> On May 14, 9:05�am, HellBwat yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> First, the offer of the 20 g's is a valid contract. It is written,
>> there fore ease to prove in a court of law. If you can prove Tom is
>> using my name to post under.

>
> You are wrong. �There are necessary conditions that have to all be met
> and only if they are met will there be sufficient support at law for
> there to be a contract. �Given the context of the offer and the nature
> of any acceptance, you just might have a wager - the obligations of
> which, according to my limited understanding, can't be enforced at law
> by either (or any)party.
>
> There might be someone following this folly with the knowledge to
> explain where I am substantially wrong about this situation.
>

>> Second, this right here is slander, accusing Tom of creating a sock
>> puppet and unethical methods to promote a product, if you had any
>> money, I am pretty sure he could sue the shit out of you. hmm, that
>> would be so funny to see, the look on your stupid face when they call
>> me to the stand, knowing then how really fucked you are.

>
> You already say I am to wordy, so I'll shorten this to: Don't be too
> sure. �The last freakin thing I would do is use the word 'and' in
> formulating the basis of a lawsuit. �There are several of the 'moron
> crew' who I'm pretty sure could explain why this could create really
> big problems.
>

>> Fourth, since Tom was never in the Nam, he couldn't tell you many of
>> the slang words we used, like, oh and your sister knows this one well,
>> fuckee suckee ten dolla. Oh me so horny, me love you long time.

>

> I ran your comments contained here and some other comments you have
> made past some Nam Vets at 'Swords into Plowshares'. �I can sum up
> their virtually universal opinion regarding the results of their sniff
> test most politely as 'Something smells offensive.' �If you don't like
> their opinion, take it up with them. �I feel fairly sure they would be
> happy to discuss any issues you have with them by e-mail. �They are
> very direct and very fair. �They also expressed the opinion that they
> could be wrong and only a closer sniff would be able to tell. �Contact
> me personally and I will see about making arrangements. �My opinion I
> will keep to myself.
>
> "fakeob...@gmail.com" gmail.com wrote:

>>> Not to mention that a LOT of guys in vizzinni's age bracket fabricate
>>> duty in "'nam."

>
> This phenomenon has been noted in the psych literature. �I have
> personally known people claiming to be vets that would have been, like
> Tom would have been, between 14 to 16 at that time. �It's interesting
> psychologically and also a sad little comment on their lives.
>
> Vance