He refers to LymeNet as "LymeNut", and has told the entire membership of this group hypochondriacs and mental cases.

I fail to understand why this maggot is allowed to remain here. Over the years, Chuck and a couple of friends (one of which was Dr John Nowakowski of NYMC)transformed the sci.med.diseases.lyme from a group where Lymies found emotional support and helpful advice, and were able to debate the relevant scientific issues, to a wasteland where Lyme patients receive only abuse and disinfo.

If he is allowed to remain in this group, and if moderators are not vigilant for his usual tactic (he and his very small gang of Steere camp provocateurs invent dozens of aliases and then try to manipulate discussions on a group to serve their purpose - for example, creating a large group of aliases who will declare they found one of LLMDs to be corrupt and then egg each other on with libellous stories - creating the appearnce that there are many people who share this view about that particular doctor.

They can then go to the local press with stories that "Lyme patients have described that Dr... is incompetent/cheats his patients financially/uses phony tests.... etc etc"

The continuing presence of this crap-merchant here is offensive to LymeNetters. We need some boundaries. It's reasonable to exclude individuals who come here and insult the entire Lyme community.

If we have no boundaries, this group which has been an invaluable resource for thousands of patients, will rapidly degenerate into a wasteland like sci-med, and the Steere camp provocateurs will have achieved their goal.

The best thing to do is send me links to the post you feel are questionable. I would appreciate that.

I share this concern, other matters are related, and also now linked with scimed.

I apologize for even replying to one of his posts! I forgot who this guy was!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles05:
Lymerayja, AKA- Mcnasty, Kathleen Dickerson and Lisa. You continue to slander me on a public board and I warn you I may take legal action if you continue down this path.

I have not violated one rule here on Lymenet and see no reason why the moderaters whould ban me from posting. I am a lyme patient, and I have every right to post here as long as I follow the rules of this site.

I ask the moderaters to please stop the attacks on me in these posts by Lymerayja. If she continues to slander me I will have my lawyer request her ISP service address and file a criminal complaint.

Charles P Adams

---

You can always tell a troll BS'er in 2 seconds by the uneducated statements they make to sound tough.

Sorry-Charlie....it's called libel, not slander. LOL!

Don't let this little boy intimidate you. First of all, you can't have any damages. What? You go around doing business in life as "Charles05" ??? LOL. A BBS moniker isn't your real name and no one knows who you are even if someone does libel you.

And you can't file a criminal complaint like a moron. Your only recourse for libel is a civil suit not a criminal suit, and no those aren't descriptions of what you wear to court either. A few states have extremely rarely used criminal libel, but never used anymore. Not only do you have to prove damages, but you have to prove malicious intent. That's not an easy thing to prove to a real judge....not the make believe judge in lil' Charlies head.

And you'd have to file the civil suit in federal court because the internet goes across state lines. I sure hope you have a spare $10,000 just for your federal court filing fee.....and who knows how much for your lawyer. And I hope you have the stomach to endure it, not to mention that you'd lose anyway. LOL. Good humor for the court that day though.

Just more troll hot air. Don't let it bother any of you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles05:
.... If she continues to slander me I will have my lawyer request her ISP service address and file a criminal complaint.

Charles P Adams

---

ROFSMSWLLMAOSMWNAAT.

Which stands for:

Rolling on the floor splitting my sides with laughter laughing my *** off so much I will need a *** transplant!!!!!!!

Now you listen to me, Mr "Charles P Adams". Mr. "Charles P Adams" cannot sue anyone for defamation, because Mr. "Charles P Adams" does not exist.

If you want to sue me, you will have to sue me using **your real name**.

Think about it. Do you really want the whole Lyme community - to say nothing of the media-to know who "Charles P Adams" really is??!!

A guy who has sat on the Usenet for nearly a decade libelling every good doctor we have, disseminating disinfo that could cause a new patient to end up disabled for life, or a Lyme-infected mother to miscarry?

And when that man's **real name** is revealed in court, and turns out to be someone oh-so-familiar to the Lyme community?

Bring it on Dr McSwine. You have called me every libellous name under the sun, threatened me with death too. What you did to Kathleen Dickson would fill a book (and you know very very well that I am not her, nor am I "McNasty"). But what you have done to me, to her and other individuals who have accused the Steere camp of **deliberate fraud** is nothing, I guess, compared to what you did to **hundreds of thousands** of innocent Lyme sufferers when you were at NIH.

So I'm calling your bluff. Sue me, sugar.

I would just LOVE to see your face in court.

Ed, you're nothing but a cowardly, snivelling maggot, crawling up the turd of Steere camp science.

Lisa

Here's what he wrote on LymeNet a few days ago, the thread appears to be deleted but it still comes up via the search engine:

"This is like walking into a camp run by Jim Jones, a bunch of brainwashed people. I am sorry but do you believe people will listen to you? I would put a grand down and bet that 50% in this group never had lyme and suffer from some sort of mental health disorder. Charles05 "

The original location of that post was here:
----------------------------------------
What is the single best thing to give family who says Lyme is a "fad"? Charles05 21 June 2005 General Support
--------------------------------------------

Lisa

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenifer:
I am looking into this. Most of my time has been taken up because of the other matter I was dealing with. I have not forgot about this.

The best thing to do is send me links to the post you feel are questionable. I would appreciate that.

Thank you,
Jenifer
[email protected]
LymeNet Webmaster

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles05:
I know how much a court case costs, it is a drop in the bucket. My monthly landscape/pool bill is more than most of you pay in mortgage or rent payments so the court fee's don't scare me.

Most newbies think they can get away with anything they want on the net. They are wrong, I have the funds and time to play.

---

Sue me. I triple dog dare you. Better at least know what you're suing for. LOL!!

I've been in a HUGE legal battle with Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam) from about 1999 to 2003 and might have to go another round with him on a breach pretty soon. It has to do with music video rights, personal property, libel, slander, all that jazz....since I used to be roommates and used to work with him back in the 80's and early 90's. As you know he took on ticketmaster and has millions to come after me and has. Have I lost anything? No, just gained a lot because he had stupid ideas in his head about what the law really is. People that have money, and some people that think they have money (like you) think they can buy anything....even the law. Sorry Charlie, you can't. Better study up on libel (no, it's not slander). LOL. You don't even register on the radar screen you're so small.

More offensive and muck from "Charles05" aka "Charles p Adams". Here he is on sci med jeering at us and our good doctors. He always refers to LymeNet as "LymeNut". Sadly he has not given up posting here altogether, as he has posted just a few hours ago.
Lisa

On sci med he posts the insulting Lyme disinformation from "Quackwatch" over and over.
If you go to the Quackwatch site you will notice the author's real name there - Dr Edward McSweegan, PhD.

Lisa

Chuck P Adams Dec 16 2003, 6:18 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Dec 2003 18:18:39 GMT
Local: Tues,Dec 16 2003 6:18 pm
Subject: Political Aspects of Lyme. Lyme FAQ'S
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

The fact that Lyme disease is usually curable has not discouraged the formation
of over a hundred support groups and nonprofit foundations, some with financial
backing from intravenous services hoping to promote further long-term
antibiotic therapies [27]. These groups and their ardent followers have used
the Internet and other media to barrage politicians and the general public with
misinformation, dire personal stories, rumors, and exaggerated claims about
thousands of people being maimed, killed and bankrupted each year by Lyme
disease. The core message is that Lyme is a deadly chronic disease that
requires long-term antibiotic therapy paid for by insurance companies. Despite
its alleged frequency, NIH-funded clinical trials in Boston and Bethesda were
hampered by a lack of patients who met science-based criteria for chronic Lyme
disease. A third trial underway at Columbia University has had to modify its
patient entry criteria in order to find enough patients to carry out the study.

Support groups and individual patients have created many Web sites that contain
unsubstantiated assertions, inaccurate medical information, and personal
testimonies for the dubious treatments described above. Indeed, the Internet
has provided a powerful mechanism for organizing patients and presenting poorly
documented information to the public and the press.

Internet newsgroups have posted wild criticisms of physicians and researchers
who disagree with their claims and concerns. Research reports that run counter
to the claims of Lyme activists are denounced and their authors accused of
incompetence and financial conflicts of interest. Magazines and news
organizations whose stories on Lyme disease are not sufficiently hysterical are
barraged with e-mail complaints and urged to contact certain organizations for
"the truth." Protests have been organized to denounce Yale University's
research meetings and Lyme clinic because, according to the protesters, Yale
"ridicules people with Lyme disease, presents misleading information, minimizes
the severity of the illness, endorses inadequate, outdated treatment protocols,
excludes opposing viewpoints, and ignores conflicts of interest." Researchers
have been harassed, threatened, and stalked [28]. A petition circulated on the
Web called for changes in the way the disease is routinely treated and the way
insurance companies cover those treatments. Less radical groups have had their
meetings invaded and disrupted by militant Lyme protesters.

Some Lyme organizations have tried to raise funds for their own research on
hyperbaric oxygen treatments, pregnancy-related Lyme, and a clinical trial of
chronic Lyme patients. Others have organized "scientific" meetings that include
anecdotal reports by physicians friendly to their cause, and one group has
launched a journal that reflects its leaders' beliefs.

The Lyme Disease Buyers Club markets vitamin and nutrient supplements (e.g.,
flax seed oil, evening primrose oil, coenzyme Q10, garlic, B-complex) to Lyme
patients. Its web site states that these nutrients are not a cure but "provide
daily support for the body's natural metabolic activities." The club offers "a
10 percent discount off Pro Health's already low, every day catalog prices."
and states that "10 percent of each sale will go to Lyme disease research and
advocacy projects." However, the initial proceeds went to the Lyme Alliance, of
Concord, Michigan, an advocacy group that filed an amicus brief supporting a
court appeal by a Joseph Natole, Jr., M.D., whose state medical board had
sanctioned him for inappropriately managing patients with actual or suspected
Lyme disease. According to a report on the Alliance's Web site: the court ruled
against the doctor; his license was suspended for three months; he was fined
$50,000; and he was subsequently indicted on federal charges of overbilling
insurance companies. The Alliance later circulated a petition stating that,
"Lyme disease can and does exist as a chronic illness with persisting
infection, and that the disease is greatly underdiagnosed and undertreated."
The petition demanded that, "Physicians who are on the front lines of Lyme
disease patient care not be harassed, persecuted or made to fear for their
medical practices because they do not adhere to the conservative "short term"
care for Lyme disease."

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu�ackeryRelatedTopics/lyme.html

Yet more sewage from "Charles/Chuck Adams"

This is also from "Quackwatch". Note especially the part that alleges "During a quarter of a century of research and surveillance, there have been no
documented cases of mother-child transmission and no cases of fetal injury
associated with a Lyme infection...."

This is a disgusting lie, and if believed by newly-infected women who do not know much about Lyme disease, this advice could lead **directly** to a miscarriage, stillbirth, or baby born with birth defects or otherwise critically ill with Lyme.

To disseminate this type of material IMO is tantamount to murder, especially as "Chuck P Adams" knows very very well that it is absolutely false.

Even Allen Steere acknowledged congenital Lyme!

Lisa

"Chuck P Adams Feb 11 2004, 4:33 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Feb 2004 16:33:41 GMT
Local: Wed,Feb 11 2004 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: Transmission of Lyme?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Tranmission Myths

Fear, ignorance and Internet rumors have also created an environment for
expanding the mythology of Lyme's protean properties far beyond scientific fact
or medical observation. For example, a recent spat of Internet postings has
suggested that Lyme can be acquired through sexual contact.

"I think that Lyme is also a STD [sexual-transmitted disease]," said one
newsgroup poster. Another wrote, "I've talked to many couples who claim they
transmitted to each other through sexual contact. I believe I gave it to my
wife."

At least one "Lyme specialist" appears to be telling patients that Lyme is
sexually transmitted and therefore their family members should be tested. One
person reported to Quackwatch that a family member had been tested and told
that the test was positive and that a 4-5 month course of antibiotics was
necessary.

There is no basis for such advice. The infection is acquired from the bite of
an infected tick. People are "dead end" hosts and do not spread Lyme infections
to others.

Chuck P Adams Sep 10 2003, 10:53 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Sep 2003 21:52:41 GMT
Local: Wed,Sep 10 2003 10:52 pm
For moderator:

And here is plenty more filth from "Charles". Please don't make me post any more after this. I know that this material will be very upsetting to many people here, and I don't want to add to anyone's suffering.

If you search for "chuck" on sci med you may easily find literally thousands of his insulting messages yourself. You can also see how closely he operated with the alias "jopn" (later proved in court to be Dr John Nowakowski of NYMC, who , like "chuck", was also pretending to be a Lyme patient while libelling doctors and viciously insulting the Lyme community) and more recently, with the aliases "A_Weisman" and the ironically named "Iladsfan".

Here is Chuck saying his opinion on LymeNet in 2003.
-------------------

Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Sep 2003 21:52:41 GMT
Local: Wed,Sep 10 2003 10:52 pm
Subject: Re: lymenet.com trouble
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
I hope they shut that site down. Its worse than porn
-----------------------

Here is Chuck calling the membership of LymeNet "insane and brainwashed" in 2004:

Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Jan 2004 18:08:05 GMT
Local: Tues,Jan 13 2004 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: State of Lyme disease today
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

snip

Go look on lymenet. You tell me those people are not insane and brainwashed? I
see posts for rife machines for sale and even a trip to south America to a spa
that helps lyme disease. The sad thing is they have close to a dozen people
signed up for it!
--------------------------------------------

Here is Chuck bragging that he has infiltrated moderated groups using a different name. In private conversation to me a year ago, he bragged that he had infiltrated LymeNet using a differnt alias.

Note in this post below his smirking charcterisation of people injured by the Lymerix vaccine as "ambulance chasers".

Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Jan 2004 11:03:39 GMT
Local: Tues,Jan 13 2004 11:03 am
Subject: Re: State of Lyme disease today
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

>From: "Nancy B Remove \(NO-SPAM\)" berntsen@(NOSPAM)oikourgos.c
>FACT: Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 2,719 or 0.04% or 100,000 people in USA
>(1999)
>http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/�l/lyme_disease/prevalence.htm

I know lyme rates are high. Thats why I said people are being cured with
standard CDC guideline treatments.
>FACT: Lyme support are being met elsewhere like the moderated discussion
>groups

Moderated groups are outlets of fraud and will only allow one side to the
story. Do you think they would allow me to post this on a moderated group about
the state of lyme disease today? No way.
I am on many of the moderated groups and watch what is being said. Don't
worry, I don't use Chuck so don't go looking thru member lists.

>The real reason for "poor sales". there today). The class-action lawsuit
>regarding numbers of research participants that got debilitating symptoms
>from it.

That is a lie and could be slander. As far as lawsuits go you have scum
ambulance chasers who are pushed from trial lawyers to sue every company in the
book.
>Where have you been? And you want to be a "leader" here?

I am a leader here.
> Lyme disease is no
>fad

I know. It was treated that way years ago when people abused insurance
companies with fake claims.

>What average doctor will choose
>to spend an hour or more with each of his/her Lyme patients

A doctor that is getting $300 in cash just to sit to down and "chat" with you!
LMAO
-------------------------------------
Chuck loves to make up libel to the effect that those he hates are in jail. Here he is libelling Dr Stephen Phillips:

Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 Mar 2004 14:20:08 GMT
Local: Thurs,Mar 25 2004 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: LymeNet newsletter 05-Feb-93
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

>From: [email protected] (Sinaj101)
>Date: 3/25/2004 8:55 AM Eastern Standard Time
>I hadn't heard of Dr. Masters in ages. Does anyone know if he is still
>battling for us? Also what about Dr. Phillips? The last I knew he was
>working
>with Lyme and its MS connection.

"WORKING ON THE CHAIN GANG...."
------------------------------------

And here he is libelling the whole of ILADS.

Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 05 Feb 2004 03:56:56 GMT
Local: Thurs,Feb 5 2004 3:56 am
Subject: Re: ILADS.ORG: NEW TREATMENT GUIDELINES FOR LYME DISEASE
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This group stinks of fraud. Just look who is running it.

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

And finally, here Chuck explains how he finds it "thrilling" when children die. (I guess how he ended up in the Steere camp in the first place.)

Chuck P Adams Mar 12 2004, 11:23 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: [email protected] (Chuck P Adams) - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Mar 2004 23:22:41 GMT
Local: Fri,Mar 12 2004 11:22 pm
Subject: The Glory of war. Patton,Bush, Iraq and beyond
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

When I was a kid, I liked vaporizing ants with hammers and burning them with
magnifying glasses, acting like a microcosmic god delivering slow or fast death
upon ants.Like the thrill of victory or the taste of good food, a person can
know it, and call it "good" or "fun," but words can't convey feelings to those
who've not felt them.

Fun. That simple word stands for many things, including glory, thrill, and
"just for the hell of it." Our need for it is in our guts and in our genes. Our
ancestors have sought fun all the way back to the time when they were molecules
and single atoms. If there is a Purpose to life, maybe it is to enjoy
ourselves, have fun.

But fun isn't always premised on good times and prettiness. It is often
death and suffering, conquered nations or tribes, dead women and children.
-------------------------------------

So please, can we let Chuck have his "fun" somewhere else? LymeNet means too much to too many people, for us to hand it to "Chuck Adams" to destroy, as he, Dr Nowakowski and one or two other Steerites destroyed sci.med diseases.lyme, which once upon a time, many years BC (Before Chuck), was also a treasured resource for Lyme patients.

Thank you.

I certainly am not siding with the individual or the moderators because I do take issue with the poor way the moderators have handled other situations here. Lou Bachmann would never have tolerated some of the things these moderators are allowing...

sue? nasty business.....gary

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles05:
So the only thing you have is what I posted on the usenet? I am sorry Lymeraja, but that is not "Lymenet".

24bit, thanks for that Pearl Jam story. It really touched us all...

---

Oh, I'm sure a lot of folks around here would love to have a chance to 'touch' you.

1.The post in which "Charles" states that 50% of Lymenetters do not have Lyme but are just crazy **was** written here.

2. Even if he had written nothing here, he should still be banned. You've seen the examples of posts. Nobody could make it clearer that he is a sadistic troublemaker, prepared to hurt, libel, and endanger health and life thru Lyme disinfo just to advance the cause of the Steere camp. It would be ludicrous if we were to allow him here.

Just like "freedom of speech" does not allow a lab technician to give the wrong figure for a patient's sodium level, on the phone, to the treating doc, causing him to take the wrong action and kill the patient, so "freedom of speech" does not mean that we have to allow a man who is hellbent on **misinforming"** (as well as jeering at and insulting) the Lyme community, here on Lymenet.

This is a place where people to come to take refuge from the disbelief, disrespect and denial of their human rights that they receive at the hands of medical professionals, employers, and even family and friends as a result of Steere camp disinfo. Some people have said LymeNet actually saved their lives by helping them locate a Lyme-literate doctor in time. For others, it would have been an emotional lifeline, maybe even saved them from suicide.

We cannot allow Charles and his Steerite friends here. Not only would it soon destroy everything Lymenet has always been, but it might actually be the last straw for some desperate Lymies and **drive** them to suicide.

I really mean that.

Lisa

quote:

---

Originally posted by cootiegirl:
Lisa,
I do believe that this individual has serious 'issues' with the lyme community that are detrimental, but unfortunately he has not created a lot of problems here. You are citing all sorts of problems that he is causing at sci med and quackwatch, but it doesn't seem like there is alot here yet that would constitute a banning at lymenet.

I certainly am not siding with the individual or the moderators because I do take issue with the poor way the moderators have handled other situations here. Lou Bachmann would never have tolerated some of the things these moderators are allowing...

I don't like what Charles represents either, so I choose not to respond to anything he posts here. If he does slip and put up information that is inaccurate or bashes someone, then I will speak up.
cootiegirl

---

I've also been around here for a day or two so I don't really need an education from you on the purpose of lymenet - been here, know that. I do know that, many of us that have been around here for awhile are very protective of this board and want it to continue to be the best that it has been. So on that note, we are definitely on the same page.

I realize you dislike this individual immensely and view him as a danger to the board - I think it's fair to say that many others are on to him as well. But to put up a post that says 'don't talk to this person or that person' or to chastise another boardmember for discussing an article with this person in OT, is a bit silly. Instead of some public declaration to the moderator, email her and voice your concerns.I think we are all grownups here and can figure out on our own who to talk to and who not to talk to. The more publicity that is created, the more attention that is given - just what is not wanted.

Chuck's posts are, as I said before, very capable of pushing people who are already desperate over the edge, perhaps like this woman I mentioned.

It's all very well you saying that people here will correct the misinformation Chuck puts out. Are you going to stay up 24 hours supervising that operation?

A woman I know, who originally knew nothing whatsoever about Lyme, went to look it up on the internet when she began to suspect it as the cause of her child's illness. She read (on the ALDF website) that a bullseye rash is nearly always present. She didn't remember seeing a bullseye rash and so she eliminated Lyme from her thoughts for the next eight weeks, until (by pure chance) she stumbled on something else that said the rash is not always present.

Those eight weeks can sometimes make the difference between chronic disability and cure. What makes you think that a new reader, knowing little about Lyme, and having read some lie by Chuck that convinces them that they don't have Lyme, will necessarily stop by to read the further messages that arrive - perhaps not till the next day - explaining that Chuck was wrong?

"Charles/Chuck" not only comes on Lyme groups babbling that McSweegan BS, he also invents aliases to help him, using much more subtle language, to confuse people. He may well be doing this already here.

If you can't see a reason not to ban someone who insults the entire Lyme community non-stop, including Lymenet itself, and has done for years, someone who spreads vicious slander about ILADS doctors, someone who doles out "information", which could lead **directly** to people ending up permanently disabled, women having miscarriages etc, someone who is so vicious in his abuse that he could easily tip a depressed Lymie over into suicide - if you can't see that, then all I can say is I'm sure glad you ain't the moderator.

Lisa

quote:

---

Originally posted by cootiegirl:
Ya know what, Lisa, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But c'mon, you know as well as I do you just can't ban someone 'just because'. The fact that Charles put out some incorrect info here, is something that can be corrected by any board member. The fact that Charles has a 'reputation' and spreads all sorts of baloney at other sites and is rude at other sites, doesn't really fit the rules for banning here. Now maybe the moderators feel differently and they will feel that reputation is grounds for banning, but I honestly don't see it.

I've also been around here for a day or two so I don't really need an education from you on the purpose of lymenet - been here, know that. I do know that, many of us that have been around here for awhile are very protective of this board and want it to continue to be the best that it has been. So on that note, we are definitely on the same page.

I realize you dislike this individual immensely and view him as a danger to the board - I think it's fair to say that many others are on to him as well. But to put up a post that says 'don't talk to this person or that person' or to chastise another boardmember for discussing an article with this person in OT, is a bit silly. Instead of some public declaration to the moderator, email her and voice your concerns.I think we are all grownups here and can figure out on our own who to talk to and who not to talk to. The more publicity that is created, the more attention that is given - just what is not wanted.

Just ignore him - he's got your number and is seriously playing with your head. Don't give him the satisfaction....
cootiegirl

---