The fact that you apparently perceive beeing rightfully corrected when you repeately post incorrect information, as beeing stalked, I feel sorry for you.
Yeah, like in the Ridgway threads to bump in when someone said something nice but wrong about me, which wasn't correct but always corrected by me. So you had to pop up and hack on that. But never mind, "righteous" seems to be the operative term here instead of "rightfully" anyway.
And by the way, you also a cupple of days ago, stated, as if it was a fact, that the person who called Amber Costello several times the day she disappeared, that "he was a regular" .
That is NOT correct Peter, the correct info is that Dave Schaller, after listening to Amber talking to this person that day said somthing veri simelar to " that it sounded as if she knew him". Neither Schaller or anyone else have ever been able to identify who he was OR what previous relation he might have had to Amber, at least not that have been released to the public.
[/QUOTE]
So to calm down your "righteous" feelings. DS said, she sounded like she knew him. What is a John, a prostitute knows ... wait, maybe a regular? You play here with words to distract from the complete picture. The same thing you did, when I mentioned, it was not ALC but another victim, who offered domination/bdsm and then, admittedly not for the first time, messed up the MB and MW. Sorry, that's an inevitable effect of all those abbreviation craze. But the fact per se, that it wasn't ALC remains.
SO unless you have inside info, which the rest of us don't have, your statement that this caller was a regular is misinformation.
In other words, you are calling me a liar based on turning around words. That betrays intention. Lets face it, you don't like me, I don't like you. Still, you could try to come back to the realm of reality and we could try to work the case instead of your "righteous" feelings.
The thing you IMO so often do is that you present your perceptions of case information as if they were facts, and that IS indeed a problem, whetwer you like it or not. We need to keep the facts as correct as possible, especially at a forum like this where many people try to work together on the same case.
I always pointed out, that my perceptions are my perceptions, my opinions are my opinions and my deductions are my deductions. So obviously, your rewording of that situation is a regular misinformation with the intent if libel.