That gets to the first email screenshot, and for the images, click on any to enlarge and read. This is the one to me from Tanner Curl, July 1:
After learning of my mistake, June 30, I posted the fact I had erred, here. Given that any contribution below five dollars is a net loss, my suggestion that a twenty-three cent donation would show what someone thought the candidacy and candidate was worth would cause the campaign a loss. Tanner Curl pointed that out.
I apologize for not posting his message sooner. It got caught in the webmail account's spam trap, and I only rescued it and put it into the inbox today.
Second email, today, July 11, from me, to test whether a particular webmail account is still alive. I have not gotten any "undeliverable" bounceback error message. The account must still be in use. I am looking forward to having my email acknowledged by the account holder(s). It would even be, well, courteous, if the account holder(s) identified himself/herself/themselves in replying.
Next the list:
That "list" is actually only a screenshot capture of a segment of a much lengthier original listing, here.
Finally the question, already posed in an earlier post, here.
Why, exactly, has Elwyn Tinklenberg told those working on his campaign to not get into posting comments on blogs?
I believe there are a piece or two more of the puzzle, but I bet even without my posting detail about them now, there are a few who already know an answer.
I believe a registered lobbyist would have known better than to inadvertently sabotage a campaign of a scrupulously clean and wholly upright and honest candidate via a dirty trick in October, unless the lobbyist intended the result of generating adverse reactions, damaging to that campaign.
And who, besides the obvious answer, an opposing candidate in the immediate time frame of the dirty trick would stand to benefit from a campaign suffering "October surprise" damage, possibly suffering a defeat (snatched from the jaws of victory) via such dirty trickstering in a situation where, but for the damage, an incumbency situation of a different kind might exist today?
So far, there are more questions than answers. That probably is one of the consistent truths of life - always more questions than answers.
It would be a courtesy to me, if the holder(s) of that one apparently still active avalanchz@aol.com webmail account would, in responding to me, give me his/her/their best guess answering to some of the questions. If that happens, or if not, I may post more on the issue.
It also would be nice if Brian Melendez and others, as busy in DFL leadership as they are, would consider the questions, possible answers, and implications arising from possible answers. It is all - interesting.
And - it would be nice if the press took up such questions in the course of doing investigative reporting. Or if the blogsphere did so in the course of doing investigative or even partisan blogging.
_______UPDATE________
Errors are so easy to make, and I made another one. In doing a final link check on the posted item, this item, I noticed that the email address in that Bachmann v Wetterling list I linked to and did the screenshot - it was avalanchz@hotmail.com and not avalanchz@aol.com so I forwarded the one email from the "sent mail" box to that second correct address, avalanchz@hotmail.com
If you get it wrong, you get it right next time. Or try to.
Sorry for that error.
______FURTHER UPDATE_______
Whether barking up the wrong tree or not, I shall leave the trees be. I am satisfied with some email correspondence suggesting I do so. Closed book, Tanner, et al.