Reply #134: If I can manage to try to dig up a "question" in this nonsense,

[troubleinwinter]

beyond your diversion asserting that I am "obsessed" with your proclaimed vouching for the unrepentant convicted serial bomber, I will try to answer what I think is your question:

(Larisa)"...is that 2 or 3 degrees of separation? because if i meet someone a few times in the course of my work and that person years later makes a statement, i am clearly required to support what they and explain it to others... that about right?

Well, here are your own words:

"but I know Brett"

"Anyway, I know him. I vouch for him."

"I said, I vouch for him, take it or leave it."

"I said, I vouch for him"

Taken from this very worthwhile thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2358825#top

You apparently are close enough to "vouch" for him several times, but are unaware of his sworn declaration about threats against Connell, submitted to court by Arnebeck, a story you have been reporting on?!!!???

Golly gee! Maybe you should CALL Kimberlin (since you know him) and ASK him about the threats against Connell that he claimed under penalty of perjury to have been told of?

(As for the silliness about my calling you "lala", as do many others, some call me "trouble", for short. So what? I guess if you find this particularly interesting, which I do not, you would maybe wish to explain why you frequently address people as "hon". I think it's purely yet another diversion to avoid discussing the subject at hand.)