They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

[_ScottLloyd]

The thing about the Perry Mason series is that they never strictly followed rules of courtroom procedure. You had all these two-shots with Mason staring the witness in the face. As I understand it, an attorney is not supposed to approach the witness without asking permission from the judge.

I discussed this a bit with Raymond Burr in my brief interview with him back in the early '80s. He said the Perry Mason episodes nearly always depicted preliminary hearings as opposed to full-blown criminal trials, and in preliminary hearings there is much more latitude about what can and can't be done.

[_GoodK]

So he's said.

Do you have any independent corroboration of that? Do you know anything about the overall relationship between father and son, and about its history?

Right, because he wouldn't know himself.

GoodK wouldn't know the details of his own life and relationship, would he?

What independent information do you have?

Oh, that's right, nothing but your doubting whispers - "don't pretend, don't pretend..." echoing into the night.

I've already called you on this once.

I already called your bluff. You told me to drop it and wouldn't pony up.

The entire history of my step-dad and me has little to do with the way our relationship has been affected by your cowardly decision to involve him in this discussion board.

You are responsible for that. You can't shake it, big guy.

You just can't. No matter how many times you bring it up.

You don't even know my step-dad very well. Didn't your last visit with him involve the professional FARMS fundraiser? Have you ever had a meal with him?
Have you been to the new house? Were you ever at the old house? Do you know my Mom's name? Any of my sisters? How many times have you talked to him - besides things involving this discussion board - in the past year? Past 5 years.
Did you send our family a Christmas card?

Stop acting like you know my family personally, let alone some sort of "secret" that conveniently exonerates you.

If you don't stop implying that I am a liar, I'm going to start taking it personal.

[_ScottLloyd]

In addition to interviewing Raymond Burr, I once had a brush with a real big-time, famous, trial lawayer.

I was doing my internship in 1980 at the Las Vegas Review-Journal. I was assigned to go to a bookstore in North Las Vegas and observe while F. Lee Bailey was autographing his latest book. While I was there, his handler asked me if I was going back down to the Strip and if so, if I could give them a ride. I agreed.

So we got into my '66 Volkswagen Beetle, and I drove them back down to the Dunes Hotel. Bailey smoked a panatella, but he was courteous enough to hold it out the window so it wouldn't stink up my car. He said, "A Volkswagen and a buck a day for food got me through law school."

This, of course, was many years before the O.J. Simpson trial, but Bailey was already famous from the Sam Shepherd case and other exploits.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What independent information do you have?

I've known your stepfather for roughly twenty years.

No matter how many times you bring it up.

I have never brought it up. Not a single time.

If you don't stop implying that I am a liar, I'm going to start taking it personal.

It would be very, very good if Scartch and Mini-Scartch were to give this matter a rest. I'm sorry that Mini-Scartch brought it up again.

I don't bring this matter up. But, every time Scartch or Mini-Scartch or anybody else tries to depict me as a destroyer of families by using your relationship with your stepfather as an example, I'm going to point out that they don't actually know anything, at first hand, about your family or about the situation.

I simply won't permit such public anonymous accusations against me to go without reply.

I'm sorry that Scartch and Mini-Scartch continue to seek to exploit your family in their bid to discredit and defame me. I've said nothing about your family situation. They do.

The title of this thread is "They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain." I won't explain. I've said nothing whatever about your family, nor about your relationship with your stepfather. But they continue to speculate and to slander, while pretending that they're just stating facts.

They should cease and desist.

Not for my sake. I understand that their hostility toward me is deep and far beyond realistic remedy. They should stop it for your sake, and for the sake of your family.

[_GoodK]

I've known your stepfather for roughly twenty years.

You don't know him very well, like I said before.

I'm going to point out that they don't actually know anything, at first hand, about your family or about the situation.

I do. In fact, I know even better than you!

I know, wild right?

I simply won't permit such public anonymous accusations against me to go without reply.

My accusation isn't anonymous. You know who I am, and I am saying it.

I can tolerate you refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, but I simply won't permit you to imply I am a liar.

So what happens now?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've known your stepfather for roughly twenty years.

You don't know him very well, like I said before.

I've never claimed that we were best friends.

But I know him well enough.

I'd prefer not to say more. Why don't you give this a rest?

I'm going to point out that they don't actually know anything, at first hand, about your family or about the situation.

I do. In fact, I know even better than you!

I know, wild right?

You're a party to it, yes.

I simply won't permit such public anonymous accusations against me to go without reply.

My accusation isn't anonymous. You know who I am, and I am saying it.

Then you yourself are bringing the matter up, and insisting on its continuing discussion here, along with Scartch and Mini-Scartch. I'm not sure why you would want to do that. I think it would be better for all concerned if the subject were put to rest.

I can tolerate you refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, but I simply won't permit you to imply I am a liar.

So what happens now?

You should give it a rest.

[_moksha]

Who is mini-scartch?

[_GoodK]

You should give it a rest.

I had stopped until I scrolled through this thread this afternoon and what did I find -

DCP calling me a liar, again.

So here it is:

You sir, are guilty of what you are being accused of.

Prior to your handywork, me and me step-dad talked and saw eachother almost daily. Thanks to your help, we no longer are speaking.

This is a fact. This is not debatable.

So I suggest you drop it, unless you want this to continue. I don't particularly want it to, but I will not let you call me liar on top of what you did to my family.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I had stopped until I scrolled through this thread this afternoon and what did I find -

DCP calling me a liar, again.

Where have I called you a liar?

Can you provide the exact quote?

I have never, ever, raised this issue. You and Scartch and Mini-Scartch have raised this issue, and then you become incensed at even the mildest possible response.

So here it is:

You sir, are guilty of what you are being accused of.

Prior to your handywork, me and me step-dad talked and saw eachother almost daily. Thanks to your help, we no longer are speaking.

This is a fact. This is not debatable.

Alright. Then here it is:

There is enormously more to this story than GoodK is telling. (Whether he's lying or not, I can't say.)

I've heard about GoodK for at least ten years, and probably longer. Both GoodK's stepdad and I are fathers. And GoodK's atheism is an ingredient in the situation of only relatively recent vintage.

That's all I'll say, though. They can speculate, and you can make claims, but I'll say nothing more. That definitely puts me at a disadvantage, but I can live with it.

I'm sorry that it's come to this, but I won't allow it to go further. Or, to be more precise, I'll say nothing further, beyond what I've already said. I will, though, repeat that there is more to this story, and to your situation, than people here know and more than you're telling.

I wish you'd just let it rest, and that the Scartchii would stop trying to exploit and manipulate you in their campaign against me.

So I suggest you drop it, unless you want this to continue. I don't particularly want it to, but I will not let you call me liar on top of what you did to my family.

I've never once raised this issue.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've heard about GoodK for at least ten years, and probably longer. Both GoodK's stepdad and I are fathers. And GoodK's atheism is an ingredient in the situation of only relatively recent vintage.

That's all I'll say, though. They can speculate, and you can make claims, but I'll say nothing more. That definitely puts me at a disadvantage, but I can live with it.

I guess we are to take this as meaning, "I, DCP, accept zero responsibility for acting like a knob. Instead, this situation is entirely the fault of GoodK's atheism."

Is that really what The Good Professor is saying?