Re: Just curious... Fournier

[Guest guest]

Yeah... Your nobody called today and she hung up when I

asked her name...

Now I wonder, does she think she was being clever...

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:30:49 -0400

>From: " Maurine Meleck " <emaurine@...>

>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

><EOHarm >

>

> 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]

I looked through every page of the June 16th issue and it's not in there. I

hope it's the next issue.

Re: Just curious... Fournier

>

> > 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 ,

She got me good a couple of days ago. I was sitting at my desk, talking on the phone, she came up and put her poop-covered hand on my arm. I looked at her and could not believe my eyes. She was covered. Her hair, her face, her mouth. It was awful. I don't lose it very often, but I had a total break down. You just love your kids every day for who they are and don't focus on what's wrong with them. But at that moment, the realization of how absolutely F'd up she is slapped me in the face. This madness has to stop.

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]

Understand... We use Son-Rise in our house (which means

that our house is pretty much whacko and all adults know how

flap our hands, spin around and flick toys really well) but

it's hard to choose happiness when the sh*t starts to fly...

Hang in there - this is a battle and we're all going to win!

B

---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:47:16 -0400

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

>Subject: Re: Just curious... Fournier

><EOHarm >

>

> Oh ,

> She got me good a couple of days ago. I was sitting

> at my desk, talking on the phone, she came up and

> put her poop-covered hand on my arm. I looked at

> her and could not believe my eyes. She was

> covered. Her hair, her face, her mouth. It was

> awful. I don't lose it very often, but I had a

> total break down. You just love your kids every day

> for who they are and don't focus on what's wrong

> with them. But at that moment, the realization of

> how absolutely F'd up she is slapped me in the

> face. This madness has to stop.

>

>

> 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]

If Kennedy wrote the article, HE wrote article. If I fall and break my bum and have to ask three people to place me on the tottie, I assure that I'm the one that gets the credit unless....well.... that would be a quadruple-decker stack dump. It's possible, but very unusual. Very unusual, indeed.

Everybody keep in mind that lots of these environmental groups are predatory in nature. They create pressure for the purpose of extorting money. The victims are clueless in most cases and never see a dime of compensation. The group nudges in and are gone forever as soon as the settlement check hits the mail.

The money usually goes to somebody's campaign "war fund" which is why outlawing this sort of NPO will never get the attention of law-makers.

If you want to save the justice system for real cases like ours eliminate NPOs ability to seek monetary compensation in the courts. Will never happen.

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]

Not anything like thirty men on a donkey is it?

Not anything like seventy men on a donkey is it?

Is it? Well, is it?

Cut the cheese, will ya? (It didn't go over very well with the board mind-ers)

There is some consternation concerning the act of plagerizing the last bit of my genius poem

Sincerely,

Frost-Biet

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]

green eggs and ham and 42 men --at the same time?

jenny#2

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'd rather eat cheese or have relations

I ran across a combined study done on this.

A study of rats under the intoxicating influence of Casein

Linkman, et. al. 1969 BBC

Excerpt:

What a lot of people don't realize is that a mouse, once accepted, can fulfill a very useful role in society. Indeed there are examples throughout history of famous men now known to have been mice.

Clinical subject: Well, er, then you steal some cheese, Brie or Camembert, or Cheddar or Gouda, if you're on the harder stuff. You might go and see one of the blue cheese films... there's a big clock in the middle of the room, and about 12:50 you climb up it and then ...eventually, it strikes one... and you all run down.

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'd rather eat cheese or have relations

I ran across a combined study done on this.

A study of rats under the intoxicating influence of Casein

Linkman, et. al. 1969 BBC

Excerpt:

What a lot of people don't realize is that a mouse, once accepted, can fulfill a very useful role in society. Indeed there are examples throughout history of famous men now known to have been mice.

Clinical subject: Well, er, then you steal some cheese, Brie or Camembert, or Cheddar or Gouda, if you're on the harder stuff. You might go and see one of the blue cheese films... there's a big clock in the middle of the room, and about 12:50 you climb up it and then ...eventually, it strikes one... and you all run down.

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]

Jeez you always put me in the best mood as I sit in my office pretending to work....

-Jenni (Who, by the way, found out her son hit mercury today on his urine test - HOOOOOORAY!)brian@... wrote:

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?>> ---------------------------------------------------->>