Quite a morning huh? BTW: Never underestimate a DUer with a search engine!

[trumad]

;-)

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. Never underestimate a bunch of DUers with the ultrasonic, megawattage

Troll zapper. This one took too long IMO. :hi:

[ret5hd]

2. just got here this morning...

whats all this about?

[stepnw1f]

3. I Would Love to Know

Zap em all please!

[WoodrowFan]

4. yeah, what'd we miss. (NT)

[MikeG]

5. Search trumad, you'll find it.

[havocmom]

6. Some clown trying to sling shit at DUers got too close to a fan

and the blowback was pretty cool.

[ret5hd]

7. link please...luv to see that.

[havocmom]

8. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3183071

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. Questiion? Now that vetwife is tombstoned, is it safe to talk about

her?

[trumad]

11. Yes

Go to ATA and read Earls post in NSMAM's thread.

[Kingofalldems]

40. I looked and can't find that post.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

92. Here it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x30609

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

89. Thanks Trumad! I just did.

Did you find any part of Earl's response confusing?

[Catherine Vincent]

13. Is she tombstoned?

I thought she just left? I just can't believe what she did.

[flyarm]

37. yep she is tombstoned!!! good riddance to her!! n/t

[NVMojo]

56. I think vetwife was like "armymom" on the dead "www.elko.net"

board. He/she openly bragged about lurking here and would try to out local DU-ers...a despicable person.

[sffreeways]

168. HA HA !

I knew it what a phoney. That one dripped of freeper juice.

[WoodrowFan]

9. LOL

I stopped reading her posts months ago after she went off on me on something about the death penalty. (she was pro) no great loss.

[Must_B_Free]

12. Well, I feel vindicated now

even if my posts did get deleted.

[LoZoccolo]

14. *yawn*

I really don't see what your big vendetta is.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. then ignore the thread

many DU'ers sent her money, bought her CD and supported her efforts...for that we get thanked with a broad brush slam and slandered on conservative sites across the web?

Perhaps if you had followed the subject as closely as you follow the dead careers two crappy beatle knock offs, you'd get why people feel like letting loose of a little steam.

[Walt Starr]

20. IMO, she was moling from day one

and was yucking it up with Reichwingnuts about how she duped liberals into sending her cash,

[LoZoccolo]

21. Yes, IYO.

Because you don't have any proof.

[Walt Starr]

22. But there is supporting evidence

if you look.

[LoZoccolo]

23. I don't have time to go on every wild goose chase someone sends me on.

Remember seventhson?

[Walt Starr]

30. Yup, strange things happen on the internet

and people get their jollies in weird ways.

:shrug:

Everything usually works out for the better, though.

[Misunderestimator]

59. There's proof enough in her posts on conservative sites...

and I am one of the ones she duped into supporting her and buying her CD.

[Malva Zebrina]

47. no kidding

people sent her money? oh ho--it never ceases to amaze me how readily people will part with their hard earned money and not suspect or even question where or to whom they send it.

Oh well--we are all, after all, only human beings and have done foolish things. I once bought an item from Carol Wright gifts that was a total disaster.

I think that on DU, it would be wise if Skinner would put some barriers in the way of people who would solicit money, no matter who they are or what the cause.

[Misunderestimator]

64. Thanks for that...

I certainly did suspect, but I also know that I cannot approach everyone I meet with suspicion, so I weighed the amount of money and what it would be to me (not much of a sacrifice) and what it would potentially mean to someone who needed it... and I bought the CD. This is the FIRST time in my entire life I have ever been duped like that, and for $15 or whatever it was... it is SO little compared to the money I have spent wisely on people and causes that need my support.

Why was I duped? Because I believed, and I still believe to an extent, that this person was well-intentioned. In the end, this Christian, pro-death-penalty, veteran's wife has been seduced by flattery and acceptance of her adamant need to defend even criminal soldiers from criticism.

On edit... if you weren't familiar with her posts, and didn't correspond with her, and hadn't known her for almost two years now... it's a little bit presumptuous for you to assume that people who supported her were "duped" implying a certain naivete or stupidity.

[Malva Zebrina]

83. well, as I said, we are all after all only human beings

I have never been one to jump on anyone's bandwagon as a cheerleader. Just my way and my life experience.

I read h er posts initially, decided that I would not participate in that cheerleading because first of all, I can never ever find it within myself to latch on to the "support the troops" meme. I consider that propagandist and it looks as though I made the right decision.

I did not participate because I found her, according to my intuition, to be somewhat disingenous for my taste, and did not want to insult any DU'ers who may have family serving in Iraq who were on that bandwagon. It was my choice and it was their choice and was not a big deal, really.

Nevertheless, I stick by my resolve to avoid the "support the troops" meme, for reasons I have posted elsewhere. That is, to support the troops means to me, to support the war, which I do not.

I stick by my assertion that Skinner should review the rules and not allow any solicitation of money here on this DU forum. It is a breeding ground for used car salesmen types and being only human beings, vulnerable, we may fall prey.

on edit

btw--has she offered anyone a complete accounting of where your or anyone's money was spent? Has anyone asked for one? Don't you think that people do indeed deserve that--it would be the right thing to dok don't you agree?

Furtherk if one solicits, then all may solicit and it becomes a sticky wicket to decide who can and who cannot solicit money on the board.

[Misunderestimator]

94. It was through PMs that she solicited... and it was in another forum as

well... I did not see if she did that here. Skinner is very good about that sort of stuff here.

[anarchy1999]

51. How many hundreds of dollars and please help us to understand what

has happened in the last couple of days. Thank you. I'm lost!

According to everything I'm reading I've been supporting and feeding a troll? This is a little much too much to take!

[nostamj]

55. take it with a salt lick!

it's mostly hateful BS by a hateful handful taking great smarmy JOY thinking they've done something great.

[Misunderestimator]

74. Wow... you think so?

Have you read what she has written at the other sites? I was taken in too... but it doesn't stop me from believing what I read back in January there that she herself posted. It's gone into the ether now, as there doesn't seem to be any history on that site earlier than this week.

I hate to break it to you, but she has fled into the arms of the war-mongering right.

[nostamj]

87. i don't believe you know the woman.

I do. care to challenge ANY of the points in my earlier post...

thought not. trumad and WS have spoken and the sheep bleat.

[Misunderestimator]

93. I believe I do know her to a certain extent through messages

and emails... and I have read what she has written... The proof is in the posts.

[nostamj]

95. the proof is in her life.

many of us have had meltdowns here. please challenge any of the points I made about her history as a progressive veterans' rights advocate and explain how that can be wiped away by a couple of internet posts.

petty? that's an exaggeration.

[Misunderestimator]

109. If it were but a "couple" of internet posts... it would be a different

story...

[sffreeways]

182. She may be your buddy

but her posts were manipulative from the get go and I confronted it a number of times. If I don't lick your ass am I still entitled to my opinion of this poster without being part of the herd ?

[elehhhhna]

120. Is she pal with Bev Harris? Sheesh.

[Mr_Spock]

124. you're a cold wet blanket - don't bother posting if you're not interested

What's the point in being a jerk about it?

[LoZoccolo]

127. Nah, I will anyways.

Cuz I can, and in some ways it's the right thing to do!

[Mr_Spock]

129. Please explain?

What point are you trying to make?

[LoZoccolo]

130. My point is "I disagree with trumad".

Don't make me go and find out where you've disagreed with other people on this board about something.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

136. The reason I slam people without discussion...

...is that they already know what I'd slam them about. The thing about the message board is ridiculous in the face of all that vetwife has said against Bush* and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth and everything else. I don't need to explain something that someone already knows is disingenuous.

[Mr_Spock]

140. Unfortunately, we all are not as familiar/intimate with this subject.

Some personal stuff on an open forum is confusing to innocent bystanders - like me :D

[LoZoccolo]

142. OK, I see your point, but...

...trumad's original post is just as confusing, then.

[Mr_Spock]

145. Well, I am familar with the locked thread and one follow up one

...and I did do a search for "vetwife" to see what her history was. I also read her "moderator" profile on a not so flattering to DU forum. I'm not sure what to believe now that more of her supporters are showing up to the "battle" (as it were).

[LoZoccolo]

128. Actually, hey, why did you respond to my post, then?

Huh?

[Mr_Spock]

131. *yawn*

You're boring me - why do you even exist?

Get it?

I didn't think you would.

[LoZoccolo]

135. Someone posts more than one post about someone...

...and I ask them to explain why they have this vendetta, and also express that I'm unimpressed with his find in the face of everything else I know about vetwife - this is not just raw insult. It may be theatrical, but it's not completely pointless.

[Mr_Spock]

138. So I don't know the history between you and Trumad on this issue

I get it now - it's difficult to discern from your post - and this is an open forum - so we all feel the negativity you expressed even if it wasn't directed at us...

[Walt Starr]

15. I think she ended up with the highest honors of mole awards at a

site which must not be named.

[LoZoccolo]

28. You mean the one where they are talking right now...

...about how they don't know what you're talking about?

You're a member there, are you not? Why don't you ask them yourself?

[Walt Starr]

29. I don't know if I'm a member there

They changed things around. I suspect I am no longer a member there, although I'll never find out because I have no reason to post there. Haven't posted there since November, either. I only posted there to gain some insight into the trollish behavior patterns. Found out a lot. I use that knowledge to alert on suspected trolls here.

[Walt Starr]

105. Finally went over and checked, I'm not a member there

:D

[LoZoccolo]

116. I really don't know about these accusations then.

I've never been a member there, but I go there to see if they say stuff about me and yeah, sometimes the things they rag on about particular DUers I agree with. I'd see her posts there where she'd go off about other DUers, but a lot of people do that. I do that right here on this board. But I wouldn't think that someone's a troll for making fun of a particular DUer here and there, especially since most of us argue all the time.

If she was bragging about ripping liberals off that'd be one thing, and I understand that we can't talk about the other board or link to it, but I haven't heard anything more specific about the nature of what she was saying.

[seabeyond]

118. i read that board too

and read to see what they said about me too, lol. and it was sad. but it was also sad what she was saying about members at du. personally i think there is a huge difference, huge difference saying something about someone on this board, where they can address it as opposed to going on another site purposely to bash du, and bash members or the group as a whole.

of course we are in differing views. but i am telling you, i dont want someone giving me the label not supporting troops. i have had it from my community, my school/church, republicans and media. enough. i dont need a fellow du'er say i dont support troops feeding the bias

[thecorster]

16. we also had some supposed freeper

making posts. Then somebody accused him in a General Discussion post and it got locked by the mods. Its been a busy morning indeed!

[Lars39]

17. Indeed!

My mouth is still hanging open. And darn it! It all broke loose as soon as I went to bed!:cry: :evilgrin:

[CatWoman]

19. ALL HAIL TRUMAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KING OF THE SEARCH ENGINE!!!!!!!! :loveya:

[AnnInLa]

24. Still don't understand (I have some questions)

I followed what happened this morning and still don't understand some things. Was she a troll all along? Was she a "librul" and has recently "switched sides"...not that there's anything wrong with that. Or was she always a repug in librul drag? I remember many of her threads, one in particular, where she was very concerned that some part of the gov't was spying on her, or threatening her in some way...was all that just pretend? Did anyone actually see her on C-Span? Is she a liberal in all things except her support for the war/warriors? Thanks

[checks-n-balances]

25. Don't know, but when I googled her screen name, it showed that she

had been a freeper since 1999!

[Walt Starr]

31. April 15, 1999

And she's still a Freeper in good standing there.

[Misunderestimator]

76. No way! Seriously?

If so... then she does deserve an award... or something :crazy:

[nostamj]

96. LIE. same SN, not the same person.

his screed falls apart because he can't prove it.

[Misunderestimator]

110. Kind of like throwing in forged documents about Bush's guard service

clouds the issue... she however IS proudly a member and moderator of a very conservative site.

[Walt Starr]

111. TWO conservative sites

Must not forget that.

[RetroLounge]

121. Yes, I pointed out the first one

Trumad got the second one...

RL

[Misunderestimator]

115. Fine, but it doesn't change the fact that she is a MOD at a CONSERVATIVE

forum that exists entirely to trash this site... that someone is assuming it is FR is beside the point.

[secular_warrior]

26. It's not fair what has gone down here

She's just a pro-vet centrist - who btw, is open minded enough to post on a left wing site like this, and a right wing site like that.

Big deal.

She was not aligning herself with any particular party.

And there are conservative Democrats out there.

So, she's not a left winger.

Big Deal.

She never pretended to be.

Democrats are supposed to be the big tent party of choice, where a person is free to be a conservative or a liberal when it comes to social issues.

Keep ostracizing people - see what happens. The success or failure of the Democratic Part rests with culturally center/center-right people like vetwife.

Show me a culturally liberal Dem to ever win anything big in the past 50 years. Google that and get back to me.

[Bluebear]

34. How can one be a centrist Dem & moderator or an "Am. Conservative" forum?

Just asking.

[secular_warrior]

41. Easy - a center-right/moderate conservative like Clinton, and many other

Dems in rural and Southern areas who are culturally conservative but who have historically sided with Dems on economic issues like trade, labor and the social safety net.

Culturaly purity should not be a prerequisite for beign a Democrat - it should be the opposite. Economics should always be the uniting force.

[K-W]

190. Please prove that Clinton is a republican.

[seabeyond]

36. i wouldnt say it wasnt fair what went down

i do hear what you are saying. vet never was shy it wasnt about a party but her vets. and good for her for being so true to herself. but.............we went thru this before, and she implied it was an oops on here part. adn swore the reason downing us on another site was for other reasons. seems that isnt the case, or she chose her side. what she is doing is perpetuating and feeding the untrue myth that dems dont support troops, and that is what is unfair and wrong, especially seeing without military personal or any other connection to military, i have given a couple years of my time to help the troops, thru being informed and informing others and opposing this administration. i responsibility i feel strongly in supporting fellow man, standing up for him in the wrongs being committed to him

what i am saying, is regardless of vets blind devotion to her vets, in a sad way, she too is turning her back on them. coming on here attacking all of the forum, creating division, she is once again feeding the them against us.

i will always wish vetwife the best i n life, but she is a reactionist. well, she received a lot of reactions .

[Desertrose]

71. well put seabeyond...I agree

I can't fault anyone fro feeling strongly about something...even if we don't agree. Reacting is never as beneficial as thoughtful action.....

I AM sorry she chose to create more division...but I'll admit I don't know the whole story but I do remember parts of it that certainly surprised me.

I wish her the best too and hope that she is truly able to help the returning troops/vets anyway she can.....

DR

[Misunderestimator]

80. Well said.

[thecorster]

44. good argument, secular_warrior

I thought the kneejerk reaction to her post was kind of inappropriate too... but I am a newby, and I don't know the whole story. At any rate, thanks for saying something

[nostamj]

48. BRAVO!

she does NOT believe that veterans issues are partisan issues.

but she HATES bush as much as anyone here.

those taking such sick malicious JOY in this are revolting and antithetical to what I thought DU was about.

[seabeyond]

50. remember how many people jumping on her now,

didnt listen to her posts in the past so doesnt have a whole picture. just reacting. and allow the people who are more in understanding of what she represented on this board to express and educate the unkowning so there wont be as much animosity.

[Misunderestimator]

81. It's not JOY... It's SHOCK and BETRAYAL that we are feeling.

[mzmolly]

164. I did see where she posted something about Bush's Anti-Vet policies

on her MSN group.

I also feel stupid for asking her to stick around when she said she was leaving.

I honestly don't know much about her, but if she's a disgruntled/reformed conservative who wants to help the Democratic cause, she's welcome IMHO.

If she's a troll, I'm glad she's a gonner. :hi:

[Misunderestimator]

79. In her Swan Song she accused all of DU of trashing the troops.

Why on earth would you consider US at fault for objecting to her doing that, and thereby finding out how she trashes THIS site on other forums?

Give me a break on the "success or failure of the Democratic Part(y)" resting with PEOPLE LIKE VETWIFE... OMG What a frightful thought that is!!

[depakid]

137. vetwife was hardly a centrist at the Smirking Chimp

if people would bother to read her posts over there, they'd find that she was about as virulent a bush hater as anyone.... and she posted there for almost two years, so if she was a troll or a plant- as some imply- then she deserves an award for patience beyond the call of duty and for having an extraordinarily high gag threshold.

In addition, I didn't see any anti-progressive posts on that other forum. All I saw was very neutral vet advocacy.

Now, that being said, vetwife brought this on herself, but even so, what I see here is a lot of DU'rs diving headfirst into a pool without checking first to see how deep the water is.

I've been around here a long time- so I'm used to the phenomena- people going off half cocked on half truths, but I gotta tell ya- it's never flattering when I see it....

[Misunderestimator]

173. I met her on that site... and I read her posts...

and I completely agree with you that she supports veterans' interests beyond all else. From her CD, which I bought, it is obvious that she detests Bush. I also agree that it is very unlikely that she was any sort of plant here. I believe that her motivations were and are sincere.

However, I read her posts on the conservative forum on which she has been posting for the past few months, and she has repeatedly criticized DU and DUers as being anti-troops and anti-Christian. She doesn't say that it is only a few people, she implies that it is the entire site. It's hard to understand someone who would side with people who support an administration so destructive to veterans' rights simply because a few posters here have insulted her or insulted the troops.

[depakid]

179. I agree with you

lke I said, she brought all this approbation on herself... she's been around this site long enough to know how some people get- and that there's very little everyone agrees on except that Bush sucks.

Hell, some people were even advocating that McCain get the VP nod! Du'rs can't even agree that all Republicans suck. It's bloody free for all around here (which is one reason I like it).

I also understand why people are pissed off and feel betrayed- it's not surprising under the circumstances. I think nothingshocksmeanymore expresses it quite well (as usual).

Hopefully, she'll come back to her senses somewhere down the line- and I think she will. The far right is too abusive and she's too into vet advocacy not to....

[nostamj]

27. utterly disgusting...

what FOOLS we were!

she set up a veterans rights NFP to work against veterans rights!

she used her severely disabled vet husband to gain sympathy while she worked with the neocons to prevent him and other vets from getting the services they need.

she offered (off-forum and off-line) support to Mari333 to lure us into believing she was on our side!

she cleverly used HER DU SN to smear DU on other sites!

she became the FIRST DU member to open a FR account!

why, I know it now.... she nearly succeeding in assasinating Max Cleland!

oh, HOW we we all fooled!!

so, pat yourselves on the back (again) but take the KNIFE OUT FIRST!

utterly DISGUSTING.

[Walt Starr]

32. She opened her FR account on April 15, 1999

nine months before DU existed.

She's still a Freeper in good standing, too.

[Riding this Donkey]

33. I was reading that whole thread and did not post because I thought she was

a freep. Now confirmed.


I guess my freepar is right on target!

[nostamj]

45. yeah, right.

her history just SCREAMS "freeper"

knee-jerk jerk behavior. (and see coreystone's post, do you KNOW that the FR 'vetwife' is the same? no.)

btw, I had hateful posts from nearly EVERY well-known DUer when I opened my blog. THEIR usernames.

grab a bottle of Evian and read the name backwards. then go out and actually DO half of what she's done.

i need a shower.

[Riding this Donkey]

66. Hey, you need to calm the hell down, will ya!

her post as it was today screamed and I mean screamed FREEPER!

No one who cares about this place makes a post like that!

And I mean NO ONE!

She is looking to make a name for herself, time will tell this, wait and see for yourself.

Do you know for sure Vetwife over at FR is not Vetwife of DU. I assume you do not, so don't call me naieve.

[coreystone]

38. NO! Not true! You are referring to someone that spells their SN the same!

"vetwife" has never registered on FR. You are quite mistaken. You have obviously not considered the possibility that someone else may have utilized the SN of "vetwife" prior to 2000, since that is the time when the "vetwife" that we all know and love first was connected to the "internet" with a "personal account"!

Now! I grew up in a SMALL TOWN. and I know how easily it is for people to become confused in a community of 65,000 members. I would hope that you reconsider you "OBJECTIVITY" when you post in the future. It is quite clear to me that there some links that you have bypassed.

Most Sincerely,
coreystone

[Walt Starr]

43. Believe what you want

:shrug:

You're free to have your opinion, just as I am.

[nostamj]

39. SO WHAT?

who cares?

she believes that veterans rights should NOT be a left/right, dem/repub issue.

[seabeyond]

49. but the ironic

is that is exactly what she created. you are right, she kept saying not about party, she doesnt care about party, she wants to takes care of vets. and she is going to continue even not being on this site. good for her, and the best in that. but............she made it about the party. what is the percentage here that doesnt feel for the troops. it is not many. yet she made this whole site, rejecting troops, she made all of us rejecting troops, she validated the repug lie that dems dont support troops

so in an odd way, she played the party, as she said it was not about party

she declared it exactly about party

always i will respect what she is doing for the people she loves. she is gutsy, she is loud, she is brave...........but i am not going to allow her to create me as someone who doesnt care about the troops. what she did is just as outrageous as what people are doing now, creating her as evil. she isnt, she wasnt, but neither am i

[nostamj]

52. "ironic"

the only thing 'ironic' is that she went to that place to DEFEND this place but... because a number of DUers continued post hateful comments that paint ALL soldiers as unworthy of support, she was shot down in that effort.

the evidence for 'left/dem' hatred of the troops is easy to document if one cherry-picks the worst of DU.

[seabeyond]

67. again i am not in battle with vetwife, nor you for that matter

yet the posts i read over time on the other forum, and have been going in for a couple months was not a defending du mode. so if she were there to defend, interact and bring an understanding between two camps, cool, but that isnt what i was reading on other forum.

i respect what vetwife is doing for her vets, i support her what she is doing. simple as that. she can chose to do it as she like

but i am not here to attack vetwife. i am in this thread merely to say, i dont feel it is necessary to attack her, and do what i was seeing ont his board. i have been off internet for a couple hours. didnt know we went to attack. dont like it either. not all feel that way. if more knew what vetwife was about they may not be impressed with what she did, but maybe they wouldnt be calling her names either, which is totally uncalled for from my perspective

[Walt Starr]

58. Then on top of being a Freeper, she's a LIAR

She claimed veterans rights should not be a left/right, dem/repub issure and then went and made verterans rights a left/right, dem/repub issue and chose the side that's pissing on vets rights!

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

61. I read her thread, nostamj

She took sides, She moderates a conservative forum.

I never had anything agains vetwife until I read her Opus post and started following all of this. Now I think she was a lowdown no godd freeping MOLE out to sew discord here.

SHE made veterans rights a left/right, dem/repub issue and SHE chose the side pissing on vets.

[nostamj]

62. i notice you could not challenge a single point i made

HER history speaks for itself. many of us have had bad days here. even quasi-DU_GOD willpitt got himself banned. vetwife wasn't banned until the long knives came out... AFTER SHE LEFT.

you on the other hand............ <feh!>

[Walt Starr]

65. Her history was MEANINGLESS the moment she posted that thread

There are many DUers with thousands of posts right now who are really disruptors yucking it up.

She outted herself and went down in flames, as is the wont of disruptors on DU.

[nostamj]

70. like I said,

you CAN'T challenge one word of it.

pathetic. :hi: <-- that's a bye, not a hi

[Walt Starr]

75. She's a REichwinger. Want proof?

Go here:

http://www.1-2-free-forums.com/mf/americanconserv-about1316.html

[nostamj]

97. how many times must I repeat

she moderated a VETERANS AFFAIR forum. she went there to DEFEND the left from claims that 'we' hated the military. (exactly how much of that do you do?)

i have NEVER argued that she was there. i know she was and I, unlike you, know WHY she was there. and yes, she was deeply disturbed by military-hating posts on DU.

far more serious an issue than you with this stupid, mean, short-sighted, crap.

[Walt Starr]

98. She moderates TWO reichwing sites

I never ONCE saw a post by her on that site defending the left. NOT ONE. She made the issue PARTISAN when she ranted about DU being anti-vet, which could not be FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

[LoZoccolo]

117. DU is not the Democratic Party, nor does the mix of views here...

...really represent the mix of views of the membership of the Democratic Party. Going off on DU is not going off on the Democratic Party, and being disappointed with what you see here - even if it's an overreaction based on a few things - isn't making the issue partisan.

I get upset at certain contingents here and probably get way too bent out of shape about the things I disagree with and feel like quitting DU because of it, but that doesn't mean I think DU is uniform, or even mostly comprised of things dissatisfactory to me, just that I see more of what I don't like on DU than I'd care to deal with at the time.

[Walt Starr]

151. She was tombstoned

I rest my case.

[Riding this Donkey]

100. As a matter of fact, you implied in a post to me that she wasn't one in

same. See your post below:

"how many times must I repeat"
Posted by nostamj

her history just SCREAMS "freeper"

knee-jerk jerk behavior. (and see coreystone's post, do you KNOW that the FR 'vetwife' is the same? no.)

btw, I had hateful posts from nearly EVERY well-known DUer when I opened my blog. THEIR usernames.

grab a bottle of Evian and read the name backwards. then go out and actually DO half of what she's done.

i need a shower.

[Riding this Donkey]

106. Or how about this one!!!!!

nostamj (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-27-05 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #76

96. LIE. same SN, not the same person.


his screed falls apart because he can't prove it.


Then a little later you say this, your argument appears to be falling apart. Unless I am misunderstanding something, if so please fill me in.

nostamj (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-27-05 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #75

97. how many times must I repeat


she moderated a VETERANS AFFAIR forum. she went there to DEFEND the left from claims that 'we' hated the military. (exactly how much of that do you do?)

i have NEVER argued that she was there. i know she was and I, unlike you, know WHY she was there. and yes, she was deeply disturbed by military-hating posts on DU.

far more serious an issue than you with this stupid, mean, short-sighted, crap.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

169. She also is a mod on CU, a forum entirely devoted to trashing this site.

Do you think she is defending DU there? :shrug:

[Walt Starr]

178. Before the idiot adminstrator screwed up and dumped their entire site

she dissed DU more than most of 'em on that site. Can't see the posts any more because the moron who adminsters the site doesn't understand what the term "backup" means.

[bloom]

183. In January

when she was posting on DU and CU at the same time - it may have been a thread where she was defensive about having a large house - she didn't like it that some people here believe in conservation and sustainable living. So CU people were cheering on her fight over here.

I thought it was quite bizarre - I had never heard of the place before - so I went over there and checked it out and saved this little clip:

“Well, Its easy to say I'll pray for you. , those professing faith. But where are they when God is attacked? Wouldn't trust those prayers to get any higher than the ceiling.

This is crazy but I actually believed Most conservatives were followers of Falwell and Robinson. I will say this, ALL conservatives have been tolerant of my faith here. See how things are so misunderstood. I bought into a lot of propoganda and I feel pretty stupid ! I am talking about DU..not here.
Last edited by Vetwife : 01-14-2005 at 02:58 AM. “


“I only recognize three people on that board. I have no idea who all of these folks are. NSMA and Texas and AZ. Same thing as last thread I posted..barely knew anyone. Who are all of these people? Well I get tired of seeing things blamed on election losing and then not face what is really happening.” Vetwife

In the big scheme of things - it's not that big of a deal. But I don't trust people who are over there trashing DU. It seems like people should just figure out where they fit and forget the whole stirring up shit nonsense. I guess that's how some people get their jollies... :shrug:

[seabeyond]

185. I guess that's how some people get their jollies...

i remember that one. hey an i said the exact same thong as you. reading the thread pulled for that site and then the people peeing their pants to see just how much they could diss the poster. i didnt get it, and concluded

"I guess that's how some people get their jollies..."

seems like a waste of time, and mighty silly to me

[Cooley Hurd]

195. There was some sort of creepy vendetta on "that other site..."

...against Mari333 about a year ago. I remember it very clearly (I was a DU mod at the time) - they were trying desperately to discredit her because of her anti-war work and because she was trying to get her stepson Michael out of Iraq. They were claiming the most vile things about Mari (like she wasn't who she said she was and that she was a shameless self-promoter only interested in getting people to kick money her way). There was also a member of "that other site" who started claiming he was a certain, well-known DUer - and even got that DUer accidentally banned (I caught it and reinstated the DUer).

"That other site" was created solely and exclusively to disrupt DemocraticUnderground - that why the admins banned the mention of the site to begin with.

I'm sorry, but there is NO middle ground between the two sites (DU and "that other site") - the two are mutually exclusive. If she was participating (and even MODERATING) on a website DEVOTED to the disruption of DU, then she has no place here.

[Blue Wally]

176. Something doesn't add up

She is supposed to be a moderator over there and she only has 75 posts?? Here at DU, you are automaticly considered to be a troll if you post something that someone disagrees with and you have less than a thousand posts. Can anyone be a moderator of any forum except an brand new one with only 75 posts to their credit??

[Junkdrawer]

35. See how easy it would be to plant a re-typed Bush ANG memo...

Not saying she did....

[Misunderestimator]

112. Please ask her where the money went that I sent her for her CD.

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. Could we be dealing with some sort of mental illness?

A few months back she pm'd me a few times with links to posts on FR regarding Roger Stone. Unfortunately, most of the messages were so vague and incoherent that I couldn't figure out what she was trying to tell me or where she was coming from.

In some ways I feel sorry for her, but I've been known to be a sucker, so please don't beat up on me. I just get the feeling that this woman isn't playing with a full deck.

[Bluebear]

46. You have mail

[depakid]

152. Possibly

It would appear that she "snapped" (which is a term used to describe what happens when people get sucked into cult like organizations and, among other things- cut off ties with friends differ with their newfound beliefs).

People with pre-existing conditions are especially vulnerable to having this happen. And as I've said before she lives in a small town in Carroll County, Georgia. She just mentioned it on a dioxin thread on the Smirking Chimp. Try living there and being a left Bush hater- which by my account, she was... and may still to some extent be....

[Corgigal]

157. interesting

the same "type" of message I received a few months back. I really didn't go out of my way too much. She seems more interested in tooting her own horn I thought then actually seeking the help she requested. Probably trying to get money from me too.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nostamj]

54. you missed it?

he said it was a big 'ho hum' issue but had to make his own 'spit on vetwife' thread to say it....

[qanda]

69. I'm just coming into this discussion

I read vetwife's thread this morning, but have been watching the State of the Black Union all day and missed the subsequent happenings. I think a lot of DUers are having a knee-jerk reaction to this whole thing because in many ways they feel betrayed.

When I read vetwife's thread I was saying to myself, "What is she talking about?" All that I can remember about any thread that she has posted about veteran affairs and things concerning what she was concerned about was support from the overwhelming majority of DUers.

It is no secret that most people at DU don't support the Iraq war nor do they support soldiers who torture others. However, every single time someone here has a family member going to Iraq or Afghanistan or there is a request for support of soldiers, DU stands up like a righteous army and offers it help.

It is unfair and unacceptable to make the entire DU community responsible for a few the members here. And even when there were negative things said about the military, there was ALWAYS a counter balance that said don't indict all soldiers because of what a few of them did. In a way, vetwife perpetrated on the DU community what she accused the DU community of doing to the soldiers. Then to go to other forums and take part in bashing Kerry and his medals is the height of all hypocrisy.

I appreciate the differences of opinions that exist at DU and hopefully vetwife will not be the last person to come here with differing views on issues, but I don't think it's acceptable to pretend to love and respect this community while stabbing it in the back.

[Riding this Donkey]

77. IMHO, I can understand that she took offense to a few postings, I

myself don't like everything said on DU, but to call all of DU out like that is unreasonable and shows an ulterior motive in my opinion.

And then to find out that she posts at FR sites was just the cherry on top.

[qanda]

91. You are right

I take offense to many posts, especially those concerning religion, but most of the time I just ignore what I cannot change. I post about how I feel and how I benefit from my relationship with God, and if people don't like it then tough. But it's not an indictment of all of DU that some people are anti-religion. It is a very diverse community and hopefully we can all hold strong thoughts, opinions and feelings without reclassifying everyone who participates here.

[enigmatic]

57. I read the thread last night and I'm stunned...

at how this has played out. Life is too surreal sometimes. Well done.

[Walt Starr]

63. Good job, trumad

It's always a shocker to find out a longtime DUer was actually a freeper. Sad situation all around. Good job showing her for what she was.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

72. I'm sorry if it gets your knickers in a bunch, but it's the truth

She moderates a Reichwing forum. Proven fact. Trumad showed it.

[WilliamPitt]

78. She's been posting over there for a few months.

I asked her about it over here. Did not get a reply.

[Walt Starr]

85. It's water under the bridge now

The situation has been handled.

:shrug:

Oh well. That's how it goes.

[nostamj]

82. on VETERANS AFFAIRS

a non-partisan issue. and she was NEVER on FR. and they knew on the other place what her politics were.

look at that, the right is more tolerant than some here.

p.s. she was only on that place to defend DU and the left for being anti-troops. your HATE could be better placed than on someone who as done as much for as long.

[Walt Starr]

86. She MADE veterans affairs a PARTISAN issue here on DU

with her Opus.

On Edit: I'm always willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt. I am sorry if vetwife never appreciated the fact that there ARE war criminals sering to this day in the military wh committed war crimes in Iraq. Threads about those war criminals are the only threads I've ever seen where ANY member of the military is called a war criminal on DU.

I've seen offhand posts in some threads by posters whom I've never seen before talking crap about our troops, but I have alway written it off as disruptors portraying a charicature of liberals.

My issue was the insinuation within her Opus that DU is all about bashing the troops. I take offense at that and am glad she was banned.

[bling bling]

119. That may have been how it started.

But it's not what it transformed into. I watched VW single out specific DU's over by name and go off on them with her new friends. I've seen her comments about the loonies on DU and how she's the only one who isn't loony, which is why she doesn't come here anymore (except to point out how we suck). I wanted to warn one of the DUers that she was being ridiculed by VW on another site but I changed my mind because I was afraid that the DUer would feel very hurt and upset and I didn't want to cause that either.

I was shocked to see how completely conservative her opinions started to become. At one point, she said the US was spending too much on the tsunami relief efforts and even the conservatives on that board pointed out that it wasn't a very Christian comment.

She enjoys their flattery every time she says something they agree with and the psychology of classical conditioning is at play.

Her post this morning was not the only one where she bashed DU
ers at large using RW talking points and then went over to get her back patted by her other friends.

That's not to say that she hasn't done many, many things that we should respect her for. But her motive was not pure, in what she did this morning, and the contempt is justified when someone uses this forum to bolster the lies of the other side. I think a lot of DUers are letting off steam about that and I think it's understandable. I saw in the ATA that this site gets a million hits per day and I for one don't like it being used as a tool to make our party seem anti-troops. That's a serious, very serious charge. If you're going to make charges like that, it's reasonable to expect negative comments will be posted about you. This is a message board, after all.

[seabeyond]

123. i agree with about all you said bling bling

But her motive was not pure. i specifically came to this point when i had gone over and read her post and watch the others swarming around her praising her.

" I for one don't like it being used as a tool to make our party seem anti-troops. That's a serious, very serious charge."

but this is the important part. for me anyway. i am working with a lot of people in this area, churches, republicans, family and friends. challenging them in their attitude that i, a kerry voter, does not support my troops. this is the big one for me, because the last couple years, regardless of the domestic chaos bush has created, i have been focusing solely on the troops. and htis is with the majority of the troops actually supporting bush. always i have the attitude, "they know not what they do"

i just cannot allow any longer to be told i have to keep mouth shut or i dont support the troops.

[bling bling]

147. Seabeyond

I agree. And we shouldn't have to keep our mouths shut when we're accused of lies. I'm tired of the other side attacking us for things that are simply not true. I think there's a lesson to be learned here about the way they manipulate others into believing and then parroting the lies.

[anarchy1999]

191. If I was that DU'er you did not want to hurt would you please PM me.

Thanks.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

122. Googled Amanda Kato and found this msn focus group site with her pics.

http://groups.msn.com/FocusGroupNow/amandakato.msnw

Check out the "What's New" link, says she's changing her party affiliation to Repub.

KoolAid for everyone!

Actually on edit, it doesn't say what she's changing it to. But there are a bunch of Repub links that come up on this forum site.

[seabeyond]

126. oh well, at least i am not "color me foolish" n/t

[depakid]

Maybe you're looking at a different site than I am

I don't see anything rightwing there. Quite the opposite-

Take it back refers to taking our country back (a Howard Dean theme, if I'm not mistaken- and one she's posted about at the Smirking Chimp numerous times). The preacher this is also an obvious smack down of fundies... eveything else nuetral to me... except of course the ACLU link.

Seems she's decided at this point to go over to the dark side- that's about all I get from it- and considering she's from a small town in Georgia, I'm not suprised that she finally gave up and drank the cool aid.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

162. I don't know how the banner ads are chosen but I get GOP ads at the bottom

of this page on her site.

The second link is the one that says she's changing party affiliation.

http://groups.msn.com/FocusGroupNow/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=167

http://groups.msn.com/FocusGroupNow/_whatsnew.msnw

[depakid]

172. Odd- all I get on mozilla

is Hawaiian Arlines at the top....

Oh well.... The bottom line is I think woman's been under a ton of stress and just snapped. In the long run, my guess is that she'll see the gulf between the far right's actions and their words. Since vet advocacy has been her overriding concern for as long as I've read her posts, that conclusion will be pretty well inexcapable.

[Misunderestimator]

175. It does seem like her writing:

"I will change my party affiliation.

Dem no more. I feel we were duped by Sen. Kerry and

at this point and time if this country does not come together

then we will be forever lost in a sea of polarazation."

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

188. Translation: Assimilation is inevitable. Resistance is futile.

[Riding this Donkey]

73. Walt would never lie! He happens to be one of my fav. posters. eom

:pals:

[Desertrose]

84. How can we *know* it was our vetwife on that other site?

( on edit - referring to FR...it appears to be the same one on cu.)

I mean how can we know? I am glad you've brought this up nostamj that this may not be true.

I know how many times I've been told my screen name was already taken...how can we really KNOW it was the same woman???


I think we need to calm down and not "react"....I don't see why we must play into everyone's games all the time. Sometimes it pays to get all the facts straight before we make up our minds.

:shrug:
DR

[Riding this Donkey]

88. Her last post speaks for itself........eom

[Walt Starr]

90. I'm going off her Opus

I'm sorry, but the claim that DUers are anti-vet was just over the top and pissed me off to no end.

[jonnyblitz]

99. she always seemed like a wackjob to be before all this other

stuff was brought to the forefront.

[Walt Starr]

102. I never had a problem with her posts about veterans afairs

and quite frankly, I supported the positions she espoused in those posts.

[jonnyblitz]

113. i saw beyond that to her own self promotion, pimping her CD etc.

plus she sounded like a fundie.

[Walt Starr]

114. See, I never read anything about her CD

and never knew about it until today.

:shrug:

Her Opus pissed me off to no end.

[smirkymonkey]

180. Exactly, vetwife's "support" of the troops always seemed to be

about vetwife. I am not discounting the fact that she may have done some good for vets, but it seems her primary motivation was self-aggrandizement and the veteran/troop issue was simply a convenient vehicle.

As another poster mentioned, I think the woman may have some sort of mental disorder or disorders, one of which is narcissism.

[coreystone]

103. GET A HEAD IN LIFE! You're only on a computer! I KNOW "vetwife"!...

You havn't the foggiest clue of connecting dot 1 to dot 2.

Most Sincerely,

coreystone

:-)

[jonnyblitz]

107. LMFAO

this is a first. getting yelled at by friends of FREEPERS here at DU...

[B Calm]

101. It pissed me off too and I am a Vietnam vet.

[jonnyblitz]

104. I am a vet also and was glad to see her tombstoned.

her diatribe really angered me immensly.

[Walt Starr]

108. She basically took a steaming dump on every DUer who is a veteran

And there are a LOT of DUers who have served.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

149. So all you have in argument is a personal attack?

:eyes:

[Disturbed]

148. She is a one issue person.

Obsessed. I have read many of her posts. Seems to me that she should be most pissed off at Rethugs because they are the ones that don't support the troops. The troops are fungible, aint they? As a Vietnam Era Vet, I was scheduled to go at one time but the orders were changed)-long story)I do feel empathy for all of the Military yet still see that some should never have been there and some should be in prison. I definetly feel that the entire Bush Junta should be in prison. Yeah, disjointed post here but I am still in bit of shock over vetwife's story. ;0(

[Walt Starr]

155. I really don't have a problem with somebody advocating for vets

I DO have a problem with somebody basically accusing every last DUer of being anti-vet and anti-troop because we will not look the other way in those instances where actual war crimes have been committed.

[jonnyblitz]

125. her defenders are in some serious denial. it's a sad thing. nt

[Solon]

132. I know, look at what I digged up....

Over at the "veteran's affair" place:

vetwife
Moderator


Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 75
Location: Georgia

PostPosted: Feb 14 2005 05:34 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I do apologize for that Undercover Brother. Thank you for your service. I had a Zeal without knowledge. I am honored to meet you. Attitude is something I would imagine that would be second nature after three tours of Nam and I certainly don't fault those who have one.

Three tours? I have only met a few that served three tours and they have my sincere respect. The ones who served period do but three tours? That is a lot of courage my friend.

I saw and am seeing what has happened over at CU and jumped the gun, I do so sincerely apologize.

My husband said that when he landed in Washington State coming back from overseas. He went to Germany after Nam, that the hippies were throwing tomatoes and getting up in the returnees face. He punched one longhair down and stomped him. He said that he knows the way he was treated when he got home affected him. And he too has an attitude....I think all soldiers who saw battle up close and personal do.
I think the hippies just flamed that attitude. I was so ashamed of our generation and how those hippies treated our men and women. The nurses returning didn't get much better treatment upon their return either.

I had an experience in 68 about the hippies and the vets.
I had gone through school with several people and remained friends until one day this girl I had started out in grammer school with approached me at my home all decked out in braids and scandals with the local football star who also was decked out in Love beads and long hair. I had not sen them in about three months and was doing some work on the terrace and I still lived at home, going to college.

They approached me and I nearly did not recognize them. My true best friend and is so today was there. Her husband, she was very young, was on his way to Vietnam. He had enlisted in the Marines with three other friends of mine. The hippie folks I THOUGHT I knew all those years said, "Pick who you want to be friends with"! Right there in my house. I barely looked up and looked at my best friend whose husband was heading overseas and said, "You just did" ! I don't hang out with dirty filthy people and I don't know you at all anymore. See ya. You may leave now. My best friend hugged my neck.

I think that was the very first time I ever really knew what supporting our troops and vets was all about. I have not seen either one since that day but my friend who was on the porch, has remained my close friend throughout the years. Good call for a youngster., I would say. She was with me today, as we buried my brother in law, a Navy veteran. Ithought about those hippies Cheba and Dale as we looked at the casket with a Flag draped over it. We both talked about that day in 68. We still shake our heads in disgust.
_________________
If you are reading this, Thank a Veteran
for your freedoms !

All emphasis is mine, but disgusting ain't it. She is apologetic over violent behavior that is inexcusable by her husband, assuming its true in the first place, so with that I leave the apologists to defend.

[jonnyblitz]

134. she is a fucking piece of work. nt

[coreystone]

144. She works for Veterans...

Aren't you a piece of work!!

:-)

[jonnyblitz]

146. she works for her own self promotion

in any forum that will take her.

[coreystone]

150. "in any forum that will take her" that supports VETERANS!! :-)

You will see the light sometime! It is too bad that you favor the "freeper" mentality of "head stuffed in sand"!

I guess it's just a mirror image of the "otherside"!

:-)

[jonnyblitz]

153. and she TRASHES DUERS in these forums!!!

YOU need to take YOUR head out of the sand and stop defending somebody JUST BECAUSE you KNOW THEM!! you best not say bad things about freepers since you are defending one. :)

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

156. LOL

This was posted by her right after some idiot dissed John Kerry over his Purple Hearts.



Yeah... She's a peach..:shrug:

[Solon]

158. Hey I could have NOT looked, ignorance is bliss, is it not?

But then again, I prefer to actually do research on a subject, even on a person. "By their words you shall know them." to brag about something like this to fit into another forum is atrocious and wrong, I did not make up anything, neither did I lie, whether her claim is true or not is not the point, but to claim it at all is the point. It shows her character, that is all.

[Walt Starr]

163. Well that really shows how progressive she really is!

She's as progressive as say, Sean Hannity!

[Solon]

165. True...

Though I don't think she is a freeper, don't shoot me for this, please. I think she DOES care about veteran's and benefits of such, a great deal. The problem comes in this, she is a political chameleon, she would change her "politics" to fit in where ever she is at. In other words, she would probably be pro Bush if he didn't cut VA benefits, but really, its really hard to gage her. Just a warning, what I just said is conjecture and opinion but then again, it is probably true.

[Walt Starr]

167. I agree

and see no reason to have anything to do with her.

[Ms. Clio]

166. Strange--the "punched the longhair down and stomped him" line

Sounds almost exactly like a post a few months ago by someone who claimed to be a veteran of every war since WW2 and started a great big flamefest before he was tombstoned as a troll.

[Solon]

174. Talk about transparent!!!!!!

At best, veterans in the 20th century could participate in 2-4 wars max, and that's assuming they are closer together. Like maybe WW2, Korean War, and possibly Vietnam War, but any after that? Talk about a stupid troll, though I never saw it, probably banned pretty damned quick!

[Ms. Clio]

181. Yeah, he was here for all of one night, I think

But he got lots and lots of responses thanking him for his imaginary service--wish I could find the thread, it really showed what a despicable lie it is to say that the vast majority of DUers don't support veterans.

[LynnTheDem]

186. Now I know she's full of shit. The ol' MYTH of the abusive "hippies".

I too am the wife of a veteran.

And I dislike rightwingnut hypocritical LIARS.

[Solon]

189. I know all that is BS....

Like I said, whether her story is true or not is pointless, in either case, she is bragging about it and that puts her own integrety in doubt, Dammit, why can't I use stonger language? :)

[Riding this Donkey]

154. This is what Texas Fred has to say to us from 12 free forums (Vetwife site

TexasFred
Administrator


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 935
Location: TEXAS
Posted: Feb 26 2005 04:32 pm Post subject: Hey, DU Lurkers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll just bet you're really surprised huh??? We don't do a lotta bashing of you guys here... Kinda frightening isn't it?? To be so truely unliked but to find out that there is at least 1 class act CONSERVATIVE site that doesn't bash ya...

But you won't be welcome here, just move along.... I don't troll your site and I don't tolerate my folks bringing very much of YOUR business to my site, but at least we don't ban folks and delete their posts for saying Democratic Underground... Fucking hypocrites....But ANY disruptors WILL BE BANNED form this site... We are not all about "Civil discussion" with you folks... This is a site for "friends " to post and we don't let un-friendly folks stay.... So, take it from there, for what it's worth...


http://www.1-2-free-forums.com/mf/americanconserv-about1328.html

[Rapcw]

159. ooo im so sad a conservative doesn't like me! n/t

[gulfcoastliberal]

160. Fucking troll(s).

Good riddance.

[NightOwwl]

161. When I made a donation to the vets via her website,

I had a very strong feeling that something wasn't quite right. I almost stopped in the middle of the transaction, but I asked myself, if I couldn't trust a DUer, who could I trust? For the next couple of weeks, though, I checked my VISA bill, because I couldn't shake the feeling I'd been ripped off.

My card was only charged for the donation, but even so, I knew in my heart I had been conned. Today's events have unfortunately proved I was right.

[Goldmund]

184. How were you conned?

What did she end up donating to?

[ignatius 2]

170. I am a little surprised by this. I remember how mad she was or seemed

to be when those creepy repugs at the convention were wearing those disgraceful purple heart band-aids. And now she is one of them..to the dark side she has gone...

[Rush1184]

171. I NOMINATE VETWIFE for CONSERVATIVE IDIOT OF THE WEEK!!!

[Walt Starr]

177. I think that's over the top

My opinion.

[norml]

187. Now she's free to write breathless prose about how we have a Vet to thank

every time we perform a bodily function. Now she's free to denounce any criticism of our military actions. Now she's free to find out just how much garbage she'll be expected to sign on to, in order to stay there.

[bigtree]

192. yeah I feel like a frickin idiot

I didn't send any money but I gave her kudos that I wouldn't have if I'd known better. I keep thinking I should have googled or searched archives before trusting but that just isn't my way to question everyone's allegiance here. I'll just chalk it up the antics of one of a few (a few still here no doubt) and I'll offer thanks here to trumad and those folks who take the time to care who we are actually talking to and pouring out our affections for. :dunce:

[Sapphire Blue]

193. Anybody know....

...if vetwife & her husband have any ties to John O'Neill (the Swift Liar)? From what I've gathered in the various threads, all three appear to share similar Vietnam era opinions toward hippies & antiwar protesters, and it seems they still do.

[depakid]

194. Oh, please

:tinfoilhat: