Solar" <williamtmaxw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
6/23/2005 9:02:47 AM
Wayne Delia wrote
"Let's not jump to hasty conclusions here. It's perfectly plausible, for
example, that Larry Whoever may have been at a party also attended by
Larry Glasser, who got bored, snuck into the computer room, made Post
larry-g-1607022140530...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
got hungry, left the computer
room with the computer still on, and went out to the living room for
some of those little hot dogs in the little bread rolls, when Larry
Whoever saw the light on, entered the computer room, saw the Usenet
client up, read someone making a compliment about Larry Glasser, wrote
a response in post Message-ID: none-1607022203380...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
as if
was directed toward himself (Larry Whoever), because Larry Whoever was
obsessively fixated on Larry Glasser, to the point of imitating the
career and interests of the man who was still in the living room
stuffing his face with those little hot dogs in the little bread rolls
(and now consuming shots of alcohol), when Larry Glasser realized he
left the computer on, so he returned to the computer room just as Larry
Whoever was leaving it, and they collided - POW! - causing Larry
Whoever to fall at an awkward angle, banging his head on the oak
dresser, knocking him unconscious, and causing him amnesia, following
which incident Larry Glasser attempted a weak coverup by making a
mental note to avoid posting on Usenet again as Larry Glasser, while
Larry Whoever, with no memory of the whole incident, continues to post,
now insisting he is not necessarily Larry Glasser, while failing to
confirm that he is not Larry Glasser." Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing
!!!!!!!! Actually, "Larry Glasser" might prefer 'waffles' to the little
hot dogs. Some students at George Wa****ngton Law School may like to get
wild on the occasional Tuesday night... after all isnt that where John
Kerry went to law school ??? Y'know, what could be even more
amazing is that "Larry" might actually prefer Wayne's theory over any
that concludes that he actually IS "Larry Glasser"
But then if he goes that way, "Larry" cant deny that he is acquainted
with "Larry Glasser" enough to be able to use the same computer in less
than a half an hour to post in the same thread.
Whattaparadox.
---------------
have a QUIET day !!!!!!!!!
Solar
From
Ken Smith: < 19ranger57_at_earthlink.net>
Date: 18 Jun 2005 05:01:37 -0700
As I pointed out elsewhere, "Larry" has been identified as Larry
Glasser, as Glasser's posts make no sense if he is not our Larry.
Moreover, our Larry has identified himself as a NY ADA, and the
chance that there are two Larry Glassers working for that office are
almost infinitesmal. It's certainly enough evidence to establish
probable cause, which is all we have to do to initiate a grievance.
If someone did file a grievance against Glasser, he has made
statements he may rue. For instance, this gem sounds like it could have
come straight from my keyboard:
What investigation? I already told you I am for any founded
investigation of police or prosecutorial misconduct. I think any
abuse of power -- not only in the legal field, but bank tellers
diverting funds from depositors' accounts, etc., should all be dealt
with harshly.
Larry Glasser, 19 Oct. 2002
Of course, Larry has carved out an exception for abuse of power by
judges, particularly when a person whose views he does not like is on
the business end of the transaction. But he didn't carve out an
exception for himself, which is of paramount im****tance when
considering his re****ted conduct in the incident spawning the Saudi
Times article. Still, the most telling phrase is "I already told you
I am," indicating that Larry Glasser had said something previously in
that thread. Problem is, once again, it is the first post by Larry
Glasser AS Larry Glasser in the thread. The only way that that phrase
can possibly make sense is if our Larry is Larry Glasser.
Here's another classic for the archives, an implicit self-indictment
which Ted Kaldis[1] should find particularly disturbing:
One of the ehtical rules in my state is to re****t any istances of
misconduct that you describe, and I take that responsibility
seriously. If I ever saw a colleague or defense lawyer violating any
law or ethical responsibility, I would indeed re****t him/her. I feel
no loyalty to that person simply because we both have law degrees.
And even if you think most lawyers are selfish, could justify it
along those lines -- it's better for me for my profession to be viewed
highly, so I'll rat out the bad apples for my own benefit Larry
Glasser, 19 Oct. 2002 [sic]
Misconduct should be dealt with severely, and by his own admission,
it is our duty to rat Mr. Glasser out. [Note also the trademark typos.
]
Now in the real world, professional discipline is a joke, and
everyone knows it -- which is why Larry is challenging us. It seems to
me that a far better approach is to take the matter up with his
employer (the DA for his borough), with copies sent to the Saudi Times,
the New York Times, the ambassadors for every significant Muslim
country, and the address listed above. We have more than a bit of an
image (and substance) problem throughout the Muslim world on account of
acts like the one Glasser appears to have committed, and it simply
would not do for an incident of this kind to not go unpunished,
particularly when the 2.6 billion eyes of the Muslim world are trained
upon it. Moreover, his employer might not look too kindly on Mr.
Glasser's response: denying the obvious, and mendaciously accusing his
accuser of "stalking" him.
|
