Maura Murray

Interesting to me how so many announce regularly that they are here to discuss Maura, and yet they join enthusiastically into any form of distraction from topic that presents. Some of them spend a lot of time posting either frequently or at great length attacking others, defending themselves by attacking others, and so on.

Never seems to occur to someone to ignore personal jabs completely and do what they say they are here to do: talk about Maura. Judging by their verbal actions, it seems far more likely that they are on this thread looking for a "fight".

Advocator wrote:

Interesting to me how so many announce regularly that they are here to discuss Maura, and yet they join enthusiastically into any form of distraction from topic that presents. Some of them spend a lot of time posting either frequently or at great length attacking others, defending themselves by attacking others, and so on.
Never seems to occur to someone to ignore personal jabs completely and do what they say they are here to do: talk about Maura. Judging by their verbal actions, it seems far more likely that they are on this thread looking for a "fight".

Speaking for myself,I cant help but to defend someone I respect nor am I willing to allow strangers to insult me..Its my nature to stand up.
I sure wish there was more thoughtful discussion about Maura here..Its sad.

Advocator wrote:

Interesting to me how so many announce regularly that they are here to discuss Maura, and yet they join enthusiastically into any form of distraction from topic that presents. Some of them spend a lot of time posting either frequently or at great length attacking others, defending themselves by attacking others, and so on.
Never seems to occur to someone to ignore personal jabs completely and do what they say they are here to do: talk about Maura. Judging by their verbal actions, it seems far more likely that they are on this thread looking for a "fight".

This is a very good post. Whether people think I'm right or wrong, this is exactly what I'm trying to prove with my provacative approach to certain posters. I make no excuses for it because I do believe that the hypocrisy is absolutely rampant here. I think it asks to be exposed and I have no problem doing so. It is also entertaining and intellectually stimulating. I think that the premise that no one should discuss anything but Maura on a thread that hasn't seen any new news in ages is both ridiculous and preposterous. I am also flabbergasted by the notion that people who don't want to sit around redefining redundant and obtuse theories and beating an old horse into the ground are called Trolls and worse!Is it so incomprehensible that people have established relationships here and would want to stay connected and discuss other things and possibly share a bit of humor and silliness while they wait for something valid to actually discuss? If this was a thread concerning a subject matter that had active input from that subject, I could understand this premise. It is not. That is exactly why this old carcass keeps getting dragged out. There are people here that have invested their time heavily in the actual facts of this case that just can't bare the constant and repetitive redifining of old theories and idea's that continue heer. It's like the movie Groundhog Day. I am here for the entertainment and I find this particular thread to be something of a social phenomenon. One that I have never encountered before. I am also able to interact with people that are frankly much more intelligent and educated than myself and for me, this is not only valuable, but fun.
When and if something new comes up, beyond a shadow of a doubt, these intelligent and very invested posters will certainly be all over it. And yes, I came here by accident, but believe it or not, I am very interested in this story and hope to see some sort of outcome to it.

I'm on a mini vacation this week, but, I still have to get up early and get the boys ready for school. I will leave this in the very capable hands of the night shift. Yes Sheldon,( Findmaura) that was sarcasm ; )

Tang Zoi wrote:

Jenkins......did you get that old boat out of your yard yet?

LMAO- ummm who the hell do you think I am??
You must think i'm someone else because your questions are truly stupid if you think you've figure out who I really am .
First of all I don't live in a Log cabin and have never lived in a log home in my entire life.
Second of all I don't have a boat in my yard, new or old. I've never owned a boat, I've ever had one in my yard, ever, and certainly don't have one in my yard now or have removed one recently. LOL
So WTH are you talking about dude?
If this is some bizarre attempt at intimidating me by making me think that you know who I am, this is an epic fail! LOL, it's actually hilarious, you actually think you've figured out who I am don't you?
Wow, you are a total loser.
I actually am lmao after reading this post, it's truly hilarious
TBH, I don't think that you are really the same person that used to post under the moniker 'det Columbo'; completely different attitude, writing style, just seems like a different person altogether. The old Det Columbo used to like me, and agreed with me on almost everything. So either you're a different person posting as columbo or whatever medication they have you on for your crohns disease or whatever it is he had that made him stop posting has seriously f'd up your brain functions.
After today I DO NOT belive that Tang is columbo, but rather one of the weirdo trolls posing as him, writing weird snippets of weird information just like columbo used to do, to make it look like it it really him.
Also, after today, I DO NOT belive that the person currently posting under the moniker 'citigirl' is the original citigril. Whoever is using that moniker now is not Maura's cousin, there's no way in hell. I interacted with the real cit wayyy too much on the old MM and MMM sites to believe that's her. Ater this morning with the whole 'hot' thing, IMO that proves the 'citigirl' moniker has been stolen by one of the trolls who is now posing as one of Maura's relatives, a new low for the trolls on this thread. Notice she said something about me saying I think Maura's hot, which I never even actually said if you read those posts, she said that earlier in the day right before snowy said it, and then what do ya know suddenly the trolls have busted out these couple posts from months ago where I referred to her as hot, in a very specific conext, which was not me saying I think she's hot.
There is just no way that is the real citigirl, no way in fkn hell, just no way. The whole thing today wth her knowing the trolls were going to post those old posts from months ago proves it to me. So either now Maura's ccousin is working with the trolls of this thread, or someone hijacked her moniker. I'm gonna go with someone hijacked her moniker bc I spoke with her way too many times on the old forums to believe for a second that she would be working with these idiiots.
But mark my words, the trolls are not going to win. This shit they are pulling only inspires me to post more, to dig deeper, to put more effort into fining out wth is really going on here bc it is highly suspicous the way these people are acting, highly suspicous. They CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY want me to stop posting, well that aint gonna happen. Why would theu want that?? I want to know..

I wonder whether Renner will publish his book, as tentatively planned, around the 10 year anniversary.
Just recently read a book on the missing McStay family and although it was basically rehashing of old information, it DID have some previously unreleased information...
hopefully the same will be said for the Maura book. I admit...I'm buying it.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
***any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity might be a candidate for a Service Dog. Please note that Therapy Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs, Forensic Dogs, Police K-9's, Military Working Dogs and other types of working dogs are NOT Service Dogs and under no circumstances may be registered with the US Service Dog Registry.***
Jenkins is this another bald faced lie? Protection/guard dogs are not service dogs and cannot be registered as service dogs.
I find it hard to believe that a woman is so scared of going out that she must have a trained German Shepard protection dog next to her at all times and a can of pepper spray in her purse.
I'm sure glad I don't live where ever your girlfriend does. Sounds like a real dangerous neighborhood.

First of all its BOLD face lie, not ballld faced lie, lol.

Second of all your lack of understandig/compassion is uunbelievable to me. That people like you exist in the wold is truly sad to me.

But you're right, a protection dog can't be registered as a service dog.
Our German shepherd Hunter is registered with the National Service dog registry as a therapy dog/companion dog, which in reality a dog needs no special training to be registered as. After almost being ABDUCTED several years ago she developed PTSD which basically turned into severe anxiety, and getting our GSD has done wonders for her state of mind. WAYYYYY more than any therapist or pill can do.
Now just because a dog is a registered therapy dog does NOT mean it can't ALSO be a trained protection dog, get your facts straight before you talk out your ass, but you don't care about that because you're a weirdo and a liar.

Dogs, particularl GSD's cn be trained to do MANY things, I'm currenty also training him to be a tracking dog but that's just for fun bc he's so smart.

This dog is the nicest dog in the world, he's a little snuggle hound and he's soo cute. Great around kids, great around everyone and unless someone tried to grab his owner or if she give him the special attack command, which is in german btw, he is absolutely docile and friendly. His favorite thing to do is play stick lol. I paid thousands of dollars and we took him to months of specialized training to make him a real protection dog. But theoretically he's never going to need to use his training. It's more of a deterent IMO, and something to give her peace of mind, which he really really does. Having him with her makes her MUCH more calm and relaxed, it's done wonders for her anxiety.
Anyone who hurts women is a true coward, they're looking for a woman who's an easy target, just like Maura was that night all by herself. I would bet anything that if she had a GSD with her, trained or not, a predator would've just movved along. No one is going to try to abduct a girl who's walking with a German Shepherd, that's NOT an easy target.
So before you start typing and make yourself look like an idiot, get your facts straight. Therapy dogs and protection dogs are 2 different things but there is nothing that says they can't do both, GSD's are VERY smart and can do LOTS of things.
And btw, we live in a beautiful neighborhood that is certainly safe. Are you trying to imply that bc this girl has a therapy dog that's also trained in protection that the neighborhood is now unsafe? That bc she carries pepper spray it's unsafe??? WTH are you talking about? Our house is in the hills outside of Amherst, a VERY safe area and a beautiful place to live and obvously much saffer than your neighborhood, at least nobody has ever been ABDUCTED from my neighborhood! you can't say that about yours wowzer.

You're a real piece of work, you have no idea what you're talkin aboutt, your ignorance is staggering.

Sorry out dog huter is registered as a service dog and is technically considered a companion doog, not a therapy dog, just to be accurate for all the weirdo troll who love to analyze every little tidbit of my posts.

And wowzer, have you ever actually checked out the national service dog registry? The one run by the federa Gove't, who issues you your pass to ring the dog anywhere you want, including airplanes?

Pretty much ANY DOG can be registeredd as a service dog, it requires no special training or anyhting like that. My GF got a note from her Dr. saying that the dog helps her and is needed for her disability, but ti turned out that wasn't even needed to register the dog and get the licese, which is totally free.
All she had to do was register the dog, the dog's name, it's breed and basically do an online ''signature" stating that she does in fact have a disability and that the dog is needed to help her with her disability.
Most people, like you obviously, have absolutely no idea how the national service dog registry works and how easy it is to have a dog registered as a service dog.

Your igrnorance is astounding. The girl almost gets abducted so she develps debilitating anxiety and you're saying that the neighborhood isn't safe because we had our GSD trained to do protection and she carries a can or pepper spray. A can of pepper spray is a good idea for EVERY woman to carry, why not have one in your purse? Especially in your neighborhood, someone actually got abducted there.

You truly are a bad person wowzer, I used to think that you guy sprobably were decent human beings in real life but I really don't tink that anymore. Anyone who can exhibit the behaiors you trolls exhibit on this thread ANYWHERE, even online, just can't be a good person in real life, you just can't. People don't treat people like this.

Why is this topic the one with the nastiest, most mean-hearted posters I've ever seen anywhere online? The original forums everyone was nice people and treated others with respect, even the locals you claim they trash talked so much. It is a sad state of affairs that people like you have decided to hijack this thread and turn it into a constant argument.

I just LOVE how you dug up those old posts to tr to make me look bad. You guys were clearly pissed that I was just talking about the case and had to find something to get me off topic, which was that the SBD LIED about wwhat happened that night and presenting a compelling, logical argument as to why it's most likely she got abducted. That just pissed you guys off huh? You had to come up with something that would piss me off, and it was digging up the 'hot' comments, making it out like I was saying that I thought she was hot. You guys truly make me sick.

It's not gonna work, wwhat you guys are doing is NOT going to make me stop posting, quite the contrary. In reality it's only inspiring me to post more, dig deeper and figure out truly wth is going on here. I don't think I'm gonna solve the case, I'll leave that to LE, but maybe I can figure out wth is going on on this forum and why you people have made it your lifes work to be trolls on this thread. It's sickening that people like you exist, it really is.

findmaura wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins,
IMHO your above post holds great merit...Worth thinking about.
As for the current bashing your being subjected to,this is what the trolls do to avert,to push posters out..As for the teminology "Hot",I see it as a more modern,hip term..My Friggen husband says it..Its not derogatory or particularly sexist,their just old...Just a way to beat you down...Why are they here?Whats their true agenda?

Thanks FM, and I agree, it's just a way to they used to try to piss me off, get me off topic, They know that I never said that I think she's hot, I would never say that about a girl who I believe was murdered, that's just sick. They were pissed because all week I was staying on topic and not arguing with them and they were looking for something that would piss me off, and they found it; they knew I would fight back against that one. They did not like that I was proving the SBD lied about that night or that I was presenting a convincing argument that she was most likely abducted, they needed something to get me off topic.

In reality, I am glad they dug up that old post bc it bring up a really good point, McKay and Floyd. Personally I feel like Floyd is a much more vviable POI in this case, he lived VERY close to the area, he lived on one of the dirt rds up where 112 meets 116, and he had a scanner that he listened to often. We know this bc he often would show up as unofficial 'backup' for Mckay; which is totally illegal but they didn't care. They also harrassed women, I personally know a young girl from Franconia, who is hot, who was sexually harrassed by these bastards, really bad. She was genuinely scared. Just makes me think what these guys might have done to a girl that they knew was all alone and people were already looking for.

IMHO Floyd is a viable suspect for being the CRV killer. He fits the proffile exactly and is a sick bastard. Just moments after killing Liko he ttold liko's friend who was there that he was lucky he was alive bc he has killed 40 people. IDK but right after you just killed someone does not seem like the time to lie, he just killed someone right in front of this kid, there's no need to brag to show his bravado....So who are these 40 people he killed? He said something about vietnam but he is too young to have servedd, so who was he talking about.
It looks like the NHSP also believe he is a potential suspect to be the CRVK as evidenced by the fact that they dug up his yard. You don't dig up someone's yard unless you are looking for evidence of murder, ar least I can't think of any other reason to do that. The scary thing is that they must not only think that, but they must have something more than just suspicion bc they were able to obtain a search warrant to dig up his yard, so not only they think that they also were able to get a judge to agree and give them a warrant. But we know that the CRVK left his victims in wooded areas around the n country, so it's unlikely any evidence would be found on his property.

To this day nobody has ever shown anything that eliminates GF or BM as potential suspects, their best argument is 'that's crazy' lol, that's not an argument, that's just stupidity
Could this guy be the killer? It's possible. Could he be responsible for Maura's dissapearance? Also possible
Either way, Floyd is a very scary individual to say the least.

findmaura wrote:

I find it rather curious that its always mentioned that "Maura took her backpack"...Did someone see her with it the evening of Feb. 9th?I cant understand why everyones so certain of this..Like there are other witnesses..It always stated with such certainty.

That is an intersting point FM,,, how can they say it with such certainty.

I was always under the impression that they had a good idea of wha she took with her to NH for her trip,, and they knew that she took her backpack with her on the trip. SInce the backpack was not found in the car they were able to extrapolate that she must've took it with her when she left the car, which would make sense. She was leaving her car for the night at least, she would've had to have brought some stuff with her for the night at least.

I think it's pretty clear this is what she was doing when she was going back and forth between her trunk and the car and when the witness saw a flurry of activity at the trunk, she was getting her stuff together for the night, putting things that she would need for the night into her backpack so she would have them when she left the car. I dont see what else she could'vve been doing. Strangely the 'citigirl' said I was wrong about that, which I find odd. WTH else could she have been doing besides getting her stuff together?

But since her backpack wasn't found in the car, and they knew she took it with her on the trip it makes sense that tthey can state with a fairly high certainty that she took her backpack with her whe she left the car, where else could the backpack have gone if she didn't take it.
It does beg the question: did any witness actuallly see her take the backpack or are they just assuming it? Since there are no witnesses that we are aware of who actually saw her walk away from the car i think they just assumed she took it since it wasn't there, which seems like a pretty logical conclusion imo.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Am I going to have to go dig up the quotes and prove that SBD lied about the events of that night to the public? I did this last year and will do it again if I have to to prove my point, but I can assure you that he definitely lied. He told AT LEAST 3 different versions of events, at least, maybe even 4 or 5.
This isn't the media cutting up his interviews, or misquoting him, although maybe they misquoted a few things, his stories were completely different to different members of the media, far too different to be attributed to bad reporting.
If someone says one versions of events where he is out of the bus and another version where he never got out of the bus, you would say that person must be lying in one of those versions, correct?
If he also tells one version where Maura is in her car and another where she is out of the car, then one version must be a lie correct?
He even told one version where he said that he couldn't really see her face because her face was hidden behind the airbag, which apparently he didn't know is impossile bc an airbag deflates within seconds of inflating. So thqt right there is a LIE, a definite lie. Even if he was there to witness the crash her face still couldn't have been hidden behind the airbag. Why he would choose to make up something like that is anyone's guess but was no question a lie.
So make no mistake, he told MULTIPLE versions of events to the public, there is no question about that. I don't think I, or anybody, should just outright call him a liar bc he lied about that night, but he definetely did lie.
SC- have you ever gone back and actually read SBD's multiple interviews with reporters? Read them, watch them, they are very interesting.
My question isn't whether or not he lied, he certainly did, I wonder what he told LE and whether or not he told them the truth, and how much what he said to them differs from what he told the public.

As best I remember, the various statements attributed to SBD were in the written media. I would agree with Simply Caustic that if SBD's statements were all made on TV interviews, then it would be clear that they could not all be true, but to the best of my knowledge his statements were reported in print. There may have been one that was televised. Statements reported in print media are often incomplete and that alone can lead to confusion about versions, never mind that a reporter's recall can be problematic.

Can you point to all SBD's statements having been televised? Because I'm not going to accept your say-so that the SBD lied.

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm always open to all plausible explanations (Agree, date-rape plant is a bit of stretch.) I think Maura put the rag in the tailpipe with the perception that it would prevent young buck joyriders from taking the Saturn whilst she was away for a few hours. I also believe the red truck was unknown to her and on the prowl.

I agree that the red truck was unknown to her and on the prowll but as for the rag, why would she put it there to stop joyriders? As far as she knew the car wasn't driveable, which is why she left the car. If she thought someone could take it for a joyride ten she coul've just drove it away herself. here was no need for her to stay at the accident scene.
I don't think she had any idea the rag was in her tailpipe personally, I think there's a good chance someone put it there to ddisable her car, possibly the guy in the red truck. There is evidence indicating that he car stalled before the corner, causing her to crash. We also have this red triuck prowling the area looking for someone on foor, someone they must not have known very well as evidenced by the fact that they had to wait for RO to come under the streetlight to identify her. They then drove off towards the accident scene and woud've found Maura either walking around her car or walking down the rd. I think they found her walking down the rd about 100yds away from her car and offered her a ride.
She thought the car was undriveable but once Fred and Billy arrived at lavoies the car started right up, without the rag in the tailpipe. That to me says something, that he car MAY have been sabatogeed. Perhaps the guy in the red truck saw her, maybe was even following her for a while as she drove up 91. She was on the rd for a long time and a long way from home, to the wrong person she might have looke very vulnerable.
I know Fred said that the rag came from her emergency kit in the trunk but he also has said a lot of things that turned out to be untrue. Did he actually go through the trunk and know that the rag wasn't there anymore or was that his knee-jerk reactions to hearing that? The first thing that I would think would've come to his mind when hearing that was suicide and I think that's why he made up that ridiculous excuse about telling her to put it there to keep the car from smoking. There's just no way any father would tell their daughter to do that, that's the worst advice I've ever heard in my life.
Besides, it sounds like it was a standard shop rag,, the kind that would be foun in anybody's garage.
A rag can be used to disable a car, 2 different mechanics interviewed said on the record that a rag could be a GOOD way to disable a car.

I think the rag MIGHT be the overlooked piece of evidence that has been written off for far too long, especially considering the red truck that seemed to be on the prowl and specifically looking for someone either walking or brokedown on the side of the road. I find it interesting that everyone on here comes up with all these silly explanations for the rag when there is a loical explanation staring us right in the face.

The fact is that a rag can disable a car, tthere's evidence her car did stall out, there was a weird red truck prowling the area and now she's been missing for 9 years. I just find it hard to believe that is a coincidence.

jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all its BOLD face lie, not ballld faced lie, lol.
Second of all your lack of understandig/compassion is uunbelievable to me. That people like you exist in the wold is truly sad to me.
But you're right, a protection dog can't be registered as a service dog.
Our German shepherd Hunter is registered with the National Service dog registry as a therapy dog/companion dog, which in reality a dog needs no special training to be registered as. After almost being ABDUCTED several years ago she developed PTSD which basically turned into severe anxiety, and getting our GSD has done wonders for her state of mind. WAYYYYY more than any therapist or pill can do.
Now just because a dog is a registered therapy dog does NOT mean it can't ALSO be a trained protection dog, get your facts straight before you talk out your ass, but you don't care about that because you're a weirdo and a liar.
Dogs, particularl GSD's cn be trained to do MANY things, I'm currenty also training him to be a tracking dog but that's just for fun bc he's so smart.
This dog is the nicest dog in the world, he's a little snuggle hound and he's soo cute. Great around kids, great around everyone and unless someone tried to grab his owner or if she give him the special attack command, which is in german btw, he is absolutely docile and friendly. His favorite thing to do is play stick lol. I paid thousands of dollars and we took him to months of specialized training to make him a real protection dog. But theoretically he's never going to need to use his training. It's more of a deterent IMO, and something to give her peace of mind, which he really really does. Having him with her makes her MUCH more calm and relaxed, it's done wonders for her anxiety.
Anyone who hurts women is a true coward, they're looking for a woman who's an easy target, just like Maura was that night all by herself. I would bet anything that if she had a GSD with her, trained or not, a predator would've just movved along. No one is going to try to abduct a girl who's walking with a German Shepherd, that's NOT an easy target.
So before you start typing and make yourself look like an idiot, get your facts straight. Therapy dogs and protection dogs are 2 different things but there is nothing that says they can't do both, GSD's are VERY smart and can do LOTS of things.
And btw, we live in a beautiful neighborhood that is certainly safe. Are you trying to imply that bc this girl has a therapy dog that's also trained in protection that the neighborhood is now unsafe? That bc she carries pepper spray it's unsafe??? WTH are you talking about? Our house is in the hills outside of Amherst, a VERY safe area and a beautiful place to live and obvously much saffer than your neighborhood, at least nobody has ever been ABDUCTED from my neighborhood! you can't say that about yours wowzer.
You're a real piece of work, you have no idea what you're talkin aboutt, your ignorance is staggering.

Exactly where did Wowzer exhibit "lack of understandig/compassion" (your term) in her information about protection dogs not being registered as service dogs? You go on to tell us how your girlfriend needs the dog as a therapy dog ... but you didn't tell us that in your initial post about your girlfriend's dog, you indicated she had the dog for protection which doesn't translate automatically to being a situation that requires the reader to sense a need for "understanding/compassion ".

While I'm at it, knowing as many combat veterans as I do, it always rather tickles my funnybone how many people claim to have PTSD over things that didn't actually happen.

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
As best I remember, the various statements attributed to SBD were in the written media. I would agree with Simply Caustic that if SBD's statements were all made on TV interviews, then it would be clear that they could not all be true, but to the best of my knowledge his statements were reported in print. There may have been one that was televised. Statements reported in print media are often incomplete and that alone can lead to confusion about versions, never mind that a reporter's recall can be problematic.
Can you point to all SBD's statements having been televised? Because I'm not going to accept your say-so that the SBD lied.

Have you ever actually read his statements? Youre right that most of his interviews were in print, but we aren't talkng about them missquoting him.

If I have to, I will dig up his various stories tomorrow and post them to prove that he definitely lied.
If there were just a few minor difference then I would attrribute that to misqutoes or bad reporting or whatevner, but when major things are different in different interviews, then that means his story changed.
His story completley changed at least 3 different times.
In one version he never got out of his bus, in another he did get out of his bus.
In one version she was in her car, in another she was in her car.
He even told one where he said that he couldn't really see her face bc it was hidden by the airbag, which is physically impossible.

Make no mistake, he DEFINITELY told AT LEAST 3 different versions of what happened, VERY different versions. He LIED about the events of that night, no question about it.
I went through this last year and dug up his interviews to prove that he was lying but it seems everyone forgot. If I need to do that again I will because he DEFINITELY lied about what happened that night.
I agrree that I shouldn'tt have called him an outrigh liar, maybe he was an honest guy he just lied to the public about that night for some reason, and maybe he had a good reason. So maybe he wasn't a liar, but he definetly did lie.

Are you telling me I'm going to have to dig up the quotes and once again prove that he lied, telling at least 3 competely different versions of events? this isn't bad reporting, or misquotes, this is 3 completely different versions of events, that means at least 2 of them were lies,, but probably all 3 If that's what you're saying then I will do it tomorrow, I'm going to sleep now, but if I have to do iit tomorrow I will.
I think it's important for it to be clear that he did in fact lie about that night, because that begs the question of why did he lie.
There's no question he lied, but why?

Ridiculous wrote:

Snowy,
On a side note concerning your question to me about my wife's knowledge of my posting here and my response to said question; I am to inform you that I stretched the truth a bit concerning her. She indeed is no inexperienced prude as I may have implied, but a mature woman with plenty of romantic experience. She has been aware of my endowment, or, as she kindly puts it, lack thereof from the get go. She further states that she made the decision to accept this particular fact about me and adjust herself to a lifetime of inadequate performance based on my ability to provide for her and the kids. She further states that although I am allowed to run through this thread with wild abandon, I am kept on a very short leash here at home and it would behoove me, in my standing as fifth in command here, directly after the cat and children but with complete power over the Guinea pig, to clear the air concerning her stated innocence and prudishness. I hope for my sake and that of Baby, the afore mentioned rodent, that this post will appease her majesties anger...!

i accuse you only of the appearance of having a traditional marriage; that your wife is quite likely aware of your versatile wit and cleverly written jostling; whereas our good weekend buddy tends to stumble and slosh through his posts in an embarrassing manner. perhaps his better half would wonder why he identifies himself and then alternately masquerades as a woman.

Wow, just Wow,What else can be said for Bob's prodigious output last night? Bat signals and facts and documentation be damned, his comment concerning Maura's hotness was taken right out of context by the trolls. Especially the one concerning the party in Goshen. He was speaking theoretically. Anyone that actually read the post could tell that.
Now we've done it; He will not only up his output, but do so in the dead of night.
He is now on this new, strange tangent wherein he believes anyone who has shifted over from support of his increasingly abusive and bizarre posts is a troll stealing Monikers...! How does one profess a strong desire to protect woman and a healthy respect for them turn around swear at them and call them bitches in the same post and still believe he has any credibility here? He will not be denied and he will put more effort into getting to the bottom of the Troll agenda...Oh sweet Jesus!

Ridiculous wrote:

Wow, just Wow,What else can be said for Bob's prodigious output last night? Bat signals and facts and documentation be damned, his comment concerning Maura's hotness was taken right out of context by the trolls. Especially the one concerning the party in Goshen. He was speaking theoretically. Anyone that actually read the post could tell that.
Now we've done it; He will not only up his output, but do so in the dead of night.
He is now on this new, strange tangent wherein he believes anyone who has shifted over from support of his increasingly abusive and bizarre posts is a troll stealing Monikers...! How does one profess a strong desire to protect woman and a healthy respect for them turn around swear at them and call them bitches in the same post and still believe he has any credibility here? He will not be denied and he will put more effort into getting to the bottom of the Troll agenda...Oh sweet Jesus!

X6 by my iphone screen before anyone could get a word in edgewise.

In the beginning, Fred was tracking a trail of boot prints, not far from the Haverhill scene, he felt resembled Maura's size 8E.

Fred and CS must have discussed the one set of footprints leading away from the car. Or at best Fred saw them the morning he arrived at the Weathered Barn.

Army boots do not have a commercial sole on them, they are a specific brand.

Very busy jenkins........

mcsmom wrote:

In the beginning, Fred was tracking a trail of boot prints, not far from the Haverhill scene, he felt resembled Maura's size 8E.
Fred and CS must have discussed the one set of footprints leading away from the car. Or at best Fred saw them the morning he arrived at the Weathered Barn.
Army boots do not have a commercial sole on them, they are a specific brand.

am i misreading M's shoe / boot size as 8 "E"?
i didn't know women's shoe widths are so designated....especially as she appears to be slender.