PATRICK
2/5/2013 2:14:00 AM
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:29:21 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <5q10h8phj7uptljbqs3llm76m1k85g9gu4@6ax.com>,
> SilentOtto@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:07:57 -0500, Patrick <pbarker001@woh.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:19:54 -0500, SilentOtto@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:06:34 -0500, Patrick <pbarker001@woh.rr.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 03:27:21 -0500, SilentOtto@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:50:31 -0500, Patrick <pbarker001@woh.rr.com>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> SilentOtto@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>> Patrick <pbarker001@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Why hasn't the Cardinal been charged with a crime?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Because when the crime was committed, someone needed to file a
>> >>>>>>criminal complaint for criminal action to be taken.
>> >>>>>>Nobody has filed a criminal complaint.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>So, why do you think a crime ever took place?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Because the documents show that a crime was being covered up.
>> >>>
>> >>>What documents?
>> >>
>> >>The documents mentioned in the article.
>> >>
>> >>>Cough them up.
>> >>
>> >>Read the article.
>> >
>> >Where is this document?
>>
>> It's not "document", rightard.
>>
>> It's "documents".
>
>12,000 of them.
>
>
>> The story is being covered heavily by the media.
>>
>> Your rightarded debate tactic of pretending that I'm making this up us
>> so childish that the only response you're going to get from me is
>> rolling eyes.
>>
>> -rolls eyes-
>
>Yeah, denial is strong in this one.
I'm waiting for a referene.....