https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/subway-tuna-lawsuit-mystery-nyt-fish-2021-6-1030537331

Earlier this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna is
not actually tuna.

The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless and
maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from fisheries with
stocks that aren't overfished.

Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, the New York Times on
Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis of
"60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from three
different locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed, froze,
and shipped for testing.

The results: "No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so
we obtained no amplification products from the DNA," the email read.
"Therefore, we cannot identify the species."

A spokesperson for the lab told the Times that the results pointed to
two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed that whatever
we could pull out, we couldn't make an identification. Or we got some
and there's just nothing there that's tuna," the spokesperson said.

Tuna experts also emphasized to the Times that once fish like tuna has
been cooked, its protein becomes broken down, or denatured, making it
extremely difficult to identify.

Inside Edition did its own investigation in New York and found the
tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.

I wish my high school counselor had told me "tuna expert" was a career
option.

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mhqucg9kp9lel03oc49tn3k0a5h88u18vm@4ax.com...
> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/subway-tuna-lawsuit-mystery-nyt-fish-2021-6-1030537331
>
> Earlier this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna is
> not actually tuna.
>
> The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless and
> maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from fisheries with
> stocks that aren't overfished.
>
> Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, the New York Times on
> Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis of
> "60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from three
> different locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed, froze,
> and shipped for testing.
>
> The results: "No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so
> we obtained no amplification products from the DNA," the email read.
> "Therefore, we cannot identify the species."
>
> A spokesperson for the lab told the Times that the results pointed to
> two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed that whatever
> we could pull out, we couldn't make an identification. Or we got some
> and there's just nothing there that's tuna," the spokesperson said.
>
> Tuna experts also emphasized to the Times that once fish like tuna has
> been cooked, its protein becomes broken down, or denatured, making it
> extremely difficult to identify.
>
> Inside Edition did its own investigation in New York and found the
> tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.
>
>
> I wish my high school counselor had told me "tuna expert" was a career
> option.

And yet you still haven't fulfilled your OBLIGATION to state wheter or not
you think subway tuna is real or not. YOU PROMISED., I fulfilled my part of
the deal (which was to apologize) and YOU NEVER DID IT.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 03:30:58 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mhqucg9kp9lel03oc49tn3k0a5h88u18vm@4ax.com...
>> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/subway-tuna-lawsuit-mystery-nyt-fish-2021-6-1030537331
>>
>> Earlier this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna is
>> not actually tuna.
>>
>> The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless and
>> maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from fisheries with
>> stocks that aren't overfished.
>>
>> Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, the New York Times on
>> Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis of
>> "60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from three
>> different locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed, froze,
>> and shipped for testing.
>>
>> The results: "No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so
>> we obtained no amplification products from the DNA," the email read.
>> "Therefore, we cannot identify the species."
>>
>> A spokesperson for the lab told the Times that the results pointed to
>> two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed that whatever
>> we could pull out, we couldn't make an identification. Or we got some
>> and there's just nothing there that's tuna," the spokesperson said.
>>
>> Tuna experts also emphasized to the Times that once fish like tuna has
>> been cooked, its protein becomes broken down, or denatured, making it
>> extremely difficult to identify.
>>
>> Inside Edition did its own investigation in New York and found the
>> tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.
>>
>>
>> I wish my high school counselor had told me "tuna expert" was a career
>> option.
>
>And yet you still haven't fulfilled your OBLIGATION to state wheter or not
>you think subway tuna is real or not. YOU PROMISED., I fulfilled my part of
>the deal (which was to apologize) and YOU NEVER DID IT.

Subway Tuna is not imaginary.

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bp1jeg9gtba9130qo2q4080jt2i5o8cd83@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 03:30:58 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:mhqucg9kp9lel03oc49tn3k0a5h88u18vm@4ax.com...
>>> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/subway-tuna-lawsuit-mystery-nyt-fish-2021-6-1030537331
>>>
>>> Earlier this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna is
>>> not actually tuna.
>>>
>>> The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless and
>>> maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from fisheries with
>>> stocks that aren't overfished.
>>>
>>> Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, the New York Times on
>>> Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis of
>>> "60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from three
>>> different locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed, froze,
>>> and shipped for testing.
>>>
>>> The results: "No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so
>>> we obtained no amplification products from the DNA," the email read.
>>> "Therefore, we cannot identify the species."
>>>
>>> A spokesperson for the lab told the Times that the results pointed to
>>> two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed that whatever
>>> we could pull out, we couldn't make an identification. Or we got some
>>> and there's just nothing there that's tuna," the spokesperson said.
>>>
>>> Tuna experts also emphasized to the Times that once fish like tuna has
>>> been cooked, its protein becomes broken down, or denatured, making it
>>> extremely difficult to identify.
>>>
>>> Inside Edition did its own investigation in New York and found the
>>> tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish my high school counselor had told me "tuna expert" was a career
>>> option.
>>
>>And yet you still haven't fulfilled your OBLIGATION to state wheter or not
>>you think subway tuna is real or not. YOU PROMISED., I fulfilled my part
>>of
>>the deal (which was to apologize) and YOU NEVER DID IT.
>
> Subway Tuna is not imaginary.

So your saying that it's real tuna.

Was that really so hard?

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 00:37:55 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bp1jeg9gtba9130qo2q4080jt2i5o8cd83@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 03:30:58 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:mhqucg9kp9lel03oc49tn3k0a5h88u18vm@4ax.com...
>>>> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/subway-tuna-lawsuit-mystery-nyt-fish-2021-6-1030537331
>>>>
>>>> Earlier this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna is
>>>> not actually tuna.
>>>>
>>>> The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless and
>>>> maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from fisheries with
>>>> stocks that aren't overfished.
>>>>
>>>> Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, the New York Times on
>>>> Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis of
>>>> "60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from three
>>>> different locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed, froze,
>>>> and shipped for testing.
>>>>
>>>> The results: "No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so
>>>> we obtained no amplification products from the DNA," the email read.
>>>> "Therefore, we cannot identify the species."
>>>>
>>>> A spokesperson for the lab told the Times that the results pointed to
>>>> two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed that whatever
>>>> we could pull out, we couldn't make an identification. Or we got some
>>>> and there's just nothing there that's tuna," the spokesperson said.
>>>>
>>>> Tuna experts also emphasized to the Times that once fish like tuna has
>>>> been cooked, its protein becomes broken down, or denatured, making it
>>>> extremely difficult to identify.
>>>>
>>>> Inside Edition did its own investigation in New York and found the
>>>> tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wish my high school counselor had told me "tuna expert" was a career
>>>> option.
>>>
>>>And yet you still haven't fulfilled your OBLIGATION to state wheter or not
>>>you think subway tuna is real or not. YOU PROMISED., I fulfilled my part
>>>of
>>>the deal (which was to apologize) and YOU NEVER DID IT.
>>
>> Subway Tuna is not imaginary.
>
>So your saying that it's real tuna.

I never said it wasn't real tuna.

>Was that really so hard?

The hard part is waiting for you to stop lying.

____________________________________________________
Approved Official Group Leader of alt.food.fast-food

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gdgifgpoje70ubi6sb285lrvr3t6rbcs1t@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 00:37:55 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:bp1jeg9gtba9130qo2q4080jt2i5o8cd83@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 03:30:58 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:mhqucg9kp9lel03oc49tn3k0a5h88u18vm@4ax.com...
>>>>> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/subway-tuna-lawsuit-mystery-nyt-fish-2021-6-1030537331
>>>>>
>>>>> Earlier this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna is
>>>>> not actually tuna.
>>>>>
>>>>> The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless and
>>>>> maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from fisheries with
>>>>> stocks that aren't overfished.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, the New York Times on
>>>>> Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis of
>>>>> "60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from three
>>>>> different locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed, froze,
>>>>> and shipped for testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The results: "No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so
>>>>> we obtained no amplification products from the DNA," the email read.
>>>>> "Therefore, we cannot identify the species."
>>>>>
>>>>> A spokesperson for the lab told the Times that the results pointed to
>>>>> two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed that whatever
>>>>> we could pull out, we couldn't make an identification. Or we got some
>>>>> and there's just nothing there that's tuna," the spokesperson said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tuna experts also emphasized to the Times that once fish like tuna has
>>>>> been cooked, its protein becomes broken down, or denatured, making it
>>>>> extremely difficult to identify.
>>>>>
>>>>> Inside Edition did its own investigation in New York and found the
>>>>> tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish my high school counselor had told me "tuna expert" was a career
>>>>> option.
>>>>
>>>>And yet you still haven't fulfilled your OBLIGATION to state wheter or
>>>>not
>>>>you think subway tuna is real or not. YOU PROMISED., I fulfilled my
>>>>part
>>>>of
>>>>the deal (which was to apologize) and YOU NEVER DID IT.
>>>
>>> Subway Tuna is not imaginary.
>>
>>So your saying that it's real tuna.
>
> I never said it wasn't real tuna.

I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
obligation to do it.

now, for the record, you have stated QOUTE that is "not imaginary" and
therefore real.

Thank you for finally sharing your opinion, even if it is several months too
late.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 14:18:45 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gdgifgpoje70ubi6sb285lrvr3t6rbcs1t@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 00:37:55 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:bp1jeg9gtba9130qo2q4080jt2i5o8cd83@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 03:30:58 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:mhqucg9kp9lel03oc49tn3k0a5h88u18vm@4ax.com...
>>>>>> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/subway-tuna-lawsuit-mystery-nyt-fish-2021-6-1030537331
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Earlier this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna is
>>>>>> not actually tuna.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless and
>>>>>> maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from fisheries with
>>>>>> stocks that aren't overfished.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, the New York Times on
>>>>>> Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis of
>>>>>> "60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from three
>>>>>> different locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed, froze,
>>>>>> and shipped for testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The results: "No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so
>>>>>> we obtained no amplification products from the DNA," the email read.
>>>>>> "Therefore, we cannot identify the species."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A spokesperson for the lab told the Times that the results pointed to
>>>>>> two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed that whatever
>>>>>> we could pull out, we couldn't make an identification. Or we got some
>>>>>> and there's just nothing there that's tuna," the spokesperson said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tuna experts also emphasized to the Times that once fish like tuna has
>>>>>> been cooked, its protein becomes broken down, or denatured, making it
>>>>>> extremely difficult to identify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inside Edition did its own investigation in New York and found the
>>>>>> tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish my high school counselor had told me "tuna expert" was a career
>>>>>> option.
>>>>>
>>>>>And yet you still haven't fulfilled your OBLIGATION to state wheter or
>>>>>not
>>>>>you think subway tuna is real or not. YOU PROMISED., I fulfilled my
>>>>>part
>>>>>of
>>>>>the deal (which was to apologize) and YOU NEVER DID IT.
>>>>
>>>> Subway Tuna is not imaginary.
>>>
>>>So your saying that it's real tuna.
>>
>> I never said it wasn't real tuna.
>
>
>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>obligation to do it.

I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.

>now, for the record, you have stated QOUTE that is "not imaginary" and
>therefore real.

Why do you keep repeating what I say?

>Thank you for finally sharing your opinion, even if it is several months too
>late.

How is it "too late?"

"Too late" for what, exactly?

____________________________________________________
Approved Official Group Leader of alt.food.fast-food

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 14:18:45 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:gdgifgpoje70ubi6sb285lrvr3t6rbcs1t@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 00:37:55 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:bp1jeg9gtba9130qo2q4080jt2i5o8cd83@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 03:30:58 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>news:mhqucg9kp9lel03oc49tn3k0a5h88u18vm@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/subway-tuna-lawsuit-mystery-nyt-fish-2021-6-1030537331
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Earlier this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not actually tuna.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from fisheries
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> stocks that aren't overfished.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, the New York Times on
>>>>>>> Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> "60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from three
>>>>>>> different locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed,
>>>>>>> froze,
>>>>>>> and shipped for testing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The results: "No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> we obtained no amplification products from the DNA," the email read.
>>>>>>> "Therefore, we cannot identify the species."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A spokesperson for the lab told the Times that the results pointed
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed that
>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>> we could pull out, we couldn't make an identification. Or we got
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> and there's just nothing there that's tuna," the spokesperson said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tuna experts also emphasized to the Times that once fish like tuna
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> been cooked, its protein becomes broken down, or denatured, making
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> extremely difficult to identify.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Inside Edition did its own investigation in New York and found the
>>>>>>> tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wish my high school counselor had told me "tuna expert" was a
>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And yet you still haven't fulfilled your OBLIGATION to state wheter or
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>you think subway tuna is real or not. YOU PROMISED., I fulfilled my
>>>>>>part
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>the deal (which was to apologize) and YOU NEVER DID IT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subway Tuna is not imaginary.
>>>>
>>>>So your saying that it's real tuna.
>>>
>>> I never said it wasn't real tuna.
>>
>>
>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>obligation to do it.
>
> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.

YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.

On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>>>>> Subway Tuna is not imaginary.
>>>>>
>>>>>So your saying that it's real tuna.
>>>>
>>>> I never said it wasn't real tuna.
>>>
>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>obligation to do it.
>>
>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>
>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.

Please cease your lying, Jenny. Even you have to realize it
doesn't work.

KWills
alt.food.fast-food Leadership Committee President

On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...

>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>obligation to do it.
>>
>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>
>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.
>
====== STANDARD JENNY RESPONSE =========

[ ] Provide the Message ID proving your claim
[ ] You are lying, as usual
[ ] Typical racist Jenny response
[ ] Incorrect-- this has already been explained to you
[ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please
[ ] Yes, it *is* private property
[ ] Yes, salt *is* an ingredient
[ ] No, the sauce contains no alcohol

====== STANDARD JENNY RESPONSE =========

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:empjjgttkptk5u45tt20ujc8j73jn0caff@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...
>
>>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
>>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>>obligation to do it.
>>>
>>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>>
>>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.
>

> ====== STANDARD JERRY RESPONSE =========
>
> [ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please

YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:40:47 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:empjjgttkptk5u45tt20ujc8j73jn0caff@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
>>>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>>>obligation to do it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>>>
>>>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.
>>
>> ====== STANDARD JERRY RESPONSE =========
>>
>> [ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please
>
>
>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.

But he did. Maybe not in the time frame you wanted, but you admit
that eventually he did.
So why LIE about it?

--
Cat: All in all a 100% successful trip.
Kryten: But sir, we have lost Mr. Rimmer.
Cat: All in all a 100% successful trip.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 01:18:40 -0700, KWills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:40:47 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:empjjgttkptk5u45tt20ujc8j73jn0caff@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>message news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
>>>>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>>>>obligation to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>>>>
>>>>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.
>>>
>>> ====== STANDARD JERRY RESPONSE =========
>>>
>>> [ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please
>>
>>
>>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.
>
> But he did. Maybe not in the time frame you wanted, but you admit
>that eventually he did.
> So why LIE about it?

Because that's what he DOES. LOL

On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:40:47 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:empjjgttkptk5u45tt20ujc8j73jn0caff@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that you
>>>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>>>obligation to do it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>>>
>>>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.
>>
>
>
>> ====== STANDARD JERRY RESPONSE =========
>>
>> [ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please
>
>
>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.

So?

On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 03:57:01 -0700, KlausSchadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>>> ====== STANDARD JERRY RESPONSE =========
>>>>
>>>> [ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please
>>>
>>>
>>>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.
>>
>> But he did. Maybe not in the time frame you wanted, but you admit
>>that eventually he did.
>> So why LIE about it?
>
>Because that's what he DOES. LOL

What's most sad is that he lied and said you didn't share your
opinion, then admits, in the same sentence, that you did share it.
I don't know if I should be amused or saddened by this.

--
When the world ends, there'll be no more air.
That's why it's important to pollute the air now. Before it's too
late. :)

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4gnllgha45jb2t6vp64ckm1ur53sunqrqm@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:40:47 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:empjjgttkptk5u45tt20ujc8j73jn0caff@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>>>>obligation to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>>>>
>>>>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share
>>>>your
>>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> ====== STANDARD JERRY RESPONSE =========
>>>
>>> [ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please
>>
>>
>>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.
>
> So?

SO YOU LIED. AND DON'T DESERVE TO BE TRUSTED IN THIS NEWSGROUP EVER AGAIN.

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 23:47:47 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4gnllgha45jb2t6vp64ckm1ur53sunqrqm@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:40:47 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:empjjgttkptk5u45tt20ujc8j73jn0caff@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>>>>>obligation to do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share
>>>>>your
>>>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ====== STANDARD JERRY RESPONSE =========
>>>>
>>>> [ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please
>>>
>>>
>>>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share your
>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.
>>
>> So?
>
>SO YOU LIED. AND DON'T DESERVE TO BE TRUSTED IN THIS NEWSGROUP EVER AGAIN.

So?

How does it feel to know YOU WILL DIE without ever knowing my opinion
on this?

"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:17skog1g9t3ph7bcj7schrp53ob7oe3o1t@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 23:47:47 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:4gnllgha45jb2t6vp64ckm1ur53sunqrqm@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:40:47 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:empjjgttkptk5u45tt20ujc8j73jn0caff@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 00:10:02 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
>>>>> <jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>news:sjc3hg19es5898us3cje1vibvap2rioogr@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am well aware of that. the whole point of the discussion was that
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>WSOULDN'T say if you thought it was real or not, depite your morol
>>>>>>>>obligation to do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no "morol" obligation to state anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>YES YOU DID. you siad, that if I apologized to you, you would share
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least onitionally.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ====== STANDARD JERRY RESPONSE =========
>>>>>
>>>>> [ x ] Repeat your statement using standard, American English, please
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share
>>>>your
>>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>>SO YOU LIED. AND DON'T DESERVE TO BE TRUSTED IN THIS NEWSGROUP EVER
>>AGAIN.
>
> So?
>
> How does it feel to know YOU WILL DIE without ever knowing my opinion
> on this?

WTF are you talking about, klous? You EVENTUALLY shared your opinion that
the tuna is REAL, remember?

I can now die a happy man.

On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 21:29:55 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>>>>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share
>>>>>your
>>>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>
>>>SO YOU LIED. AND DON'T DESERVE TO BE TRUSTED IN THIS NEWSGROUP EVER
>>>AGAIN.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> How does it feel to know YOU WILL DIE without ever knowing my opinion
>> on this?
>
>WTF are you talking about, klous? You EVENTUALLY shared your opinion that
>the tuna is REAL, remember?
>
>I can now die a happy man.

So, according to you, he did AND did not, at the same time?
Really?
Please speak with a mental health care professional about your
very real NEED to lie.

--
Aspire to inspire before you expire.

On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 21:29:55 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I can now die a happy man.

We're all glad

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 01:28:17 -0800, KWills <a@b.c> wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 21:29:55 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>>SO YOU LIED. AND DON'T DESERVE TO BE TRUSTED IN THIS NEWSGROUP EVER
>>>>AGAIN.
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>> How does it feel to know YOU WILL DIE without ever knowing my opinion
>>> on this?
>>
>>WTF are you talking about, klous? You EVENTUALLY shared your opinion that
>>the tuna is REAL, remember?
>>
>>I can now die a happy man.
>
> So, according to you, he did AND did not, at the same time?
>Really?
> Please speak with a mental health care professional about your
>very real NEED to lie.

Sometimes there is no right answer for Jenny. He just needs the
attention

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 04:32:38 -0800, KlausSchadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 01:28:17 -0800, KWills <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 21:29:55 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
>><jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>>>>YES YOU DID. you said, that if I apologized to you, you would share
>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>opinion. And you DIDN'T, at least initially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>>SO YOU LIED. AND DON'T DESERVE TO BE TRUSTED IN THIS NEWSGROUP EVER
>>>>>AGAIN.
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> How does it feel to know YOU WILL DIE without ever knowing my opinion
>>>> on this?
>>>
>>>WTF are you talking about, klous? You EVENTUALLY shared your opinion that
>>>the tuna is REAL, remember?
>>>
>>>I can now die a happy man.
>>
>> So, according to you, he did AND did not, at the same time?
>>Really?
>> Please speak with a mental health care professional about your
>>very real NEED to lie.
>
>Sometimes there is no right answer for Jenny. He just needs the
>attention

He just NEEDS to lie.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.