Re: If you can't beat 'em, distract 'em.KATHLEEN THE LIAR'S STRATEGY

KATHLEEN IT AIN'T FUNNY STOP THE LIES YOU LYING LIAR!


Featured in Court & Police


Kathleen Dickson
Published on 5/8/2004


Kathleen Dickson, 46, of 23 Garden St., Pawcatuck, was charged Thursday



with being a fugitive from justice.


© The Day Publishing Co., 2004


Featured in Court & Police


Kathleen Dickson


Published on 5/9/2004


Kathleen Dickson, 45, of 23 Garden St., Pawcatuck, was charged Friday
with second-degree harassment and threatening.


© The Day Publishing Co., 2004


ANSWER THE QUESTIONS KATHLEEN


Let's see how you like it kathleen EVERY time you post, I will change
the title of the thread and I will post these questions until you
answer them one by one and answering them means NOT talking about
mcsweegan or former governor rowland and all your typical diversionary
crap anyway.


PLUS you are cross posting ONCE AGAIN TOTALLY OFF TOPIC and you're
selfish to do this to one newsgroups CRIMINAL to do it to multiple
newsgroups--yes here is your "crime": You are preventing people who
need help from getting help for your selfish personal reasons that you
are so completely egocentric along with delusional paranoid
schizophrenic with psychotic features that you just can't see past your



own twisted delusional psychotic personal agenda--which ought to be
about getting your kids back and solving your own enormous problems in
life instead of trying to solve anyone else's. By preventing people
from getting help you are responsible for the consequences. Surely
people are dying as a result so you are a murderer (trying out a little



kathleen "logic" here. So you are now being reported to the DOJ FBI and



CIA and WHO and UN and DCF and the federal and state courts and
homeland insanity department and all over the planet as a murderer.


How do you like them apples?


Now answer the questions. And stop the off topic cross posting. Answer
the questions TRUTHFULLY for a change. Focus on the question. If
there's a question yOU don't understand which is hard to believe given
your self declared genius IQ, let us know and we'll rephrase it.


Don't LIE as you do and don't try your diversionary tactics. Ignore
this and I will keep reposting it kathleen. Not only that but your
silence will be construed as admissions to all OF the facts listed as
questions.


PS: This is NOT "taunting" You have put your credibility at issue. You
have repeatedly said that you NEVER lie. We deserve the answers to
these questions. Straight answers.


REPOST:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thre...



Nope we're talking about YOU. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS


And come back and tell us when Steere or McSweegan or anyone else is
actually charged with your "Lyme Crymes" instead of telling us what
you, in all your infinite wisdom, think will happen.


Now let's talk not about who WILL be convicted but WHO already has
been--YOU.


Here's the question list. One by one give us some answers. Your post is



just like the Bush White House trying to DIVERT attention from what
Karl Rove did to Joe Wilson--by attacking him AGAIN.


Nope answer the questions kathleen. Stop trying to change the subject.


I know you're delusional but try to focus. Here is a list of questions
for YOU. We've already heard your ramblings about 100,000 times. Now
dish some TRUTH for a change--I'm going to leave space between the
questions for your answers:


Was your case appealed and was your conviction overturned?


And what isn't true? Everything can be backed up with your own posts
kathleen. Not a big secret how people know since you posted it all
here.


Were you charged with and convicted of threatening and harassing
Jessica Gauvin?


Did you flee to Canada?


Did you tell everyone that your case was a custody case against DCF
when the truth was that it was a criminal case against you and your
kids had been taken away many months earlier and you didn't even appeal



that?


Did you threaten to bomb the stonington schools, joke or not?


Did you show up at your kid's safe house with a bag full of drugs
whether you meant to give them to your lawyer or not?


Come on specifically what isn't true?


You were charged tried and convicted in a court of law. Right or wrong,



admit or deny?


Now you say you've proven you're innocent.


In what court were your convictions overturned?


In fact, tell us what the charges were. Give some detail. What exactly
were you convicted of doing or threatening to do to Jessica Gauvin?


Tell us what your diagnosis was in the mental institution?


You admit or deny that your kids were taken away by child services in
CT?


Admit or deny you were charged with crimes?


Admit or deny you feld to canada?


Admit or deny you were convicted?


Admit or deny you were institutionalized in a mental ward locked wing?


Admit or deny that your convictions were never reversed, in fact you
never filed an appeal did you?


So who's lying about what?


Yeah sure, you say everyone lied about the charges. But that's not what



the court thought was it?


Did you register a website claiming on it you were working for Pfizer
at the time when you had "retired" years before?


Was Lymeraft which solicited funds for YOU, ever a proper legally
registered charity?


kathleen you're the liar here.


Do you really expect everyone to believe that the rest of the world is
crazy, not you?


And that the rest if the world has conspired to frame you? Because of
your lyme activism which you have even admitted amounts to more posting



on the internet than any real accomplishments?


Come on kathleen. What isn't true specifically issue by issue above.


Tell us specifically which items you say aren't true. We can go back
and find the posts where you admitted stuff and show what a liar YOU
are!




Chuck wrote:
> Note: US News and World Report is owned by Zuckerman.
>
> Still we all can't deny the obvious:
>
> Throw us a curve. We're easily distracted. It's true.
> We're not interested in what we can do for our country.
> We're interested in what we can do for us. This is a
> thoroughly corrupted culture, we love blood and guts,
> psycho cops, crime, and shoot-em-up!!! And we LOVE
> WALMART... And Nancy Grace, Yeah!!! Get em GIRL!!!
>
> Or, we can try Cheney and Wolfowitz for treason. \
>
> Instead.
>
> Just watch the 9/11 tapes of George and My Pet Goat.
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thememoryhole.org%2F911%2Fbush-911.htm
> http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.mov
>
> Or maybe we can just outsource the torture of Cheney
> and Wolfowitz to Iran??? We *love* this kind of stuff.
>
> Maybe these Muslims can even send us back pictures of the
> two of them in their underwear, in their cells, so we can
> squeal with delight.
>
> ==============================
> http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10046
>
> The Summer of Short Attention Spans
>
> If you can't beat 'em, distract 'em.
>
> By Terence Samuel
> Web Exclusive: 07.25.05
>
> Print Friendly | Email Article
>
> Where have you gone, Lightning-Bolt Bolton?
>
> It was not so long ago that he was the most important man in town. He
> was the right man at the right time, going to New York to rescue the
> United Nations from its slide into historical obsolescence. Or he was
> going to further ruin America's reputation in the world with his
> Molotov-cocktail brand of diplomacy. But then the Gang of 14 stuck its
> deal and killed the "nuclear option," and that changed the subject.
> Anybody remember the nuclear option?
>
> Which, of course, brings us to Karl Rove, who was the man of the moment
> until the mantle passed yet again to John Roberts, who will soon pass
> it on to someone else. It would be cynical in the extreme -- and I an
> neither cynical nor extreme, except in the way I feel about the New
> York Yankees (not telling) -- to suggest that President Bush would have
> chosen a nominee for the Supreme Court with an eye toward deflecting
> the political beating his chief political adviser is taking in the
> press. So I do not suggest it. Though the possibility has been on
> people's minds. Ted Kennedy, for example, has even said he hoped the
> president did not rush the nomination in order to shift the focus away
> from Rove.
>
> There is no denying that working at the White House these days has to
> be better than during the time when Rove was Unavoidable Topic A. At
> the time, Rove seemed glum; the president seemed glummer; and Scott
> McClellan seemed ready to go off the 14th Street bridge. But as
> Keats' old men say, "Everything alters."
>
> I remember the summer of 2002: Enron and corporate-accounting scandals
> galore. The business-friendly White House was taking a hit, the Senate
> was in Democratic hands because of Jim Jeffords, and the midterm
> elections loomed large.
>
> Late that summer, I asked a GOP aide how Republicans were going to
> handle the corporate scandals and whether he was worried that it would
> hurt them at the polls. His response was partly what I expected: "The
> election is five months away. A lot could happen in five months. We
> could be talking about something completely different in five
> months."
>
> Then he said something I found utterly improbable. He said, "We could
> be talking about Iraq." And in November we were.
>
> I have never figured out whether I had been leaked the plans for the
> war in Iraq or whether the guy was just a political seer. In either
> case, he understood the importance of changing the subject.
>
> Sometimes it doesn't work, because some things never go away, and
> that is what must be of most concern to the White House. Some special
> prosecutors never go away. Grand juries seem to sit forever; disband
> one, empanel another. And television tape, Mr. McClellan, never goes
> away. Yet now we have the congenial and photogenic Roberts leading the
> Good News Bandwagon.
>
> In August, all of these issues could come to a head. John Bolton could
> get a recess appointment. Democrats could figure out what they don't
> like about Roberts and begin taking him down a bit. And who knows
> what's going on with Patrick Fitzgerald as he probes the Valerie
> Plame leak, if that's what he's still interested in.
>
> Frankly, I hope all the drama takes off in August, because for my
> money, the best story in Washington all summer has been a surprising
> little pastrami sandwich of a baseball team called the Washington
> Nationals. In their first season in Washington, the former abominable
> from Canada have lifted the spirits of this often dismal city, and they
> have given us something to care about that doesn't have to do with
> the future of the republic. They are a largely faceless bunch of guys
> who know how to hit and run and make great plays in the outfield.
> They've been great to watch, and when real-life conversations
> (politics) get too ridiculous, we can now say, "How 'bout dem
> Nats?"
>
> At first we were just happy to have baseball, a team to call our own.
> Then we liked that they were winning. But they have spent much of the
> first half of the season at the top of their division, and that has
> given us hope. Now we want to win every night. Alas, things are not
> going as well as they have been. The hitting is not holding up, but we
> have just traded for a big bat named Preston Wilson. He may be the
> right man at the right time. If they fall too far behind, though,
> I'll change the subject.
>
> Terence Samuel is the chief congressional correspondent for U.S. News &
> World Report. His column about politics appears each week in the
> Prospect's online edition.
> Copyright © 2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation:
> Terence Samuel, "The Summer of Short Attention Spans", The American
> Prospect Online, Jul 25, 2005. This article may not be resold,
> reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior
> written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions
> to permissions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

.

Quantcast