[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

[HIStory]

10/24/2016 Declaration (OF TABITHA ROSE MARKS )
Filed by Moving Party
10/24/2016 Declaration (OF LILY CHANDLER )
Filed by Moving Party
10/24/2016 Notice of Motion (FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DEPOSITION )
Filed by Moving Party
10/24/2016 Declaration (OF GERALD M. SIEGEL )
Filed by Moving Party
-------------
Who is Tabitha Rose Marks and Gerald Siegel?

Tabitha Rose Marks is Jordan Chandler's current girlfriend/fincée. Gerald Siegel is possibly their lawyer.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Finaldi eagerly accepts this new victim because he believes the fairy tales about MJ paying settlement monies across the world. He wants to and needs to believe the fiction to the point where he has created more incredulous fiction himself by claiming MJ's music companies actually were an international child ring. Oh my god, just writing that has me realizing this lawyer is probably as nutty as his delusional clients and it's not just about headlines, greed or the status of winning. Can't wait til they all fall on their face.

I think the likes of Finaldi are simply opportunistic, ambulance chasing lawyers. I don't think they really care if their client is telling the truth or not as long as they can sue for big money using their allegations. In fact, Finaldi said in the Michael Egan case (the guy who accused Bryan Singer and was caught in lies and fraud) that Egan's lying and fraud only bolstered his credibility in his eyes. LOL.

Also consider the two versions of Jane Doe's complaint and the changes in them. Those changes were made because they needed to make the claims linked to the companies. So all of a sudden it is a bodyguard who is asking for Jane Doe's phone number - as per MJ's instructions -, not MJ personally like in the first version. All of a sudden it is a bodyguard who takes them in the house to the candy area, not MJ, while in the first version it was MJ. Etc. Those changes were made due to what they need to claim legally to involve the companies - and as such I suspect they were made at lawyer instruction. So to me it seems they are very active in creating the lies.

One thing I find curious about Wade is how when he first came out and gave that interview on the Today show, he said that "I'm not going to go away for money. That's one thing you're never going to see me do." He was absolutely adament about that. And now he has lawyers putting out pre-trial press releases left, right and centre, sensationalising every lurid ficticious detail, in a blatant attempt to put pressure on the estate to settle the case.

So you ARE going to go away for money Wade, aren't you? I just find it odd that he even said that he wouldn't in the first place, seeing as he has only ever been interested in pursuing money from the estate since day one. Hasn't he just made himself look even more of a liar than if he'd never said anything at all?

Yep. In fact, Wade first filed his complaint asking to keep it under seal due to the privacy interests of Defendants. So where was then this big need to "speak his truth"? It was only about money, and hoping for a quiet settlement. It was only after TMZ got hold of the complaint that the posing about "speaking his truth as loud as he can" began. And the "I won't go away for money" bull. And now he hired a firm specialized in pressuring settlements. LOL.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

I think even a fifth grader could see thru the moronic claims by Finaldi. It disgusts me that these tactics worked with the schools and churches. Blackmail is blackmail.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Why are their licences to practice not revoked when they are involved in such cases like singer

 

[ILoveHIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

I think even a fifth grader could see thru the moronic claims by Finaldi. It disgusts me that these tactics worked with the schools and churches. Blackmail is blackmail.

It was easy to do because no one took the time to check it out like we have done here in this thread. Wade and his lawyers have change their stories so many times nothing is match up it all to force the Estate into a settlement. Like Wade said on the Today Show money will not make it go away he want the truth to be told that has change it clear why Wade has these lawyers now that their job to get a quick settlement.

 

[redfrog]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

you are tiring me with the same discussion for the 16,907th time. First of all I didn't say I think it will survive demurrer, I wrote the case procedure steps. So read better. Secondly surviving demurrer isn't that hard given that the judge needs to accept everything they claimed as true and no counter evidence can be introduced at a demurrer. So please stop asking the same questions.

Once again you accuse me of asking the same question over and over and over again when I did no such thing.
I simply asked your opinion whether you think this will survive demurrer and how. I didn't ask why you think it will survive demurrer.
I asked "And do you think this will survive demurrer? If so why?"
How the hell you can interpret that as me saying that you think it will survive demurrer is beyond me.
Next time before you go on another rant please read what I actually asked.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Why are their licences to practice not revoked when they are involved in such cases like singer

well believing an accuser isn't a crime, knowingly making false claims is another thing.

Next time before you go on another rant please read what I actually asked.

ranting? me? you call 3 lines a rant? don't be silly. it's amusing coming from you given how you love to rant about american legal system, estate lawyers, demurrer, 340 and so on over and over and over. Take your own advice. and sorry darling, I think you are annoyingly repetitive, surviving demurrer was a discussion we had before so I'll chose to tune you out and you can annoy someone else.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

well believing an accuser isn't a crime, knowingly making false claims is another thing.
-----

Yeah they can claim ignorance where if they truely were claiming ignorance then heck they aint fight to practice either!

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Good point.

 

[gerryevans]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Dimond knew very well that story was bogus, she knew that Gutierrez was behind it, she knew
that Rodney Allen coached the boy and Allen got the info about NEverland and Encino from Gutierrez
who of course had Blanca Francia, Murdoch, McManus, Cachon, Abdool, Quindoys etc supplying
all the info he wanted about those places.

Scott Ross talked about Sgt. Robel going to Canada in a desperate attempt to find anyone who would
be wiling to accuse MJ. Sneddon knew about this everyone at the SBSD who were involved in the witch-hunt
against MJ knew about it.

Dimond just thought let's make a story that will make me look like a serious investigative journalist
who exposed a scam against MJ.

I disagree that Dimond thought this would further her investigative image IF she knew in advance everything was going to fall flat. Especially since it was done on camera. It made her look foolish for falling for it, and also showed how untrue claims can be against MJ. Dimond certainly never ever wanted to do anything to counter opinion of MJ and show he was actually a victim of scams.

I don't think Finaldi or Manly believes this bullshit at all.
This is just the way they do business. Fish for accusers, lie to the media,
throw as much dirt at the defendants as possible.
They didn't think Egan was a victim either and said the most outlandish things in that case too.
These lawyers are just money hungry lowlives nothing else.

They might not find things wholly credible from any of the accusers, but they wholly believe the crab out there about MJ. Yeah, they're lowlifes, unethical and money grubbers, but they also believe the worse of MJ. It's because they are scum themselves that they readily can feel negatively about him, and are not above using any means to prove claims. They might even think the clients are scum too, but they certainly don't feel any differently about Michael.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Really was just using her as a for instance. The point being the delusional can be convincing, especially if you want to believe what they are saying. The guy in Canada had some details about the inside of MJ's home and other paraphernalia that had Dimond swearing he was legit. Not that Dimond is the brightest bulb in any pack, but she was at least aware of how crazed some could be about MJ, and she fell for this guy's lies sufficiently enough to go to Canada to get him on camera to make his claims. Got there, and realized he was completely bogus.

Finaldi eagerly accepts this new victim because he believes the fairy tales about MJ paying settlement monies across the world. He wants to and needs to believe the fiction to the point where he has created more incredulous fiction himself by claiming MJ's music companies actually were an international child ring. Oh my god, just writing that has me realizing this lawyer is probably as nutty as his delusional clients and it's not just about headlines, greed or the status of winning. Can't wait til they all fall on their face.

This is an attorney who is known for calling parishioners and indicating to them that they need not be victims to join his case, he can still get them millions. I am sure he has came across endless frauds and helped them eagerly to blackmail churches and schools and know for sure how easy it is to use sexual abuse to get millions without evidence. If you saw their websites and how they HIGHLIGHT the settlement figures they got, you would understand their motivation and the type of clients they are after. Nothing suggest they are champs of a cause rather scumbags that are skilled in blackmail and they are interested in clients who would be attracted to those figures; immoral blackmailers like them.

 

[8701girl]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

No Chantal was 10 in 1990 when they first visited Neverland.
She was never in the US before that. She was never around Hayvenhurst.
She never said she got money from MJ, it wouldn't even make sense no money for molesting
Wade but 900 000 for molesting his sister?

Idk something not right cuz why out of all these freaking yrs a woman comes out now making a claim....it's way fishy

 

[gerryevans]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

This is an attorney who is known for calling parishioners and indicating to them that they need not be victims to join his case, he can still get them millions. I am sure he has came across endless frauds and helped them eagerly to blackmail churches and schools and know for sure how easy it is to use sexual abuse to get millions without evidence. If you saw their websites and how they HIGHLIGHT the settlement figures they got, you would understand their motivation and the type of clients they are after. Nothing suggest they are champs of a cause rather scumbags that are skilled in blackmail and they are interested in clients who would be attracted to those figures; immoral blackmailers like them.

Not saying they are anything but what you are saying they are. My point WAS that in MJ's case, there is a whole different breed of accusers. The delusional. Not just the out and out depraved like RobChuck, but ones in lala land like the couple that said MJ's ghost impregnated the wife (I first used Billy Jean as an example). I was trying to point out that Finaldi's new claimant could well be one of those crazies. That's all. And because he is scum, and also believes everything salacious about MJ, he is running fast with this new claimant, thinking he has someone who can further his case, when he might really have someone who is mentally deranged, even dangerously so.

 

[KOPV]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Diane Diamond was behind the company (Hard Copy) that paid MJ's former employee for a story and tried hiding it.. They hunted for people to allege something on Michael and Diane flew herself to another country just to get an 'exclusive' interview.. SHE should be in court.

 

[Soundmind]

I do not believe that she approached them first. I strongly believe that after the new lawyers went through the discovery that was given to them, they started contacting anyone and everyone that can be remotely of help to them, and stumbled upon “evidence” that they believed could be twisted into an evidence of a payout (the checks) and contacted this woman to tell her that they could get her a settlement if she would join them without having to reveal her identity and without her claim being scrutinized. The fact that she wants to keep her name private tells me she is not a nutcase, and she does not want people around her to know what she is doing and the sole motivation for her joining this case is money. Accusations against MJ have been in the news for decades. Wade and Safechuck have been in the news for three years now, but she had never joined the previous lawyers. Simply because she could not see an “opportunity”. But those lawyers gave her hope and they did with her what they do with all their target clients; They told her you do not need to be a victim nor do we need to prove your claims, we will still get you something. That’s why two months after the new lawyers, who are known for victim fishing, were appointed, someone like her came forward.

 

[KOPV]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Well it seems to be easy for people of authority to go to potential 'victims' and create a case.. It's what Tom Sneddon did with the Arvizos.. He technically started the investigation BEFORE the dates of the supposed "abuse"

Remember... It was LWMJ that got the investigation going and the dates of the allegation was after the show aired....

 

[gerryevans]

I do not believe that she approached them first. I strongly believe that after the new lawyers went through the discovery that was given to them, they started contacting anyone and everyone that can be remotely of help to them, and stumbled upon “evidence” that they believed could be twisted into an evidence of a payout (the checks) and contacted this woman to tell her that they could get her a settlement if she would join them without having to reveal her identity and without her claim being scrutinized. The fact that she wants to keep her name private tells me she is not a nutcase, and she does not want people around her to know what she is doing and the sole motivation for her joining this case is money. Accusations against MJ have been in the news for decades. Wade and Safechuck have been in the news for three years now, but she had never joined the previous lawyers. Simply because she could not see an “opportunity”. But those lawyers gave her hope and they did with her what they do with all their target clients; They told her you do not need to be a victim nor do we need to prove your claims, we will still get you something. That’s why two months after the new lawyers, who are known for victim fishing, were appointed, someone like her came forward.

You're probably right about how it all came about, but I hope she's crazy as hell, and it all blows up in their face sooner than later.

 

[PoP]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Diane Diamond was behind the company (Hard Copy) that paid MJ's former employee for a story and tried hiding it.. They hunted for people to allege something on Michael and Diane flew herself to another country just to get an 'exclusive' interview.. SHE should be in court.

Yeah she should be, unlike she got herself away from Michael's libel lawsuit against V. Gutierrez like a coward. And also if she even dares to set her foot into my country in Canada again, I would like to get her @$$ deported.

 

[SarahJ]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

I second that.

 

[KOPV]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

God I wish the general public saw how clear as day this is BS as us.

 

[terrell]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

God I wish the general public saw how clear as day this is BS as us.

I agree. Also, I am glad a jury is holding ROLLING STONE liable for printing that fake rape story about UVA. See, this willing to lie and not check for truth is starting to get on many people' nerves.

 

[myosotis]

I thought this was an interesting case in relation to standards of journalism. But I guess that journalists can still report any 'rubbish' brought as allegations without stating an alternative view, sadly. In terms of naming of any staff who may have worked at MJJP or MJJV, I guess as long as the names are in the allegations, the press and media can still publish the details of civil 'complaints' with no fear of being sued by the people so named....

Rolling Stone Loses Defamation Case Over Rape Article

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — A jury on Friday found Rolling Stone magazine liable in a defamation suit brought by a former dean at the University of Virginia involving a discredited 2014 article about a supposed gang rape at the university.

The suit was brought by Nicole P. Eramo, a former associate dean of students at the university, who said the Rolling Stone article depicted her as the “chief villain” of the story.

The jury found liability on the part of Rolling Stone; its parent company, Wenner Media; and the author of the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Lawyers for Ms. Eramo argued that Rolling Stone and Ms. Erdely were reckless in their reporting and editing and that Ms. Erdely deliberately avoided following leads that could have disproved the story.

Ms. Eramo slumped into the arms of her lawyer, Libby Locke, as the clerk read the verdicts.

The 9,000-word article, titled “A Rape on Campus,” was published in November 2014 and helped start a national conversation about sexual assaults on campuses. But details of the article relied heavily on a single source, identified only as Jackie, who said she had been the victim of a gang rape at a fraternity party.

Rolling Stone soon commissioned a review of the article by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. The school’s report, released in April 2015, found that the magazine had failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details Jackie had told it. The magazine then retracted the story.

The jury found that assertions made within the article, as well as post-publication comments and news releases by Rolling Stone, were defamatory.
In a pretrial ruling, the judge determined that Ms. Eramo was a public figure. That ruling sets off the “actual malice” standard, which requires a plaintiff who is a public figure to prove that the publisher knew it had published falsehoods or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.


After the verdict, Rolling Stone released a statement that said in part: “In our desire to present this complicated issue from the perspective of a survivor, we overlooked reporting paths and made journalistic mistakes that we are committed to never making again. We deeply regret these missteps and sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by them, including Ms. Eramo.”

This was the first of two lawsuits that Rolling Stone faces over the article. The second, filed in a Virginia state court by the fraternity that was portrayed as the setting for the supposed rape, seeks $25 million in damages and has not yet gone to trial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/business/media/rolling-stone-rape-story-case-guilty.html?_r=0

 

[PoP]

I thought this was an interesting case in relation to standards of journalism. But I guess that journalists can still report any 'rubbish' brought as allegations without stating an alternative view, sadly. In terms of naming of any staff who may have worked at MJJP or MJJV, I guess as long as the names are in the allegations, the press and media can still publish the details of civil 'complaints' with no fear of being sued by the people so named....

Rolling Stone Loses Defamation Case Over Rape Article

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — A jury on Friday found Rolling Stone magazine liable in a defamation suit brought by a former dean at the University of Virginia involving a discredited 2014 article about a supposed gang rape at the university.

The suit was brought by Nicole P. Eramo, a former associate dean of students at the university, who said the Rolling Stone article depicted her as the “chief villain” of the story.

The jury found liability on the part of Rolling Stone; its parent company, Wenner Media; and the author of the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Lawyers for Ms. Eramo argued that Rolling Stone and Ms. Erdely were reckless in their reporting and editing and that Ms. Erdely deliberately avoided following leads that could have disproved the story.

Ms. Eramo slumped into the arms of her lawyer, Libby Locke, as the clerk read the verdicts.

The 9,000-word article, titled “A Rape on Campus,” was published in November 2014 and helped start a national conversation about sexual assaults on campuses. But details of the article relied heavily on a single source, identified only as Jackie, who said she had been the victim of a gang rape at a fraternity party.

Rolling Stone soon commissioned a review of the article by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. The school’s report, released in April 2015, found that the magazine had failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details Jackie had told it. The magazine then retracted the story.

The jury found that assertions made within the article, as well as post-publication comments and news releases by Rolling Stone, were defamatory.
In a pretrial ruling, the judge determined that Ms. Eramo was a public figure. That ruling sets off the “actual malice” standard, which requires a plaintiff who is a public figure to prove that the publisher knew it had published falsehoods or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.


After the verdict, Rolling Stone released a statement that said in part: “In our desire to present this complicated issue from the perspective of a survivor, we overlooked reporting paths and made journalistic mistakes that we are committed to never making again. We deeply regret these missteps and sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by them, including Ms. Eramo.”

This was the first of two lawsuits that Rolling Stone faces over the article. The second, filed in a Virginia state court by the fraternity that was portrayed as the setting for the supposed rape, seeks $25 million in damages and has not yet gone to trial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/business/media/rolling-stone-rape-story-case-guilty.html?_r=0

I heard about it, I saw the story on 20/20 about a few weeks ago. This should be a perfect example those reporters like the one from Rolling Stone got themselves in trouble making bogus lies to make news which are not accurate. The likes of Diane "Demon" and Stacey Brown should've been in trouble a long time ago.

 

[redfrog]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

well believing an accuser isn't a crime, knowingly making false claims is another thing.ranting? me? you call 3 lines a rant? don't be silly.

It's not the quantity but the tone and intent that make a rant a rant.

it's amusing coming from you given how you love to rant about american legal system, estate lawyers, demurrer, 340 and so on over and over and over. Take your own advice. and sorry darling, I think you are annoyingly repetitive,

None of those subjects was part of the question which you claimed I asked over and over and over again.
Apparently whatever I ask you think I did it repeatedly. Strange.

surviving demurrer was a discussion we had before so I'll chose to tune you out and you can annoy someone else.

No, surviving demurrer for THIS latest case was not discussed as far as I know and I asked your opinion about
this one not about surviving demurrer in general.
And I am not your darling. If you don't want to answer a question just ignore or say that you don't know the answer
no need for whining over me repeating the same questions when I didn't even do it.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

^ It's pretty ironic for you to accuse Ivy of "ranting" and call her out on the tone of her post. Very, very ironic, in fact. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[redfrog]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

^ It's pretty ironic for you to accuse Ivy of "ranting" and call her out on the tone of her post. Very, very ironic, in fact. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

No, it's not ironic. Her response to my question was a baseless rant accusing me of asking that question over and over again. I didn't say that she was ranting all the time I was talking about THAT reaction only even though twice calling me darling fits the WordWeb definition of a rant:

Pompous or pretentious talk or writing

 

[Bubs]

About that RS case - glad to see they got what deserved and hope more and more media outlets gets sued because bs they print.

"After the verdict, Rolling Stone released a statement that said in part: “In our desire to present this complicated issue from the perspective of a survivor, we overlooked reporting paths and made journalistic mistakes that we are committed to never making again. We deeply regret these missteps and sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by them, including Ms. Eramo.”"

Way too media outlets overlook reporting path and print what brings more clicks to their site, never mind if it is invented story like the one Radar invented and falsified.

 

[HIStory]

No, it's not ironic. Her response to my question was a baseless rant accusing me of asking that question over and over again. I didn't say that she was ranting all the time I was talking about THAT reaction only even though twice calling me darling fits the WordWeb definition of a rant:

Pompous or pretentious talk or writing

Get some self-awareness and how your style comes across before you accuse Ivy or anyone of ranting.

About that RS case - glad to see they got what deserved and hope more and more media outlets gets sued because bs they print.

"After the verdict, Rolling Stone released a statement that said in part: “In our desire to present this complicated issue from the perspective of a survivor, we overlooked reporting paths and made journalistic mistakes that we are committed to never making again. We deeply regret these missteps and sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by them, including Ms. Eramo.”"

Way too media outlets overlook reporting path and print what brings more clicks to their site, never mind if it is invented story like the one Radar invented and falsified.

This is exactly the problem. That these papers immediately assume every so called "survivor" is telling the truth and they want to present a case from the accuser's perspective. That's not unbiased journalism. That's taking sides before you even know the facts of a case - simply based on who claims to be a victim and who is accused of being a perpetrator.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

It's not the quantity but the tone and intent that make a rant a rant.

nope it doesn't. you need a better dictionary. rant: speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way, to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable, talk for a long time in a passionate manner

I don't have a tendency to get stuck on topics and anger isn't my style. so neither applies to my posts. On the other hand your repetitive and angry posts about american legal system, estate lawyers etc. are textbook definition of a rant.

regardless: it's been two days, I moved on, everyone moved on, why did you need to restart this again? couldn't you move on as well?

No, surviving demurrer for THIS latest case was not discussed as far as I know and I asked your opinion about this one not about surviving demurrer in general.

and here is my issue : we have three complaints, all with very similar claims by the same lawyers. There isn't much difference between let's say Safechuck as this girl. There isn't gonna be much difference in their demurrers as well. we discussed demurrer at safechuck in great detail. you kept asking me a million questions. Asking the same demurrer related questions in a similar complaint with all the same arguments is a waste of time because whatever we discussed in safechuck will apply here. that's why I said stop asking the same questions. perhaps you have no life and want to discuss 340 etc for 4,567,890th time or you have no life and restart this juvenile convo but some of us have better things to do. I rather work on the radio interview - that you read, discuss but never thank btw- then to have a back and forth with you on stupid matters.

and I used "darling" to be nice, if you don't want that, I can always tell it as it is. Stop being annoying, read and remember previous discussion, realize in similar situations same concepts and opinions still apply and act like an adult rather than complaining like a baby throwing an anger fit all the time. Better?