Jeffrey Gibson

Could you be more specific please on

a. what the "this" is you have been following , and

b. what in your mind constitute the "irrelevant details" "us guys" have been focusing on "all along"?

Really? OK -- What, to your mind, are "the real, substantive issues that have been raised about the Scrolls over the past couple of years" that you allege "we" can't deal with?

Jeffrey

Louise S Segal

Hi again. "This" is the whole thing that unfolded over the past years. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about and what I mean by irrelevant, and there's no cause for sarcasm. Anyway I have no mind to discuss this further, but just thought I would state my opinion, which basically is, as I said, that this motion is fascinating and shocking and people should read it and draw their own conclusions. It certainly confirmed my own. Louise

Rick Sumner

You mean I'm not Jeffrey Gibson?

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, I have no idea whatsoever. That's why I asked you to clarify.

What would be very helpful to me (and I think as well to all here) is if you'd cite something that I and my friends said that you consider to be irrelevant in the unfolding of how Golb did what he is charged with doing.

Which -- since you have not yet stated what these conclusions are -- remain entirely unclear.

Jeffrey

Louise S Segal

I have no intention of getting into a long argument with you, Jeff Gibson. I'm pretty sure what I mean will become perfectly clear to anyone who reads through the motion. That's all for now and very best.

Louise

XKV8R

i have responded to some of the recent new coverage surrounding this case:

http://robertcargill.com/2009/11/08/...-raphael-golb/

is it just me, or does appear that the entire introduction to the motion do dismiss is just rehash from this space and other blogs.

it's almost as it golb wrote it himself.

as for the aliases, it's downright comical. the citation of hudson's website as verifiable or worthwhile in any matter betrays the great reaches to which the defense is going to find an reason whatsoever to argue that this was a response in like fashion.

i shake my head...

xkv8r

Jeffrey Gibson

I am not asking you to engage in an argument with me, long or short.

All I'm doing is asking for you to clarify and explicate your claims.

Sorry that you don't understand that.

Jeffrey

Toto

At some point, we were informed of that charge, but Golb did not break any laws by posting here under a pseudonym.

Parts of the brief do appear to use Gadda's/Golb's words, but, of course, that could have been a law clerk incorporating those words. Or Golb may be assisting in his own defense.

Jeffrey Gibson

By me. And to some extent by Golb himself who (as I take the implications of an off list message you wrote to me) asked you to tell me not to address him as Raphael.

But you did allow him to continue his unfounded smear campaign despite the fact that the "evidence" he produced to justify his claims was worthless, and the "facts" he asserted were not facts at all.

Or Gold himself wrote it.

Jeffrey

Toto

This is not correct. But I prefer not to discuss off list messages on the board.

We allow all sorts of people to post here. We don't censor the discussion beyond enforcing the rules.

I should point out that Gadda posted here and on the Dawkins board, and in each case got a very skeptical reception.