Norman gets six-month suspension

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

It's kind of like you are having a conversation with yourself. You said a great deal there. Wow, that's a real leap of semantics. Interesting enough -- I didn't say any of that. Here's what I said and here is what it means -- it means exactly what I said! Not what you think I said or accusing me of saying. Take a couple of steps back from the keyboard and relax. I am not nor did I accuse anybody of lying. I don't care what you and your friend claim on this matter. It's not a CA matter and I am not interested in your hypothetical matters, whether CA or otherwise.

I did not agree with your opinion on the entire subject. Thus, the words weren't my words and I didn't want them misconstrued as my words -- period!

Eric

You highlighted this quote from me:

"Here is what he told me about bank records: He said that the CHRB has invetigators and they will try to stay on top of the money trail and make sure the trainer is not getting paid. They don't actually subpoena the bank records. They ask the trainer to voluntarily turn them over. If the trainer refuses, then the Board can refuse to give him his license back. Then the trainer could take them to court if it got that far. But usually the trainers will cooperate and give the board their bank records for every month during the suspension."

Then you said, "I don't believe those words to be true".

If the words from my quote are not true, it can mean only one of two things. It would mean either I am lying or the guy from the CHRB is lying. If you don't think that either I or the guy from the CHRB is lying, then I don't know why you would say that you don't believe those words to be true. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the words are not true, then that would mean that either I or the guy from the CHRB is lying.