Bob wrote:

> Jim pretended to worthiness:
>
>
>>Now, got any first hand, irrefutable proof of your bs? Then put it up or
>>conduct yourself like a child, best seen and not heard from.
>
>
> Don't you find the news articles proof enough? Do you believe the Sacramento
> Bee fabricated the story about the guy who coughed into the cops' food?
>
> Are you just too lazy or stupid to do your own research? It's really not
> difficult, once you learn how to use a search engine. Maybe you can get a
> grown-up to help you.
>
> What, in your retarded mind, would constitute "first hand, irrefutable
> proof"? After all, if it's first-hand, then I would have gotten phlegm put
> into my own food. But how would that be "irrefutable" to you?
>
> Never mind, you're just a dumb****. *plonk*
>
> Bob
>
>

Another follow-up: searched the Sacramento Bee for Rubio's and only one
item popped up and that was a 9-11 death notice of people who died on
board the different aircraft.

Here's the search URL (tinyurl) to the results of my search for Rubio's
in the Sac Bee:

http://tinyurl.com/4nt88

There appears to be no other mention of Rubio's in the paper.

A search on coughing +food yielded three results, none dealing with
restaurants.

Cough +food yielded eight non-relevant sources.

Spit +food yielded nine non-relevant hits.

Spitting =food yielded two non hits.

There are 240 hits using police +food. I haven't had time to sort
through all of them, but neither cough(ing) or spit(ting) shows up with
police in a food relevant story.

So, search guru, put the url he __________________________

So the question is, whether or not the OP is jerking everyone off by
trying to tie some other incident to Rubio's, saying that because it
happened there, it has to happen in Rubio's.

What a crock.


jim