In article
<0204a675-1424-4da9-a8a5-777898f6e987@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
curtjester1 says...
>
>On May 15, 2:12=A0pm, "justme1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <justme1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>> On May 15, 4:40=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article
<94cb0a61-b3b6-4df5-8bf6-300272e44...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>s.com>,
>> > robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>> > >The sun comes up and Ben Holmes lies!
>>
>> > And yet, while I've quoted several provable lies from you - you can't
se=
>em to do
>> > the same thing for any such "lie" on my part. =A0Why is that, Rob?
>>
>> > Interesting to note - Rob takes a page from the LNT'er camp, and
begins
>> > top-posting... which, of course, is an excellent way to avoid the
points=
> made in
>> > the post.
>>
>> > >Ben is a moron who thinks
>> > >pencils and bullets are the same,
>>
>> > Sadly, I've never stated any such thing - and I suspect that you just
sh=
>ot
>> > whatever credibility you had - because no-one will believe this.
=A0Just=
> as no-one
>> > will believe that I *EVER* even considered, for even a moment, that a
44=
> grain
>> > and/or 21 grain fragment came out of CE399.
>>
>> > Yet you *know* that you made such an assertion... and you refuse to
retr=
>act it.
>> > Why is that, Rob? =A0Do you think that your problems will go away if
onl=
>y I stop
>> > posting?
>>
>> > >and can be tested in the same manner.
>>
>> > Testing was *not* the issue. =A0Your insane belief that if two
fragments=
> of a
>> > single bullet (or pencil, as in my analogy) cannot be *PROVEN* to
have c=
>ome from
>> > the same bullet (or pencil, as in my analogy) then they *MUST* have
come=
> from
>> > two.
>>
>> > In fact, just to eliminate your proposed problem of testing issues...
I'=
>ll take
>> > a 6.5mm bullet... and using a hacksaw - saw a bullet into three
pieces..=
>. put
>> > the middle piece into my pocket without your knowledge... then hand
you =
>the nose
>> > and the tail of the bullet. =A0You will, of course, be unable to
prove t=
>hat the
>> > two pieces are from the same bullet (even the FBI stopped this
nonsensic=
>al NAA
>> > testing procedure a few years back) - and will then proclaim that
they a=
>re from
>> > two different bullets....
>>
>> > Where's the other bullet, Rob?
>>
>> > >He thinks because he knows he starts with a whole pencil that
>> > >is the same has finding two fragments that CANNOT BE LINKED to the
>> > >same source.
>>
>> > The two ends of the pencil that I hand to you CANNOT BE PROVEN TO
HAVE C=
>OME FROM
>> > ONE PENCIL (absent my testimony to that effect). =A0Therefore, you
must =
>proclaim
>> > that I had two pencils... where's the other pencil, Rob?
>>
>> > >Ben has NO understanding of basic science laws and priciples.
>>
>> > Actually, far better than you... you didn't even recognize the
"thought
>> > experiment" that Einstein made so famous...
>>
>> > >He is a coward who calls people child molesters, but then backs off
>> > >and says you called yourself one. =A0Man up!
>>
>> > Quote the statement, Rob... Let's see EXACTLY what the words are...
=A0W=
>ere you a
>> > "man," I wouldn't have to ask you... you'd have already quoted it.
>>
>> > >On May 15, 9:45=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > >> Just a repost of one of many snippets that Rob refuses to respond
to:=
>
>>
>> > >> >Now, you may have taken this
>> > >> >to mean I thought you thought this, but that was not my point.
>>
>> > >> >> And why are you willing to lie about it now? You did *INDEED*
put
>> > >> >> those words in my mouth - so you did indeed say that someone
(me) =
>said
>> > >> >> that the fragments came from CE399 (aka the magic bullet)"
>>
>> > >> >I didn't put words in your mouth Ben, you interpreted it that
way,
>>
>> > >> What part of "He claims..." did you misunderstand?
>>
>> > >> Here... let's play the semantic game... Rob thinks that the 44 &
21 g=
>rain
>> > >> fragments found in the limo *must* be from separate bullets, since
th=
>ere
>> > >> is no proof possible that they are from the same bullet. He claims
th=
>at
>> > >> he's a child molester, but refuses to provide his arrest record.
>>
>> > >> Did you catch that? Need I repeat it?
>>
>> > >> Now... I "didn't put words in your mouth", Rob... I used PRECISELY
th=
>e same
>> > >> sentence construction you did, to wit: "He claims..."
>>
>> > >> So you have nothing to complain about, right?
>>
>> > >> (And evidently, the answer is no - since he's refused to respond
to t=
>his...
>> > >> seems like he knows quite well that he put words in my mouth that
I'd=
> never
>> > >> said... embarrassing for someone who claims to be a "honest man")
>>
>> > Rob is *STILL* avoiding this. =A0It's easier to ignore the obvious
than =
>to offer a
>> > retraction for his lie.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Holmes said:
>>
>> (And evidently, the answer is no - since he's refused to respond to
>> this...
>> seems like he knows quite well that he put words in my mouth that I'd
>> never
>> said... embarrassing for someone who claims to be a "honest man")
>>
>> Now little Benita, wouldn't that be the same type of scenerio that you
>> pull when you change the words of a persons post before you respond to
>> it like =A0you did with Burlys? =A0I'd say Rob learned his little bait
and=
>
>> switch dishonest ways from you.
>>
>> Sooooooooo Robcrap, I told you the tatics Holmes uses, he just can't
>> stand being wrong. The sooner you realize (CT or Not) that Holmes is a
>> dishonest, egotistical waste of time, the better off you will be.
>> Now lets all sit back and wait for the lapdog to come whimpering and
>> growling at everyone for disagreeing with his master.- Hide quoted text
-
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>With all the claptrap from the likes of your ilk, can the CT'ers
>afford another 'cat fight'?
>
>CJ
As Prager says, I prefer clarity to agreement.
|
