AAWA, J M____ E______, and me

by zed is dead 577 Replies latest members private

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “…yet seems minded to refuse asking a simple question to AAWA.”

  Besty,

  I have asked the question you suggested. So far I’ve no response from Douglas, Jensen or Emerson. But then, other than Emerson, to my knowledge I’ve never received an email or phone call from any of these, and in Emerson’s case it was years ago and honestly I don’t look forward to re-establishing the contact. Whether my emails have landed in spam bins, been trashed, ignored or await time to answer I can’t say. I don’t know.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  besty

  please simply ask Julia Barrick Douglas, Jo Buel Jensen and J Mason Emerson whether they sought consent from the 800 people they added

  Besty, Why does that question need an answer from those 3 individuals?

  Has it not been clearly evidenced that there is no way the consent of 800, 1000,1300 people could have been acquired in less than 12 hours?

  Marvin states

  The thing about firsthand knowledge is that it usually turns out to be verifiable. On the other hand, false claims of firsthand knowledge are often verifiable as dishonesty or foolishness.

  I'm simply asking Marvin to comply with his own standards and ask the 3 individuals at AAWA if they sought consent. Firsthand. No obfuscation. simple. Verify it firsthand.

  I know there was no consent. You know there was no consent. AAWA knows there was no consent. Marvin knows there was no consent. JWN knows there was no consent. Google knows there was no consent. Shame.
• 

  besty

  Would your evidentiary standards permit you to accept a response from the person you are in touch with at AAWA?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Look, man. Please. Maintain respect, and LET .... IT .... GO ... either you are part of the cover-up or they are using you.”

  talesin,

  Can you please tell me what’s so important that you keep trying to steer me from pursuing what I want to pursue?

  Respectfully, you’re being presumptive, to say nothing of silly.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  besty

  She's trying to help you avoid obfuscation :-) unsuccessfully ;-(
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Would your evidentiary standards permit you to accept a response from the person you are in touch with at AAWA?”

  Besty,

  I did that already. Unfortunately the answer is secondhand information. I have had no reply to those who, as zeb (I think) put it earlier, pushed the buttons.

  The one I spoke with on this matter does not know that hundreds of persons were added to a Facebook account without their consent.

  Marvin Shilmer

  PS added a typo gaff. Sorry for the mistake Besty.
• 

  Tylinbrando

  The one I spoke with on this matter does know that hundreds of persons were added to a Facebook account without their consent.

  "A" Facebook account or THE Official Secret AAWA Group on Facebook?
• 

  Simon

  I've been in email contact with Cedars and apparently they are moving to rectify things and apologise and should have something out soon.

  Given that there is little else to be gained or more to be established that we don't already know about I think we'll just be going round in circles and arguing over more and more minutea and are already getting onto people's methods instead of the actual issues.

  Why don't we see what they come up with?
• 

  besty

  The one I spoke with on this matter does know that hundreds of persons were added to a Facebook account without their consent.

  Halle-fuckin-llujah

  Was that so difficult?
• 

  besty

  Simon - to be clear I asked Marvin a simple question 11 pages ago.

  he has found the time to make 40 posts since then - I don't feel it's unreasonable to continue holding his feet to the fire on the with/without consent issue - which he made a huge deal out of initially.

  Commonsense has prevailed - he has now finally revealed he has asked the question and the answer was as well all knew from day 1 - no consent was sought.