Excuse me what was that about lying to myself, a point was made to bad you took it the wrong way!

But of course when your dealing with the paranormal believers everyone else is always wrong in their

eyes!

Now lets see if I got your comment correct Donna was trying to avoid going to JAIL...really! Just curious

what the criminal charge would have been on that one? There are only to ways to go to Jail on a civil matter

1. Contempt of court 2. Perjury but only by 2 witness's that can contradict your testimony but if you can

counter their testimony perjury would never stand! Yes thats right unlike the paranormal in a court of law

you do have to have proof because bells and whistles doesn't work!

Tiger, blanket labeling paranormal believers is just showing your close-mindedness.

If your plans are to just be a troll on this forum and attack our members, your membership will be short-lived.

No, there was no attempt to hide anything. I just see don't see the point in having countless threads about the same drama.

Lie to yourself all you want, but Donna herself said she wanted to avoid going to jail. Now, why would she say that?

Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am also within my rights to point it out when someone is wrong.

Edit: Also, seeing as this is our forum, we are within our rights to run it as we see fit.

Excuse me what was that about lying to myself, a point was made to bad you took it the wrong way!

But of course when your dealing with the paranormal believers everyone else is always wrong in their

eyes!

Now lets see if I got your comment correct Donna was trying to avoid going to JAIL...really! Just curious

what the criminal charge would have been on that one? There are only to ways to go to Jail on a civil matter

1. Contempt of court 2. Perjury but only by 2 witness's that can contradict your testimony but if you can

counter their testimony perjury would never stand! Yes thats right unlike the paranormal in a court of law

you do have to have proof because bells and whistles doesn't work!

Or was this your attempt to hide this, just another look at why this happened

since it could be seen has both ways, depending on your veiw!

No, there was no attempt to hide anything. I just see don't see the point in having countless threads about the same drama.

Lie to yourself all you want, but Donna herself said she wanted to avoid going to jail. Now, why would she say that?

Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am also within my rights to point it out when someone is wrong.

Edit: Also, seeing as this is our forum, we are within our rights to run it as we see fit.

Well then your making a claim that is untrue since all anyone ever did was simply replay the audio and what

she had said!

You claimed that she could have been sued and I know better and I gave you the reasons why it

wouldn't have happened feel free to reveiw!

Huh? /huh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

Or was this your attempt to hide this, just another look at why this happened

since it could be seen has both ways, depending on your veiw!

There are many ways of looking at things, everyone is different.

Sithy has been nothing BUT fair here!

Threads were merged, nothing else!

Or was this your attempt to hide this, just another look at why this happened

since it could be seen has both ways, depending on your veiw!

Are you serious?

If we wanted to hide anything we would have deleted your posts. /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

I merged the two threads. I saw no reason to have two threads discussing the same issue.

Or was this your attempt to hide this, just another look at why this happened

since it could be seen has both ways, depending on your veiw!

I know a guy who knows a guy.....gimme a break.

Sorry your jealous of my contacts!

Unlike much of what you've written above, I don't make assumptions and come to "obvious" conclusions without proof. I've seen innocent people go to jail based upon "obvious conclusions."

You said: "Just by playing Donna's interview that put an untrue spin on what she said."

No, the spin had nothing to do with simply "playing" the interview. The untrue spin came when others said Donna accused TAPS of staging/faking. She did not say that. If you believe she said that, I'd suggest you listen to the GD interview again.

Believe me, I have thought it through. I have analyzed the situation. I even went to the task of transcribing Donna's portion of the GD interview and looking at what she said there and what she said here and on the other site you mentioned. She did not say TAPS faked evidence in the GD interview.

Your friend at the exec's office gave you information that you have taken and then made conclusions based on supposition.

Also, your end statement is inaccurate:

You said to me: "You seem to believe they would have sued her even if it meant ruining the show forever and costing them millions, well your very wrong!"

First, please point out where I said I "believe they would have sued her even if it meant ruining the show forever and costing them millions."

I did not say that. What I said was: "Sure there could have been a lawsuit. I don't understand why you think it was not even a possibility."

The law suit could have been based on slander and/or violation of a nondisclosure agreement.

Well then your making a claim that is untrue since all anyone ever did was simply replay the audio and what

she had said!

You claimed that she could have been sued and I know better and I gave you the reasons why it

wouldn't have happened feel free to reveiw!

What would have been at issue in a court of law was whether or not she broke a contract that she had signed, not whether Ghosthunters is faking evidence. I don't think that a judge would have allowed anything that was presented that had nothing to do with the case at hand. So, since the lawsuit would have been whether Donna violated the Nondisclosure Agreement she had signed, then anything presented that had nothing to do with the case (TAPS fakes stuff) would have been thrown out. Plus, Donna said she did not have any actual proof of shenanigans on Pilgrims part.

I agree with MysticalKnight. What Donna said was spun by TAPS naysayers to fit their own agenda, she never accused TAPS themselves of faking evidence, of staging evidence, or anything like that. She alluded to Pilgrim being somehow responsible, but never came out and said it. I can only go on what I have personally heard or read. So, unless you can provide proof to back up what you are saying, you need to realize that I can only take it as your personal opinion, and nothing more.

Wrong they would have had to establish that in the court and there was only one way to do it!

They would have had to prove that they were harmed and how she had harmed them!

By the way you can check into what she said on You Tube yourself it's a Movie Dan video she commented on

so feel free!

I merged the two threads. I saw no reason to have two threads discussing the same issue.

Good thinking there Sith.

This subject has been debated in depth on PUG. Here's a handy link for you: Donna Thread

My opinion on the whole issue can be found there. No need for me to get into it all over again.

So by just playing Donna's interveiw that put an untrue spin on what she said...really funny I would have

called that honesty!

No I don't work for SYFY or Pilgrim but I do know someone who works for SYFY and the fact that neither

recognized nor issued any statements about it are pretty telling also! The only one Donna spoke with was

Jason and at no time did Donna talk to Pilgrim or SYFY, so you don't need to be a genius to figure this one out!

And yes Donna was on You Tube claiming she never said half of what she did say and then telling people

they need to take down their videos! I read her posts myself and what she said on here was not the same has

what she said on You Tube!

There never would have been a lawsuit!

1. That would have lent credibility to what Donna had said in the interveiw and what the debunkers have been

saying all along!

2. At the time of the her interveiw alot of GH fans was blowing it off has her being a disgrunteled employee, so

why would SYFY or pilgrim change that!

3. A lawsuit would have put it all in a courtroom where other witness's would have testified under oath and

under penalty of perjury! Everything would have come out and would have become public record, then you

would have had the real smoking gun! You seem to believe they would have sued her even if it meant ruining

the show forever and costing them millions, well your very wrong! The publicity would have went national news

once they sued her and has it stood without the lawsuit it wasn't even news worthy!

Your not thinking this one through although it's obvious!

Unlike much of what you've written above, I don't make assumptions and come to "obvious" conclusions without proof. I've seen innocent people go to jail based upon "obvious conclusions."

You said: "Just by playing Donna's interview that put an untrue spin on what she said."

No, the spin had nothing to do with simply "playing" the interview. The untrue spin came when others said Donna accused TAPS of staging/faking. She did not say that. If you believe she said that, I'd suggest you listen to the GD interview again.

Believe me, I have thought it through. I have analyzed the situation. I even went to the task of transcribing Donna's portion of the GD interview and looking at what she said there and what she said here and on the other site you mentioned. She did not say TAPS faked evidence in the GD interview.

Your friend at the exec's office gave you information that you have taken and then made conclusions based on supposition.

Also, your end statement is inaccurate:

You said to me: "You seem to believe they would have sued her even if it meant ruining the show forever and costing them millions, well your very wrong!"

First, please point out where I said I "believe they would have sued her even if it meant ruining the show forever and costing them millions."

I did not say that. What I said was: "Sure there could have been a lawsuit. I don't understand why you think it was not even a possibility."

The law suit could have been based on slander and/or violation of a nondisclosure agreement.