Welcome Guest

And then I specifically mentioned the transcript

Posted on: October 6, 2019 at 10:44:59 CT

Sal CMSU

Posts:

229171

Member For:

21.98 yrs

Level:

User

M.O.B. Votes:

a document that was pretty essential to the complaint

you responded with "yes he did", which made it seem like you were trying to argue that he did look at the transcript. That may not have been your intent.

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

MESSAGE THREAD

Lol now there are multiple whistle blowers - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 10/6 09:28:29

RE: Lol now there are multiple whistle blowers - MOCO SON MU - 10/6 10:19:39

Plenty more where those came from. And since they don’t - hokie VT - 10/6 09:57:46

Actually libs have moved even further away from an actual - tman MU - 10/6 09:52:29

I wonder if Atkinson will actually try to investigate - Sal MU

- 10/6 09:30:55

LMAO - he did investigate the initial wb report, and part - tigerdb MU - 10/6 10:19:18

No he didn't - Sal MU

- 10/6 10:20:01

Yes, he did. - tigerdb MU - 10/6 10:31:36

RE: Yes, he did. - MOCO SON MU - 10/6 10:35:36

That says nothing about Atkinson looking at the transcript (nm) - Sal MU

- 10/6 10:34:21

It says that he investigated (credible) and interviewed WB 2 - tigerdb MU - 10/6 10:37:24

That says nothing about him reading the transcript - Sal MU

- 10/6 10:39:33

LOL...I never said that he read the transcript junior. - tigerdb MU - 10/6 10:42:27

And then I specifically mentioned the transcript - Sal MU

- 10/6 10:44:59

No dumb****...you said he didn't investigate and THEN tried - tigerdb MU - 10/6 10:53:26

If he had read the transcript, he would have seen - Sal MU

- 10/6 10:55:09

No - even the redacted version that was produced publicly, - tigerdb MU - 10/6 11:04:26

No it doesn't, there are holes all over it (nm) - Sal MU

- 10/6 11:05:16

Blowsey-Ford?(nm) - Tigrrrr! MU

- 10/6 09:30:16

RE: Blowsey-Ford?(nm) - scan MU - 10/6 09:44:33

It really is - Sal MU

- 10/6 09:49:17

RE: It really is - scan MU - 10/6 09:50:52