Re: topic from another board Fed Up With Lawyers!

[Guest guest]

Semco,

You misunderstand. I was in no way, shape or form saying those that have

money are more pure than the poor. I am saying those that have money are more

likely to have less documented legal skeletons in their closet...because they

have been able to afford to obtain viable legal counsel in the past, or they

have been in less situations that would cause them to do something out of

necessity. I am saying that those who are poor have an added burden of proving

they have a case before an attorney will even look at taking it. Attorneys

get paid their percentage on damages. If you have less property damaged or

less income impacted, that is less an attorney will make right from the get go.

With all due respect, Semco, I have been reading some of your posts. You

tend to interject your perception as being the perception of the previous

writer's words. Of course the amount of income one makes has nothing to do

with

their moral character, but the amount of income one makes does impact their

ability to obtain viable legal counsel. Please do not do that to me again. I

write what I mean and I mean what I write. I don't need you interpreting for

me.

Sharon

In a message dated 2/25/2009 8:44:28 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

semco_semco_semco@... writes:

Respectfully, I MUST disagree with part of the first paragraph you wrote.

Being poor has

nothing to do with skeletons in their past. I can list people an arm long

that are far from

poor that had huge skeletons in their past. Unless you have been a devote

Mormon living

the purest of life, even the " priviledged " has skeleton's in their past and

present.

Great Example. - The grandson of MaxFactor. He MOST DEFINITELY WAS NOT POOR,

but

he raped a young girl and got sent to prison. That is a perfect example of

not being poor

and having skeletons in their past and being poor do not always go hand in

hand. I wasn't

poor and had skeletons in my past.

After going through a lawsuit, I realize EVERYONE has skeletons in their

medical past.

Even if you went to a doctor with a broken toe, the defense attorneys ask

you ridiculous

questions like were you taking illegal drugs when this happened?

I am a single mom and they turned that into a skeleton. (like Palin's

daughter maybe,

another priviledged person). In a MOLD lawsuit, I was ask if I knew the name

of my son's

father.

Sharon Noonan Kramer

**************You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get s

updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone.

(http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)

[Guest guest]

Semco,

I think was very clear. The poor are disadvantaged in mold litigation

before they speak their first word looking for legal help. BOTH of my posts

are

consistent regarding this fact. Perhaps you should stick to interpreting your

own posts as opposed to others' or disagreeing with words that were not even

written. Or perhaps you should ask for clarification of others' posts

before you put your interpretation on their words.

>>

Semco wrote:

Respectfully, I MUST disagree with part of the first paragraph you wrote.

Being poor has

nothing to do with skeletons in their past. I can list people an arm long

that are far from

poor that had huge skeletons in their past. Unless you have been a devote

Mormon living

the purest of life, even the " priviledged " has skeleton's in their past and

present. "

Sharon wrote:

I am deeply offended by this post. I have worked VERY hard to help those

less fortunate (and even those more fortunate) to be able to obtain viable

treatment thru various aspects of this issue. There is nothing you " MUST

disagree "

[Guest guest]

In mold lawsuits, the big insurance companies will put you and your family

(including your children, parents, etc.) under surveillance. They will also put

your attorney under surveillance. They won't admit they used surveillance

unless they find something to use against you. Some lawsuits have been dropped

because they found a spouse was cheating or another negative issue, and they use

that information to intimidate the plaintiffs and force them to drop the case.

The insurance companies will also commit crimes in order to get you to drop the

case. They really believe they are above the law.

________________________________

From: ginloi <ginloi@...>

Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:01:11 AM

Subject: [] Re: topic from another board " Fed Up With Lawyers! "

Tough is not the word. I know of attorneys who have taken on cases,

who have had their computers " sabotaged " and otherwise have been

harassed or intimidated in some fashion. You are right that they had

to learn about mold. And the good ones who have done that are few and

far between. After the " mold is gold " images died down, the

" specialty " area required a great deal of study and and you are right

about clients who expect a " magic wand " in the hand of the lawyer. I

once felt that way myself, and the last thing a sick client wants to

do is go from lawyer to lawyer and pour the whole story out and drag

documents from office to office looking for someone to represent them

assertively and competently.

But they are at a disadvantage with the standard of medical diagnosis

and treatment, and with the refusal of the government to " close ranks "

among the agencies (like DOD, Customs and the FDA; the FDA should have

a great deal of information about mycotoxins in the agrarian context.

I don't hear anyone going after them.

The pure as Mother Nature is an important thing. There is a doctrine

known " clean hands " where if you go into court, you risk anyone prying

into your " skeletons " and that does make people very wary, when you

have a private investigator " tailing " you if you file a Workers' Comp.

claim. You need " clean hands " as well. Or they may try to relate the

exposure to your " mental status " because it is a " non-apparent "

injury. Often the defendant is " blowing smoke " to intimidate you.

> >

> > Ginny,

> >

> > I have much respect for the legal profession. I know how tough

these mold

> > cases can be. But, lets be honest here. There are only a

handful of well

> > trained mold plaintiff attorneys around the country, that I am

aware. And most

> > of them will not take a case unless the client is as pure as

Mother .

> > They can't if they want to hope to get paid their percentage for a

> > win/settlement.

> >

> > Why do you think it is that ATLA has not done more to assist and

educate the

> > mold attorneys?

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 2/24/2009 2:59:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> > ginloi@ writes:

> >

> > Most competent lawyers do not take a case right off the bat. They

> > assess the case and do research and that is the best time to

accept or

> > reject the case.=

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Respectfully, I MUST disagree with part of the first paragraph you wrote. Being

poor has

nothing to do with skeletons in their past. I can list people an arm long that

are far from

poor that had huge skeletons in their past. Unless you have been a devote

Mormon living

the purest of life, even the " priviledged " has skeleton's in their past and

present.

Great Example. - The grandson of MaxFactor. He MOST DEFINITELY WAS NOT POOR,

but

he raped a young girl and got sent to prison. That is a perfect example of not

being poor

and having skeletons in their past and being poor do not always go hand in hand.

I wasn't

poor and had skeletons in my past.

After going through a lawsuit, I realize EVERYONE has skeletons in their medical

past.

Even if you went to a doctor with a broken toe, the defense attorneys ask you

ridiculous

questions like were you taking illegal drugs when this happened?

I am a single mom and they turned that into a skeleton. (like Palin's daughter

maybe,

another priviledged person). In a MOLD lawsuit, I was ask if I knew the name of

my son's

father.

Point being, WE ALL HAVE SKELETONS IN OUR PAST AND IF WE DON'T THE ATTORNEYS

WILL MAKE SOMETHING BECOME A SKELETON.

S

>

>

>

> To me, this " pure as Mother Nature " is one of the most tragic aspects of

> this issue because it discriminates against the poor. One is more likely to

have

> something in their past..whether it be a teen that got into trouble, or one

> getting into trouble themselves in their youth...if not having lived in a

> privileged world. I understand why attorneys, who only get paid if the case

> wins or settles, cannot afford to take cases where the client has some

skeletons

> in their closet. So, someone could be living in low income housing with a

> whole family seriously ill from mold, at their are disadvantaged before they

> speak the first word to an attorney.

>

> But...that wasn't the gist of the original thread from ToxicMoldSurvivors.

> The gist was of attorneys who take cases and then don't work them making it

> even more difficult for the injured to receive restitution. I don't care

what

> the situation is, there is no excuse for that. And yes, it does sometimes

> happen that the person is then forced to settle for a pittance - even when

> they can prove they have been injured - because a lazy lawyer destroyed their

> case. I could tell you a couple of absolute horror stories over this aspect.

I

> could tell you of a predatory plaintiff attorney who works referrals and

> then takes a percentage of the fees obtained (instead of 30%, people are

charged

> 40%) with the 10% of the low settlement obtained thru MINIMAL work going to

> the referring attorney) - but will refrain.

>

> Be wary people, of any attorney who is going to " hook you up " with a

> " partnering attorney " that is " great " at mold cases. Sometimes, these

referring

> attorneys are just cold calling other attorneys to take your case, which the

good

> ones won't do if your case is presented to them in this manner. They don't

> need referrals. Nor do they need to charge you more while giving a referring

> attorney 10%.

>

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 2/25/2009 5:05:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> ginloi@... writes:

>

> The pure as Mother Nature is an important thing. There is a doctrine

> known " clean hands " where if you go into court, you risk anyone prying

> into your " skeletons " and that does make people very wary, when you

> have a private investigator " tailing " you if you file a Workers' Comp.

> claim. You need " clean hands " as well. Or they may try to relate the

> exposure to your " mental status " because it is a " non-apparent "

> injury. Often the defendant is " blowing smoke " to intimidate you.

>

>

>

>

>

> Sharon Noonan Kramer

> **************You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get s

> updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone.

> (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You're right and sometimes they are not very good at watching you without

you knowing it. I knew I was being watched. Maybe they hired the cheapest

person they could find, but I would look right at the, wave and a few minutes

later, they would leave my office parking lot.

> From: <brianc8452@...>

> Subject: Re: [] Re: topic from another board " Fed Up With

Lawyers! "

>

> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 10:21 AM

> In mold lawsuits, the big insurance companies will put you

> and your family (including your children, parents, etc.)

> under surveillance. They will also put your attorney under

> surveillance. They won't admit they used surveillance

> unless they find something to use against you. Some

> lawsuits have been dropped because they found a spouse was

> cheating or another negative issue, and they use that

> information to intimidate the plaintiffs and force them to

> drop the case. The insurance companies will also commit

> crimes in order to get you to drop the case. They really

> believe they are above the law.

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: ginloi <ginloi@...>

>

> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:01:11 AM

> Subject: [] Re: topic from another board

> " Fed Up With Lawyers! "

>

>

> Tough is not the word. I know of attorneys who have taken

> on cases,

> who have had their computers " sabotaged " and

> otherwise have been

> harassed or intimidated in some fashion. You are right

> that they had

> to learn about mold. And the good ones who have done that

> are few and

> far between. After the " mold is gold " images

> died down, the

> " specialty " area required a great deal of study

> and and you are right

> about clients who expect a " magic wand " in the

> hand of the lawyer. I

> once felt that way myself, and the last thing a sick client

> wants to

> do is go from lawyer to lawyer and pour the whole story out

> and drag

> documents from office to office looking for someone to

> represent them

> assertively and competently.

>

> But they are at a disadvantage with the standard of medical

> diagnosis

> and treatment, and with the refusal of the government to

> " close ranks "

> among the agencies (like DOD, Customs and the FDA; the FDA

> should have

> a great deal of information about mycotoxins in the

> agrarian context.

> I don't hear anyone going after them.

>

> The pure as Mother Nature is an important thing. There is a

> doctrine

> known " clean hands " where if you go into court,

> you risk anyone prying

> into your " skeletons " and that does make people

> very wary, when you

> have a private investigator " tailing " you if you

> file a Workers' Comp.

> claim. You need " clean hands " as well. Or they

> may try to relate the

> exposure to your " mental status " because it is a

> " non-apparent "

> injury. Often the defendant is " blowing smoke "

> to intimidate you.

>

>

> > >

> > > Ginny,

> > >

> > > I have much respect for the legal profession. I

> know how tough

> these mold

> > > cases can be. But, lets be honest here. There

> are only a

> handful of well

> > > trained mold plaintiff attorneys around the

> country, that I am

> aware. And most

> > > of them will not take a case unless the client is

> as pure as

> Mother .

> > > They can't if they want to hope to get paid

> their percentage for a

> > > win/settlement.

> > >

> > > Why do you think it is that ATLA has not done

> more to assist and

> educate the

> > > mold attorneys?

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 2/24/2009 2:59:16 P.M. Pacific

> Standard Time,

> > > ginloi@ writes:

> > >

> > > Most competent lawyers do not take a case right

> off the bat. They

> > > assess the case and do research and that is the

> best time to

> accept or

> > > reject the case.=

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

This is what you wrote - Quote -

" To me, this " pure as Mother Nature " is one of the most tragic aspects of

this issue because it discriminates against the poor. One is more likely to

have something in their past..whether it be a teen that got into trouble, or one

getting into trouble themselves in their youth...if not having lived in a

privileged world. I understand why attorneys, who only get paid if the case

wins or settles, cannot afford to take cases where the client has some

skeletons in their closet. So, someone could be living in low income housing

with a

whole family seriously ill from mold, at their are disadvantaged before they

speak the first word to an attorney. "

Then you post this - QUOTE

> You misunderstand. I was in no way, shape or form saying those that have

> money are more pure than the poor. I am saying those that have money are

more

> likely to have less documented legal skeletons in their

> closet...because they have been able to afford to obtain viable legal counsel

in

> the past, or they have been in less situations that would cause them to do

> something out of necessity. I am saying that those who are poor have an

> added burden of proving they have a case before an attorney will even look

at

> taking it. Attorneys get paid their percentage on damages. If you have

less

> property damaged or less income impacted, that is less an attorney will make

> right from the get go.

Your second statement if of course MUCH clearer than the original statement as

to what you meant to say. Perhaps, you should be more clear in your original

post and people would not have to " read into " , " persume " or " see different

meanings " to what your post actually should have mean.

Semco.

> From: snk1955@... <snk1955@...>

> Subject: Re: [] Re: topic from another board " Fed Up With

Lawyers! "

>

> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 10:57 AM

> Semco,

>

> You misunderstand. I was in no way, shape or form saying

[Guest guest]

That is not what I meant and if my post is " shortened " for the sake of

space, what I described did not appear in its' entirety. Please do

not edit out what I write. If it is too long then I will do it in two

posts.

I meant the legal doctrine of " Clean Hands " and I picked up on it from

Sharon's post about Mother Nature. They want to find a cause outside

of " themselves - the defendants " to attribute the sickness.

Don't laugh. Menopause. Divorce. New boyfriend. No boyfriend. Bad

boyfriend. Sick mother. Sick dog. Bad cooking. You name it - there

is a catalog of defenses they use. They are not nice people. It is

hard to believe that any doctor would " hurt " you in any way.

Workers' Comp always does an investigation and it is their duty to see

if the injury came from a source " outside the workplace, " and rightly

so. I was asked if I had pets (NO), if I had carped (NO) ad nauseaum.

By every doctor.

They have to eliminate other possibilities of the injury. I am

speaking strictly about the workplace. This is not about skeletons in

your closet as much as it is finding a way to " weasel out " of paying

out the claim.

Not every state does " referrals " so - I will not even go there. I

ended up teaching my lawyer and some of my doctors about mold. It did

not get in my way. That was my journey. Everyone's is different.

>

> Respectfully, I MUST disagree with part of the first paragraph you

wrote. Being poor has

> nothing to do with skeletons in their past. I can list people an

arm long that are far from

> poor that had huge skeletons in their past. Unless you have been a

devote Mormon living

> the purest of life, even the " priviledged " has skeleton's in their

past and present.

>

[Guest guest]

Ginny,

That dig from Semco was not meant for you. It was meant for me. Yes,

Thank you, Ginny. " clean hands " was the term I was looking for. My point was

(are you reading, Semco?) is that the poor are disadvantaged by the clean hands

doctrine because of the manner in which plaintiff attorneys are paid. They

only get paid IF they win or get a settlement. As a result, the poor have to

have more than clean hands to get an attorney to take their case.

For example, if one owned a beach house and a business and were injured by

mold, their potential for financial award are greater than someone who is

making $8 per hour and an attorney is going to get a percentage of that

settlement. So...those who own beach houses, but may have some big ole

skeletons in

their closet STILL stand a better chance of obtaining decent legal council

than a poor person who an attorney cannot afford to take their case because

they

have minor infractions that the defense will use to discredit them.

I know we have all been harmed by this issue, but the poor do not even stand

a chance of getting help in many cases...simply because of the finances of

the way the legal system works. They are more likely to run into an attorney

who will agree to take a case he/she thinks they can settle quickly and

cheaply...only not to work it at all, leaving the poor victimized again.

Does that make sense to you NOW, Semco? I am REALLY offended by your

repeated implications that I would think the poor are less worthy than the

rich.

Tell me, what have YOU done to help the less fortunate. I am not happy with

your attitude one iota. And I have not been for quite some time.

Sharon

In a message dated 2/25/2009 6:42:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

ginloi@... writes:

That is not what I meant and if my post is " shortened " for the sake of

space, what I described did not appear in its' entirety.

[Guest guest]

I was not replying to your post, but to Sharon's post.

I agree with you completely. It doesn't matter what is in your past, whether it

be legal or not, they try to drag skeletons out of your closet and we all have

them. Stub your toe, they drag that out, go to the ER for any reason, they drag

that out.

As you said, they look for ANYTHING to take the cause away from mold. Because

you have to prove cause.

Ironically in Florida, one of the most misdiagnosed illnesses, (doctors

diagnosed it instead of mold), is fibromyalgia (sp). And ironically in Florida

if you have ever been diagnosed with that, then your personal injury from mold

will be thrown out and you cannot even testify in your own defense.

>> I meant the legal doctrine of " Clean Hands " and I

> picked up on it from

> Sharon's post about Mother Nature. They want to find a

> cause outside

> of " themselves - the defendants " to attribute the

> sickness.

>

[Guest guest]

are you guys done?

**************

Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax

professional in your neighborhood today.

(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filing & amp;n\

cid=emlcntusyelp00000004)

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

If you are not happy with my attitude one iota, then you need to take it off

board. I know you have some personal issues.

BUT, again, you need to state your post where it is so clear that no one should

have to try to figure out what you mean, like reporters and others who try to

understand your meanings. for example. If you don't state your EXACT meaning,

then people can assume many things, which they have, as you know.

Semco.

> From: snk1955@... <snk1955@...>

> Subject: Re: [] Re: topic from another board " Fed Up With

Lawyers! "

>

> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 11:45 PM

> Ginny,

>

> That dig from Semco was not meant for you. It was meant

> for me. Yes,

> Thank you, Ginny. " clean hands " was the term I

> was looking for. My point was

> (are you reading, Semco?) is that the poor are

> disadvantaged by the clean hands

> doctrine because of the manner in which plaintiff

> attorneys are paid. They

> only get paid IF they win or get a settlement. As a

> result, the poor have to

> have more than clean hands to get an attorney to take

> their case.

>

> For example, if one owned a beach house and a business and

> were injured by

> mold, their potential for financial award are greater than

> someone who is

> making $8 per hour and an attorney is going to get a

> percentage of that

> settlement. So...those who own beach houses, but may have

> some big ole skeletons in

> their closet STILL stand a better chance of obtaining

> decent legal council

> than a poor person who an attorney cannot afford to take

> their case because they

> have minor infractions that the defense will use to

> discredit them.

>

> I know we have all been harmed by this issue, but the poor

> do not even stand

> a chance of getting help in many cases...simply because of

> the finances of

> the way the legal system works. They are more likely to

> run into an attorney

> who will agree to take a case he/she thinks they can settle

> quickly and

> cheaply...only not to work it at all, leaving the poor

> victimized again.

>

> Does that make sense to you NOW, Semco? I am REALLY

> offended by your

> repeated implications that I would think the poor are less

> worthy than the rich.

> Tell me, what have YOU done to help the less fortunate. I

> am not happy with

> your attitude one iota. And I have not been for quite some

> time.

>

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 2/25/2009 6:42:05 P.M. Pacific Standard

> Time,

> ginloi@... writes:

>

> That is not what I meant and if my post is

> " shortened " for the sake of

> space, what I described did not appear in its'

> entirety.

[Guest guest]

Yes they are Janet!!!!!! RIGHT

KC

>

> are you guys done?

>

>

> **************

> Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax

> professional in your neighborhood today.

> (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%

26+Filing & amp;ncid=emlcntusyelp00000004)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Reminder about posting and a little more.

As we all know, when you are angry with someone or their post, you are to send

that complaint directly to the person you disagree with, and not to the board.

In life generally this is the right way to treat others. You should always

criticize someone, one to one, whenever possible, not in front of other people.

People are naturally defensive when criticized in front of others. If you

direct your remarks to a person privately, you are more likely to end up with a

productive discussion that ends civilly, than if you do it publically.

This is in every book I've ever read about dealing with people.

Secondly, it is a group rule to not post such things to group.

Since you are person who criticized Sharon originally, your post was going to be

sent back to you from me with this note, but my cursor accidentally triggered it

to post when it glided over approval button on the way to return post to sender.

Your original post Semco criticizing Sharon was not supposed to post to the

group. Noone wants to read this stuff. It's both inconsiderate of the person

you are criticizing and to other members of the group who are here to read other

things.

Once a criticism is posted to group, we allow person to defend

themselves publically so their defensive post goes through also and then it

starts.

Regarding your remarks about exact writing: We are not reporters or

lawyers here and language is very unexact for all of us, even

accidental misspellings can throw the meaning off, and almost any

sentence can be taken more than one way. Usually we know what a person means,

but if you don't, ask for clarification. If you disagree, say it in a polite

way. Most people here apologize when they misunderstood another person's post.

You will see many posts here, " Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant something

else " .

It's not Sharon's fault if you misunderstood. By the very meaning of the word,

'misunderstand', it is an action of yours. You misinterpreted her statements.

She doesn't owe you an apology.

As for you telling Sharon to take it off line. That's what you should have been

doing all along, including the post below.

At this stage of our lives, we should all have learned by now how to behave,

follow rules and discourse civilly.

--- In @..., C A <semco_semco_semco@...> wrote

>

> Sharon,

>

> If you are not happy with my attitude one iota, then you need to take it off

board.

>

[Guest guest]

thankyou barb

**************

Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax

professional in your neighborhood today.

(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filing & amp;n\

cid=emlcntusyelp00000004)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/2009 2:33:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

Gingersnap1964@... writes:

thankyou barb

ditto

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Perfect! I could'nt have said any better myself

KC

>

> Reminder about posting and a little more.

> As we all know, when you are angry with someone or their post, you

are to send that complaint directly to the person you disagree with,

and not to the board. In life generally this is the right way to

treat others. You should always criticize someone, one to one,

whenever possible, not in front of other people. People are

naturally defensive when criticized in front of others. If you

direct your remarks to a person privately, you are more likely to end

up with a productive discussion that ends civilly, than if you do it

publically.

> This is in every book I've ever read about dealing with people.

> Secondly, it is a group rule to not post such things to group.

> Since you are person who criticized Sharon originally, your post

was going to be sent back to you from me with this note, but my

cursor accidentally triggered it to post when it glided over approval

button on the way to return post to sender. Your original post Semco

criticizing Sharon was not supposed to post to the group. Noone

wants to read this stuff. It's both inconsiderate of the person you

are criticizing and to other members of the group who are here to

read other things.

> Once a criticism is posted to group, we allow person to defend

> themselves publically so their defensive post goes through also and

then it starts.

> Regarding your remarks about exact writing: We are not reporters or

> lawyers here and language is very unexact for all of us, even

> accidental misspellings can throw the meaning off, and almost any

> sentence can be taken more than one way. Usually we know what a

person means, but if you don't, ask for clarification. If you

disagree, say it in a polite way. Most people here apologize when

they misunderstood another person's post. You will see many posts

here, " Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant something else " .

> It's not Sharon's fault if you misunderstood. By the very meaning

of the word, 'misunderstand', it is an action of yours. You

misinterpreted her statements. She doesn't owe you an apology.

> As for you telling Sharon to take it off line. That's what you

should have been doing all along, including the post below.

> At this stage of our lives, we should all have learned by now how

to behave, follow rules and discourse civilly.

>

> --- In @..., C A <semco_semco_semco@> wrote

> >

> > Sharon,

> >

> > If you are not happy with my attitude one iota, then you need to

take it off board.

> >

>