Anti's "scary' lie secret current meetings--

I am sorry to say that our ANTI friends have a large dose of paranoia and a willingness to fuel their paranoia with fantasies they create in their minds and repeat to each other. Really their thought process is quite tragic. I do feel sorry for them. Facts are not their friends. They know what they want to believe and facts are not allowed to get in their way. Today and ANTI blogger, "JustTheFacts" comments about this matter after Elizabeth Jaka's Oct. 3, FORUM.

JustTheFacts at 1:11pm said the following in his comments,
"And accusing me of "lying by inference" by mentioning "current" secret meetings”"

Oops you did it again, JustTheFacts. Three lies in one. Each word you used was a carefully chosen “lie” word. Those choices cannot be an accident.

No one but you has said “current” implying ongoing meetings today which you know or should know is a lie.

No one but you said it in the plural “meetings” which is a new and blatantly false accusation. A chance encounter has been conflated falsely into a series of meetings by you and only you.

Others incorrectly used the word “secret” in connection with this chance encounter but I showed in my previous post that there was nothing secret. See my 8:10am Oct 3 post or read either the North County Times article here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/03/06/news/coastal/vista/zafeb0db720418fa8882575710068a8e6.txt

Or you can read Elizabeth Jaka's own account of the chance encounter at this URL:

http://vistaschools.blogspot.com/2009/08/secret-illegal-meeting-not-jaka-answers.html

Nothing was secret. NO ONE ATTEMPTED TO DENY THE CHANCE ENCOUNTER. Let's compare that to Gibson and Guffanti who keep trying to deny that they and they alone are responsible for 40 million dollars of tax payer money.

Again I ask why you do not care about taxpayer money?

This Forum piece by Elizabeth Jaka was not about chance encounters it was about getting yet another legal ruling for the long established California practice of release time presidents in large districts. Yet you and the others who do not care about wasting tax payer money by the millions continue to bring up a well explained chance encounter that NO ONE MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO HIDE. You falsely say the encounter was secret. You allude falsely to a planned event, or other 'meetings' or illegality. All of those sly inferences can be and have been proved false time and time again but you repeat them. Why?