davidinlse wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:45 AM:
" RE; Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:31 PM: As I pointed out 4 minutes after my first posting, I found I had made a mistake and admitted it that the lawyer has in fact recommended them to refuse the sale. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you are incapable of following a blog. If you can't read a posting correctly, you should just be quiet. try reading the first 4 posting in this line and see if you can comprehend. I doubt it. Now go whine about something else. "
Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:31 PM:
" To Davidinlse: All I can say is WOW. YOU are exactly what is wrong with this world, peoples inability to admit thet were WRONG!!! ITS NOT MY FAULT, YOU ARE A SNIVELING LITTLE WHINER!!! "
davidinlse wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:40 PM:
" It's not my fault your to dull to follow a link on a blog. If you would note, as I am sure you can't, I found I made a mistake, and corrected that mistake. You can't correct your inability to follow a link and respond with an intelligent posting. "
Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:53 PM:
" To davidinlse: Just refering to your 7:38 posting, including your capitalization of the words DID NOT, And HIM. maybe you should think before you speak, you are a dandy!!! "
Im Still Jackson wrote on Jul 23, 2008 2:08 PM:
" Myturn: Absolutely agree with you 100% I dont think they like either of us at the tribune. Im sure there are days the editor has to work harder after reading our responses.LOL! "
Myturn wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:51 PM:
" Jackson- Important to note and repeat. The legal counsel for Skemp is a very good friend with the publisher of this newspaper. This is far from the only item that is edited from this site. They do not take critisim on them or their pals well. "
Im Still Jackson wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:35 PM:
" Yep tribunes doing damage control by removing most of the comments from yesterday then they list it burried under the most commented section, but you have to go into one of the other topics to get to the list of links to find the headline which then post todays comments only and none from yesterday LOL. Alot was said yesterday but the most imporatant piece of info removed was a link supplied by poster newt to the actual finding of facts and ruling which tells the WHOLE STORY.Read it for yourself here:
http://www.wicourts.gov/services/public/lawyerreg/statusreprimands/skemp.pdf "
davidinlse wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:28 PM:
" RE; Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:20 PM: If you would have read my 7:42 posting, you would not look as ignorant as your posting implies. "
Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:20 PM:
" To Davivinlse: wow are you witty when you are wrong!!! "
davidinlse wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:25 PM:
" RE: Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:45 AM: Perhaps your not competent enough to follow a thread, but give it a try, you might be surprised and actually learn something. "
Myturn wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:05 AM:
" wiseup- I do not think it wise to couple Bill Skemp and the rest of the Skemp's walking together in stride. One need only review the Hale/Skemp debacle and what transpired after, or poll the remainder of the family. "
wiseup wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:42 AM:
" Skemp and family has done alot of good too. Please remember that Brent Smith helped Kuipers and the other morons to DISRESPECT our VETERANS with the UWL Veteran's Memorial Field naming = taxpayer fraud! "
Myturn wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:05 AM:
" This is a small town in may ways. Please do not forget that the Attorneys Skemp's legal counsel Mr. Smith is a good friend of the Publisher of this paper. "
Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:45 AM:
" To davidinsle: yes it did say he convinced them not to sell to someone else. Maybe you are suffering from short term memory loss, or you are friends with this loser, or you work at the trib? "
davidinlse wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:42 AM:
" Just found the original, under most commented section, it does, in fact say he recommended them to REFUSE the sale. "
davidinlse wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:38 AM:
" RE: Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:34 AM:
Yesterday's article DID NOT say that he convinced them not to sell to someone else for 20 or 25K. It only said they did not sell to someone else, and that he bought the land for 30K. Nothing about HIM convincing them. He still sounds like a very sleezy person, who "probably" did talk them out of the sale, but the article did not specify that. "
Phil wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:34 AM:
" Isn't it odd that some of this article is missing from yesterday? The facts that this crook of a lawyer convinced these people not to sell to someone else for 20K or 25K, and he buys it for 30K. Then he sells it for 129.5K 3 years later. Why would the trib take that part out? "
Advertisement
