Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:01:59 PM
Rosemary,

You are non-responsive to the request. The purpose is to allow you to determine that the two email addresses you've been provided with are legitimate. Your refusal to acknowledge this is no longer surprising.

The rest of your post is a set of obvious strawmen. Even *if* TK was at odds with everything you assert in your "unique" way, that wouldn't constitute the wrongdoing you claim is actionable.


TinselKoala

I've uploaded the screenshots to a website here for ease. If you want access to it to amend titles, PM me.

http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/


Rosemary, if you object to this, feel free to have your legal representation contact me, I've given you two suitable addresses.

That is beautiful, and you did it so fast. I am impressed, thank you. I have only this to say:

Yer Onner, may I present Exhibit A, this single page which shows for all the world that the Claimant of the First Parrot... er Part is engaging in the black art of Scopomancy of the most egregious kind. ANd therefore we petition the court to decree and require that she attend -- and complete successfully -- a course in Church-approved Scoposcopy before she be allowed access to the sacred King of Instruments again.

A little training in basic math would be cool, too, Yer Onner, if you could toss that in.


(And of course there are 65 "files" in there, not 65 unique screenshots. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression... which I actually did correct as well several posts ago. So be sure to put that into your complaint before you stuff it --er, sorry another typo, I meant before you MAIL it, Ainslie.)

@TK

Not my software, somebody else did all the clever stuff - I uploaded the zip, clicked "unzip", then "make a photo album" then "give it this address" (more or less).  But it's good enough I think.


@RA


Offline for a bit but I'll check my email on return

Look, guys, she is NOT paranoid, OK, so would you PLEASE stop rifling her computer?

Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:01:59 PM
You are non-responsive to the request. The purpose is to allow you to determine that the two email addresses you've been provided with are legitimate. Your refusal to acknowledge this is no longer surprising.

I have no reason to DOUBT that the email addresses you provided are valid.  But the onus is on ME to validate them.  And NOT for you to validate my attorney's email address.  And you will most CERTAINLY be hearing from them in the light of your publication of our work that has NOT yet been put in the public domain. 

Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:01:59 PMThe rest of your post is a set of obvious strawmen. Even *if* TK was at odds with everything you assert in your "unique" way, that wouldn't constitute the wrongdoing you claim is actionable.

I take it then that the use of the term 'unique' is your own eccentric interpretation of SLANDER.  Slander is still actionable and his 'unique' methods are also slanderous.

Rosemary

And Guys, here's the admission.

Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:21:46 PM
@TK

Not my software, somebody else did all the clever stuff - I uploaded the zip, clicked "unzip", then "make a photo album" then "give it this address" (more or less).  But it's good enough I think.


@RA


Offline for a bit but I'll check my email on return

We have our own police that deal with this kind of thing.  And I've made copies of all these posts.

Regards again
Rosemary