Setting the record straight

[Mikado14]

Hi Linda!

Amarillo Texas

[kevin]

Hi Linda!

Amarillo Texas

Warming Herself????
http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... f=5&t=2106
Kevin

[Mikado14]

More than likely visiting with Morgan's secretary. The Mrs. Livingston....if I had ever met Terry, my first words would have been...."Livingston I presume?"

Mikado

[Mikado14]

Someone had mentioned that Linda has claimed for some reason that I am back pedaling on information I found in regard to her Father.

I found information where your Father claimed that he was living with a young man named Petersen at a residence from 1935 until 1940, when the information was written. The young man was born in 1920 which would have made him 15 in 1935. He was listed as your Father's partner as said by your Father.

YOUR the one that took the leap to something else. YOUR the one that is continuing to state that I said certain things.

I attempted to look for foster records etc and found nothing.

YOU can say whatever you like. YOU can twist it anyway you want. YOU can interpret what I reported as fact from a government document in any manner you wish.

BUT....

I am not back pedaling on what I found or anything I said to include any speculative statements I made. IF you were truly interested in finding out any truths in regard to your Father, you would have taken what I found and researched your self but instead, you want to caste aspersions and innuendo along with false statements attributed to me...your choice but it is not the truth. So here is a question....when Paul was writing the book, you, as Elizabeth Helen Drake, wanted to find out all you could, both good and bad in regard to Brown. So, what changed? Is this information bad? Only if you choose it to be for it is only information from a government document.

You need to realize your Father was a man who lived his life and you can't change facts as they are, no matter how much you want.

The young man was from Nebraska and he certainly was not your Fathers' body guard as you stated once before. Ludicrous when one thinks about it....a 15 year old boy as a body guard for a man in his thirty's.

I will back pedal, as you call it, when information comes to light to contradict/correct the government document I found but not until then. As of now, I am stating emphatically that I stand by what was written in the Due-Diligence along with the subject matter of this post until information, with citations to check, and not from anonymous emails or statements from phantoms.

Mikado

PS: and to you fruitbat, do not confuse an archived area protected by a password as an active forum for it is not like the special area at the Token that was by invite only. That was archived at Linda's request to "preserve all those quality posts" (sound of laughter). They are preserved. You are what you cast out.

[Mikado14]

Checking on a linkback:

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 289#p37289

Re: A Blind Hobbit on the HUT
Postby Linda Brown » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:30 pm

Karen...you left your Email address on December 27th on the Hut and as far as I can see it is still posted. That was apparently your intention. If not, Kim should have removed it by now. Apparently Mikado does not bother to check the messages or he would have seen it. He plays at being so particular about detail but he apparently overlooked that.

Ttownsendbrown.com

I hope that you are doing well this season. Don't get caught up in the mini dramas on the Hut, it's really not worth your time.
Stay warm and dry girl!

Linda
Townsend Brown Family Consortium
January 5, 2016
Make every day count

I have one thing to say.....

Yo stupid! You just proved how you don't READ and COMPREHEND when the post immediately after Karen's by myself was made in under 3 hours. Your statement only exemplifies all that has been said about you.

On another note....I never said that Terry wasn't real, it was the character you created using him. I never said Jeanette wasn't real, it was the character you created, her being the secretary to call Paul which only implicated her in the scam you created which further indicates that she is a bird of a feather. I never said that Dave Smith wasn't real, it was the character you created using him. I never said that Harold wasn't real, it was the character you portrayed him as....and the list goes on.

Do you realize how stupid you make yourself appear? I have repeatedly said that you create false personas from real people. Like all the individuals you introduced Dave to and behind his back you tell people that he is Morgan but don't say anything to him....blah.....blah....blah....and then fruitbat sucks it up with ecker et al getting the leftovers.......

Just because a person is real, doesn't mean the stories you tell about them are. Just because Paul met Harold and met Terry doesn't mean they are the characters you pretend they are. If Terry knew what you were doing and apparently Jeannette does, then they are both as sick as you and perpetrated a fraud upon Paul Schatzkin. Remember, he called back the phone number to Texas and the woman who answered was Jeannette. Now isn't that a coincidence. The phone was listed to her.

Mikado

[KarenAnn23]

Wait wut .....GTFO I Did not leave my e-mail adddy here...

I feel like kicked in the Ass ! Thanks all _

Mr. M. You said anything I said to you private now is or might be quoted..I ask you once again..Let's not mess with this game and say it ALL Public !!

I have nothing to hide ! I am willing to go as far as you are Sir..

I must add, I respect you and many others on this board and ---

ONLY wish my personal e-mail be taken off...I ask nothing but that.

[Mikado14]

It would appear that Linda seems compelled to randomly throw my name about for no real reason for it was not germane to the topic in one of her recent posts.

I really am not too sure what the topic was only that Kim was reading and commented in that Linda always seems to mention my name, no matter what the topic. I asked Kim what the post was about that she felt compelled to mention me and she began to read a part of the post. She talked about Mike Riconosuito, Ted Gunderson and of course Raymond Lavas.

She mentioned that Raymond built a "cookie cooler". No Linda, he did not. I have the evidence to prove that he did not. I have the evidence to prove it was something else and it is in the hand writing of Riconosuito. It was entrusted to me by Raymond in a package he gave to me to hold on to. He said he could think of no one else to hold it and trusted me that if a time came, I would know what to do with it. This was done within the year or so before his death.

I find it funny that it would appear that you didn't listen to Raymond's conversations either. Just as you appear to have never listened to anything I said except half heartedly, you did the same with Raymond.

Hear again, you twit, he didn't build it. I emphatically repeat, he didn't build it. He might have said that he understood how the "cookie cooler" functioned but he never said he built the device.

If you weren't so engrossed with yourself, you would realize he was telling you something very important that linked that technology to something connected with your Dad. You are intellectually ignorant when it comes to your Father's work and you wouldn't see the mating of your Dad's work with someone's elses even if your Father came back from the dead and told you.

Mikado

[Mikado14]

Since you appear to be wading in the cesspool, Linda, you did not know about the package for it was kept a secret, unless you are saying that Raymond lied to me. He may have had loose lips but I don't believe he was a liar.

Secondly, I am no way "interjecting" myself into your conversation(s) and I stand by my statement in that you are intellectually ignorant of your Father's work other than what has been explained to you and for example, your continued expression that the lifter is a Gravitor when it is EHD.

I am merely correcting your misinformation so that all the Bots will pickup what you said along with my correction. You were not privy to all conversations with Raymond that I had. Perhaps that pisses you off...oh well.....get over it.

As soon as the three feet of snow is removed, Kim will be posting a photo of the "package" from Raymond with a current newspaper. You know nothing about the package and you are wrong about Kim burning it, she only said that to rattle you. I thought you didn't believe anything that either her or I said but you choose to believe that? Fickle bitch that you are...and I mean that with all the love I can muster.

You make it so easy to disprove your statements and expose you for the liar you are.

Have a nice day!

Mikado

[Chris Knight]

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it was Ecker who was so hot to trot about the lifters, and Linda started changing her story to include lifters as gravitors to draw him in. That's what I was seeing.

She's just an emotional vampire reeling in her next prey.

Andy

[Kim]

This is a post from Fruitbat. I'll be commenting on it shortly. Kim

Re: Electrostatic Cooling
Postby fruitbat » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:45 am

Linda.

At the end of the day, unlike some of you I am a simpleton. Not "sophisticated", I am easily confused by liars. Which given that lying is what most humans do for much of their time on this earth, sometimes costs me dear. Wags I am sure if asked would confirm that.

I don't WANT to "go to the hut" precisely because at least three of those people have barefacedly lied to me on previous occasions, as far as I can tell simply for the unholy joy of the act. Over there, I feel that my already compromised grip on reality, is further threatened by the slipperyness of the purveyors of the "information".

It may be, as they seem to be suggesting, that here I am simply interacting with a better class of liar, but I KNOW that three of them are very happy to lie to me, (and I include steering me towards arriving at false conclusions in my definition of lying). Knowing the other team as well as I do, they might wish me to engage in controversy, over my statement that at least three of them have lied to me, a controversy that I currently have no time for, so whilst I believe I have sufficient material to prove my case in a court of law, for the purpose of this forum, you may consider that I am making a simple description of my perception of the situation and events and it may or may not be valid in the world in which you live.

But speaking as a simpleton, who needs a more "truthy" environment to move in, I choose here, Linda's forum. Not because I believe Linda to be someone who never lies, (that person does not exist) but at least I suspect if she tells a lie it is for a reason, and not just for the joy of tripping someone else's thought processes up.

Here's something that confuses me. Wags has in the past made a point of telling me of his work with "anti-bullying" charities. He has supplied me with links to websites and anecdotal information, and I learned a great deal about how UK society currently sees and defines bullying behaviour. He has in the past suggested to be that bullying behaviour is bad, and made claims that he has vigorously opposed it in the past.

Where I get confused is when I then see him take the side of, and aid the work of, several people who have aligned themselves to defame, and who take turns to try and belittle a single lady of pensionable age. When I see several people operating a website (which takes work and regular small amounts of cash) which both connects to Lindas dad and mostly publishes articles defaming Linda herself, I SEE BULLYING BEHAVIOUR. Currently running in excess of FIVE to ONE against Linda! Whatever Linda's shortcomings as a human being may be, (and most of the their accusations seem to be "vapourware" from my perspective) there is a whole bunch of people over there overtly trying to bully her into submission, and THAT is the side you picked, Wags?

Like I said, I am a simpleton, not a sophisticate, and I am asking a question of someone who's byline suggests that he will provide me with an argument but not an understanding, so perhaps my question could be seen as a rhetorical thing, perhaps even represented as "disingenuous", but actually, I really just don't understand an awful lot of the hut related stuff. At least over here, the fresh information outweighs the controversial matter (which to me speaks volumes about the intent of the operation and participants of either forum), and whilst I still don't like it when Linda draws our attention towards the hut, it is quite awesome to see how comprehensively one senior woman "owns" at least 5 grown men, whilst simultaneously running a website, a dog breeding business, a well developed family and love life, and does a whole lot of other stuff.

I did try to find out what were the conditions that would stop either side from engaging in conflict with the other it is true, and whilst Linda was very clear about her objectives, I was told that whilst the other side did have such conditions, I wasn't to be made privy to them. Obviously they like things just as they are...

That Linda, is why I chose to ask you if you knew why Kim would have burned Raymonds package. I believe on the balance of probablilty, (which in turn is derived from what I have observed over the last few years) if I ask you a straight question that you are less likely to either lie to me or deliberately misinform my understanding of the facts.

Fruitbat.