try to wriggle out of their meaning. You tell us to go and do some research
because..( the inference is that John somehow got it all wrong)....then you
explain how it was. I explained how it wasn't.
1.You postulate that he was arbitrarily kicked off. We were told that he was
cheating.
2. You say he was accused of cheating under circumstances that subsequent
evidence never supported. What evidence? They said he was cheating.Period.
You never had any evidence so your statement means what?.
3. ..And please explain what evidence this was that proved he was
"arbitrarily" kicked off of TEN? Do you have this evidence? No, you couldn't
have!
4. So you go on to infer that Papy's "excuse" to dump him was cheating. If
it wasn't produce the evidence you reference.
You can't. You don't have it. I never saw anything but what Papy said and
what I observed on Hawaii and the RAS at the time and that was that he was
cheating by admission and commission.
Yep, I probably spent more time on the TEN ng than driving. I drove in
some leagues. I am an also ran. But I aint bad for a guy who hasn't driven a
race car in his life.
I have been called a stirrer. I have subjects I'll speak out about. But
I don't post very much and I certainly don't pretend to have done what I
haven't.
Huggins doesn't bother me. That was a long time ago.
"If you are talking about Robert Huggins, then I think you better go do
some
deep research of the issues.....because he was "accused" of cheating under
circumstances that subsequent evidence never supported. At the time,
there's enough evidence that he was arbitrarily "kicked off TEN" by Papyrus
for not so noble reasons.....the excuse was that he was cheating. Nothing
was ever proven. I believe Robert's "response" was something along the
lines of "yes, I was cheating online.....but I was hired by Papyrus to do
that in order to prove to them the flaws in their online coding for NASCAR
3"