government cheese

> and living in a van down by the river!

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:37:55 -0700

> From: <brian@...>

>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

>

>I once had relations with 42 different men.

>

>BTW - I like cheese

>

>

Well , Ole Buddy, no problemo

you might just get your wish

If things dont start changing we'll all end up eating government cheese

and living in a van down by the river!

[Guest guest]

Beware of the river...that's right by the troll bridge..

<tomato@...> wrote:

>>> > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:37:55 -0700> From: <brian@...>>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier>>I once had relations with 42 different men.>>BTW - I like cheese> >Well , Ole Buddy, no problemoyou might just get your wishIf things dont start changing we'll all end up eating government cheese and living in a van down by the river!__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

And probably polluted with mercury from coal burning power plants

and China!

> >

> >

> >

> > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:37:55 -0700

> > From: <brian@d...>

> >Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

> >

> >I once had relations with 42 different men.

> >

> >BTW - I like cheese

> >

> >

>

> Well , Ole Buddy, no problemo

>

> you might just get your wish

>

> If things dont start changing we'll all end up eating government

cheese

> and living in a van down by the river!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

I just bought it. The issue is dated June 30 through July 14. Boy,

was the article hard to find. It's on page 57 and is listed

as " National Affairs " in the Table of Contents.

S.

> > Hey ...I picked up the June 16th Roling Stone and did not see the

> RKJ article. Is it only an online print??

[Guest guest]

oh yea, not knocking the realtions part in general.

Re: Just curious... Fournier

> I like green eggs & ham.

>

> Relations with 42 men sounds fun.

[Guest guest]

ummm, brian, you are scaring me big time.

Just curious... Fournier

> >EOHarm

> >

> > Fournier. I see where someone has identified

> > you as the

> > President of NAA. With your important position in

> > that group I have a

> > rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an

> > attempt to re-

> > write history????

> >

> > The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an

> > annoucement passed

> > on by a close friend of mine advising the

> > " community " on the release

> > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> > The release which I belive originated with Kennedys

> > friend Sara

> > Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen

> > posting on this site

> > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby

> > Manning.

> >

> > Upon your " regurgitation " of the information/press

> > release you edited

> > out the original content of the email, by omitting

> > the three names I

> > just mentioned.

> > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> > NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting

> > my full support

> > behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about

> > your motives.

> >

> > Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the

> > " community " well

> > deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> > message looks like an

> > attempt to exclude selected people from getting too

> > much credit from

> > this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if

> > any? What was their

> > comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did

> > you omit the names?

> > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Wow! First an IEP meeting and now this! What a great morning!

Dear nameless one,

This is the last time I will respond to you, because you are a miserable, spineless ass.

You're ASSuming that I wrote that alert - I did not. Noone at NAA plays games as you are accusing. We support and give recognition to individuals and other orgs both publicly and privately.

You say you don't know who I am, yet you are attacking my character. I take offense to that.

I'm a Mom trying help my own 5 year old, non-verbal, shit smearing, poisoned child and any others that I possibly can. Bob, Lujene and Bobbie are heroes to me - they are leaders in the fight that will help my daughter. I admire them and their work immensely. Bob Krakow sits on the board of NAA with me - I adore the man - and I am a supporter of A-Champ.

I hope that addresses your concerns. You're attempting to create friction where it doesn't exist. We're all on the same team here.

Just curious... Fournier

Fournier. I see where someone has identified you as the President of NAA. With your important position in that group I have a rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an attempt to re-write history???? The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an annoucement passed on by a close friend of mine advising the "community" on the release of the RFK article in Rolling Stone. The release which I belive originated with Kennedys friend Sara Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen posting on this site in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby Manning.Upon your "regurgitation" of the information/press release you edited out the original content of the email, by omitting the three names I just mentioned.Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people? NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting my full support behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about your motives. Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the "community" well deserved credit for their contribution.? Your message looks like an attempt to exclude selected people from getting too much credit from this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if any? What was their comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did you omit the names?Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

[Guest guest]

Hey, my last name is " Hooker. " What do you expect?....

B

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:14:00 -0400

>From: " Holly Bortfeld " <maximom@...>

>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

><EOHarm >

>

> ummm, brian, you are scaring me big time.

>

> Just curious... Fournier

> > >EOHarm

> > >

> > > Fournier. I see where someone has

> identified

> > > you as the

> > > President of NAA. With your important position

> in

> > > that group I have a

> > > rather serious question to ask you. Do I

> detect an

> > > attempt to re-

> > > write history????

> > >

> > > The other day I was privelidged to be copied

> on an

> > > annoucement passed

> > > on by a close friend of mine advising the

> > > " community " on the release

> > > of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> > > The release which I belive originated with

> Kennedys

> > > friend Sara

> > > Bridges gave credit to three people I have

> seen

> > > posting on this site

> > > in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and

> Bobby

> > > Manning.

> > >

> > > Upon your " regurgitation " of the

> information/press

> > > release you edited

> > > out the original content of the email, by

> omitting

> > > the three names I

> > > just mentioned.

> > > Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> > > NAA was one of the groups I was considering

> putting

> > > my full support

> > > behind. Now..... I have some serious questions

> about

> > > your motives.

> > >

> > > Are you affraid to give other hard workers in

> the

> > > " community " well

> > > deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> > > message looks like an

> > > attempt to exclude selected people from

> getting too

> > > much credit from

> > > this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK

> if

> > > any? What was their

> > > comtribution to the article ...if any, and why

> did

> > > you omit the names?

> > > Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of

> others?

> > >

> > >

> ----------------------------------------------------

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

This type of hate only fuels my fire and makes me want to fight even harder.

I guess it was meant to break us...well it is having the opposite effect.

By your side ,

Fournier <@...> wrote:

Wow! First an IEP meeting and now this! What a great morning!

Dear nameless one,

This is the last time I will respond to you, because you are a miserable, spineless ass.

You're ASSuming that I wrote that alert - I did not. Noone at NAA plays games as you are accusing. We support and give recognition to individuals and other orgs both publicly and privately.

You say you don't know who I am, yet you are attacking my character. I take offense to that.

I'm a Mom trying help my own 5 year old, non-verbal, shit smearing, poisoned child and any others that I possibly can. Bob, Lujene and Bobbie are heroes to me - they are leaders in the fight that will help my daughter. I admire them and their work immensely. Bob Krakow sits on the board of NAA with me - I adore the man - and I am a supporter of A-Champ.

I hope that addresses your concerns. You're attempting to create friction where it doesn't exist. We're all on the same team here.

Just curious... Fournier

Fournier. I see where someone has identified you as the President of NAA. With your important position in that group I have a rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an attempt to re-write history???? The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an annoucement passed on by a close friend of mine advising the "community" on the release of the RFK article in Rolling Stone. The release which I belive originated with Kennedys friend Sara Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen posting on this site in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby Manning.Upon your "regurgitation" of the information/press release you edited out the original content of the email, by omitting the three names I just mentioned.Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people? NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting my full support behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about your

motives. Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the "community" well deserved credit for their contribution.? Your message looks like an attempt to exclude selected people from getting too much credit from this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if any? What was their comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did you omit the names?Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others? __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

You go . I wouldn't even waste my time and energy responding to this nameless nobody. Maurine

Just curious... Fournier

Fournier. I see where someone has identified you as the President of NAA. With your important position in that group I have a rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an attempt to re-write history???? The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an annoucement passed on by a close friend of mine advising the "community" on the release of the RFK article in Rolling Stone. The release which I belive originated with Kennedys friend Sara Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen posting on this site in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby Manning.Upon your "regurgitation" of the information/press release you edited out the original content of the email, by omitting the three names I just mentioned.Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people? NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting my full support behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about your motives. Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the "community" well deserved credit for their contribution.? Your message looks like an attempt to exclude selected people from getting too much credit from this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if any? What was their comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did you omit the names?Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

[Guest guest]

This m-davinci character is looking for a conspiracy, I suppose! Wow, what a

stretch of the

imagination it took for him/her to come up with that!!!

http://www.autismmedia.org/

> Wow! First an IEP meeting and now this! What a great morning!

>

> Dear nameless one,

>

> This is the last time I will respond to you, because you are a miserable,

spineless ass.

>

> You're ASSuming that I wrote that alert - I did not. Noone at NAA plays

games as you

are accusing. We support and give recognition to individuals and other orgs

both

publicly and privately.

>

> You say you don't know who I am, yet you are attacking my character. I take

offense to

that.

>

> I'm a Mom trying help my own 5 year old, non-verbal, shit smearing, poisoned

child and

any others that I possibly can. Bob, Lujene and Bobbie are heroes to me -

they are

leaders in the fight that will help my daughter. I admire them and their work

immensely.

Bob Krakow sits on the board of NAA with me - I adore the man - and I am a

supporter of

A-Champ.

>

> I hope that addresses your concerns. You're attempting to create friction

where it

doesn't exist. We're all on the same team here.

>

>

>

> Just curious... Fournier

>

>

> Fournier. I see where someone has identified you as the

> President of NAA. With your important position in that group I have a

> rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an attempt to re-

> write history????

>

> The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an annoucement passed

> on by a close friend of mine advising the " community " on the release

> of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> The release which I belive originated with Kennedys friend Sara

> Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen posting on this site

> in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby Manning.

>

> Upon your " regurgitation " of the information/press release you edited

> out the original content of the email, by omitting the three names I

> just mentioned.

> Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> NAA was one of the groups I was considering putting my full support

> behind. Now..... I have some serious questions about your motives.

>

> Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the " community " well

> deserved credit for their contribution.? Your message looks like an

> attempt to exclude selected people from getting too much credit from

> this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if any? What was their

> comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did you omit the names?

> Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Anyone who has tried to convey to their child that a turd is

not a toy is my hero!

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:18:52 -0400

>From: " Fournier " <@...>

>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

><EOHarm >

>

> Wow! First an IEP meeting and now this! What a

> great morning!

>

> Dear nameless one,

>

> This is the last time I will respond to you, because

> you are a miserable, spineless ass.

>

> You're ASSuming that I wrote that alert - I did

> not. Noone at NAA plays games as you are

> accusing. We support and give recognition to

> individuals and other orgs both publicly and

> privately.

>

> You say you don't know who I am, yet you are

> attacking my character. I take offense to that.

>

> I'm a Mom trying help my own 5 year old, non-verbal,

> shit smearing, poisoned child and any others that I

> possibly can. Bob, Lujene and Bobbie are heroes

> to me - they are leaders in the fight that will help

> my daughter. I admire them and their work

> immensely. Bob Krakow sits on the board of NAA with

> me - I adore the man - and I am a supporter of

> A-Champ.

>

> I hope that addresses your concerns. You're

> attempting to create friction where it doesn't

> exist. We're all on the same team here.

>

>

>

> Just curious... Fournier

> Fournier. I see where someone has identified

> you as the

> President of NAA. With your important position in

> that group I have a

> rather serious question to ask you. Do I detect an

> attempt to re-

> write history????

>

> The other day I was privelidged to be copied on an

> annoucement passed

> on by a close friend of mine advising the

> " community " on the release

> of the RFK article in Rolling Stone.

> The release which I belive originated with

> Kennedys friend Sara

> Bridges gave credit to three people I have seen

> posting on this site

> in the past: Bob Krakow, Lujean , and Bobby

> Manning.

>

> Upon your " regurgitation " of the information/press

> release you edited

> out the original content of the email, by omitting

> the three names I

> just mentioned.

> Is there a problem at NAA with these 3 people?

> NAA was one of the groups I was considering

> putting my full support

> behind. Now..... I have some serious questions

> about your motives.

>

> Are you affraid to give other hard workers in the

> " community " well

> deserved credit for their contribution.? Your

> message looks like an

> attempt to exclude selected people from getting

> too much credit from

> this forum. What was NAA involvement with RFK if

> any? What was their

> comtribution to the article ...if any, and why did

> you omit the names?

> Why wouldn't NAA acknowledge the work of others?

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

>

>