Re: The Lime sock on General Zod

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:22:11 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:30:43 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
>

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:48:33 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:04:58 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:39:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 1:54:38 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:

>

Jim Senetto sent $50 to Zod, NOT me.

>
I was sent the money to give to Zod, which I did.

>
And which Zod spent as he pleased.
>

Senetto mailed it to me and I handed it to Zod, who spent the money as
he pleased, as was his right.

>
Again , I was sent the money to give to Zod, which I did.
>

Glad to clear the confusion up about that matter, which happened almost
a decade ago.

>
>
You can't write two consecutive sentences without contradicting

>
The story isn't really that complicated, Pendragon, and I told it
exactly as it happened.

>
The question is one of whether you actually gave it to [childish name
calling snipped]

>
Yes, I gave Zod the $50 immediately.
>

In the copy of the email you'd posted to show Jim that... hell, I can't
figure out what it was supposed to be showing him... your told
[Zod][childish name calling snipped]
that Jim's money arrived

>
Yes, Senetto sent the money to my address, I don't remember why

>
Because he asked you where he should send it, and you gave him your
address.
>
>

,> and invited him out for steak dinner.
>
No, going out to eat was Zod's idea, and so we went to the steakhouse.
>
That's been well known from day one.

>
No,  it hasn't.

>
Yes, it has.
>
<Lies and misrepresentations snipped, to be corrected later.>

>
>
LOL!

>
The truth is Jim Senetto sent Zod $50 which Zod spent as he pleased,
which was his right after the $$$ was given to him.

>
Lie!  Jim sent the money to *you* -- as *you* had instructed him to do.
>

The $50 was later given back to Jim Senetto, in fact he was repayed over
$100.

>
Lie!

>
That's absolute bullshit, Pendragon.
>
Every word I've posted here is the truth and most of it can be easily
verified.

You didn't give it back to Jim.  You sent it to others at Jim's
instructions.
There's a very big difference between the two.

>

The money was never given back to Jim.

>
The $100 was sent where Jim Senetto instructed me to send it so it was
actually given back to him, or given where Senetto wanted it to be

No, Donkey, it wasn't given back to him.
Learn how to speak English already!

 You supposedly gave $50 to
your daughter

>
Yes, I gave her $50 which I didn't mind doing either way.

What were her two available options?  Or do I not want to know?

>

(which you attempted to prove

>
More than attempted, I did prove it.

No, Donkey.  You only proved that you'd written out a check to your
daughter.
There was no proof that she cashed it.  And, even if she had cashed it,
there was no proof that the money didn't go straight back into your
pocket.

>

by posting a photo of the
*unchashed* check).

>
It was made out to her name.
>
I still have that photo with witnesses on Google Photos if you'd like to
see it.

I can write out a check for a billion dollars, take a photo of it, and
claim I'd paid out that much money.  But as long as the check hasn't
been cashed, there's no reason to believe that I ever possessed that sum
of money.

>

 You later gave $50 to Cujo as a donation to an
animal shelter.

>
This was also following the instructions of Jim Senetto.
>
This made a total of $100 to pay back the original $50.
>

And so it goes.

>
The $100 was sent to where Jim Senetto instructed me to send it, so I
consider Jim Senetto fully refunded... TWICE.

Wrong again, illiterate Donkey.
Jim was not refunded.  Jim was not repaid.  Jim was not reimbursed.  Jim
was not given back the money.
Learn how to speak English correctly, or STFU.
--