Babe Ruth?

[David Atkatz]

Give it up, James. We'll get nothing from Chris. (Except, of course, how completely full of himself he is. Oh, the sacrifices he's made for us. "It's what he does.")

Still waiting to see the entire Ruth photo Chris. Or is it to dangerous to post it?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Give it up, James. We'll get nothing from Chris. (Except, of course, how completely full of himself he is. Oh, the sacrifices he's made for us. "It's what he does.")

Still waiting to see the entire Ruth photo Chris. Or is it to dangerous to post it?

Whenever you don't get your way, David, you toss insults.

Why?

I possess information that you want, and because I won't give it to you, you hurl insults.

Why?

Why don't you and James do your own leg work if you want certain information that badly?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Whenever you don't get your way, David, you toss insults.

Why?

I possess information that you want, and because I won't give it to you, you hurl insults.

Why?

Why don't you and James do your own leg work if you want certain information that badly?

I have to agree with Chris. If Chris knows for certain that a signature is bad, then all he has to do is tell us so, and we should accept it. If you guys want to know what his evidence is, you'll have to figure it out on your own. He gave us the clue we needed by supplying us with the 'fact' that the signature is bad. He didn't get where he is by giving away the reasons and facts behind his decisions. So in a way, he is teaching us how to fish, as opposed to handing us a fish.

Now we just need to have a contest to see who's facts coincide closest to the real facts that Chris is in possession of.

Get to work boys.

[travrosty]

there is no proof of anything, he is not in possession of anything. no one wants what he has, because he doesn't have anything. and anything not worthy of showing other people in a hobby where the proof is in the pudding is not of any consequence.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I have to agree with Chris. If Chris knows for certain that a signature is bad, then all he has to do is tell us so, and we should accept it. If you guys want to know what his evidence is, you'll have to figure it out on your own. He gave us the clue we needed by supplying us with the 'fact' that the signature is bad. He didn't get where he is by giving away the reasons and facts behind his decisions. So in a way, he is teaching us how to fish, as opposed to handing us a fish.

Now we just need to have a contest to see who's facts coincide closest to the real facts that Chris is in possession of.

Get to work boys.

Cool. I'll get right to that....David should I call you or do you wanna call me? Wanna get pizza or Chinese?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Whenever you don't get your way, David, you toss insults.

Why?

I possess information that you want, and because I won't give it to you, you hurl insults.

Why?

Why don't you and James do your own leg work if you want certain information that badly?

With every post you make, Chris--and, of course, with every post you don''t make-you lose more and more credibility.

Nice work.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

With every post you make, Chris--and, of course, with every post you don''t make-you lose more and more credibility.

Nice work.

Coming from you, David, I take that as a compliment.