On 18 Maj, 07:00, aeffects <aeffect...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 17, 5:12 am, timst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Say, the following from Benny's reply caught my eye:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > But should I begin debating with trolls, they'll do what they've
> > always done...
> > lie and run away. =A0It takes very little intelligence to see that...
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > LOL! How deluded is this Benny Holmes fella? He's only been running
> > for two months solid from any discussion of the specific flaws in his
> > *Yellow Pants* equals Z film alteration theory.
>
> he you ever get in touch with Sammy Brown, the freelance writer, I
> also know she's just down the street from ya? Don't go holding your
> breath waiting for BH, you don't rate troll, never were on the
> scoreboard.... your postings are DOA, pukster.... But I do love
> kicking you around.... please stay!
Tim was just saying aloud what (at least) 80-90% of the lurkers are
thinking to themselves.
Are the lurkers also "skanks" and "pukesters"?
> > It's quite astoni****ng behaviour for a guy who publicly takes others
> > to task in the most vicious manner when he thinks he is right or can
> > get away with it.
>
> > This guy is a total hypocrite and fraud.
>
> > Concerned Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > On May 16, 5:03 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > In article
<31225c05-8e04-4fb4-a62d-f1410acb0...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > aeffects says...
>
> > > >On May 15, 2:33 am, much...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > >> On 15 Maj, 03:24, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >>> In article
> > >
>><c5bfd7a4-5934-4982-9de6-e41b62bfd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,=
> > > >> > aeffects says...
>
> > > >> > >On May 14, 6:49 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >>> >>Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those
who=
try to
> > > >>defend
> > > >> > >> the Warren Commission Re****t. In the past, there have been
onl=
y two
> > > >>> >>semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and
o=
ne by 'Bud'
> > > >>(the
> > > >>> >>troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of
t=
he facts in
> > > >>most
> > > >> > >> of the 'answers'.
>
> > > >> > >> But first, an im****tant note:
>
> > > >> > >>
**************************************************************=
********
> > > >> > >> Im****tant Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this
for=
um who's
> > > >> > >> only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and
att=
empt to
> > > >> > >> change message threads from discussing the evidence, to
person=
al insults
> > > >> > >> and attacks.
>
> > > >> > >> These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>
> > > >> > >> Baldoni
> > > >> > >> Bigdog
> > > >> > >> Bill
> > > >> > >> Brokedad
> > > >> > >> Bud
> > > >> > >> Burlyguard
> > > >> > >> Cdddraftsman
> > > >> > >> Chuck Schuyler
> > > >> > >> Chu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> > >> Curious
> > > >> > >> David Von Pein
> > > >> > >> Ed Dolan *
> > > >> > >> Justme1952
> > > >> > >> Martybaugh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> > >> Miss Rita
> > > >> > >> much...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> > >> much...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> > >> Sam Brown
> > > >> > >> Spiffy_one
> > > >> > >> Timst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> > >> Todd W. Vaughan
> > > >> > >> YoHarvey
>
> > > >>> >> Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they
w=
ill simply
> > > >> > >> deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've
provided =
before, or
> > > >>> >> simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material
fo=
r the kill
> > > >> > >> files.
>
> > > >>> >> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be
killf=
iled, but
> > > >>he's
> > > >> > >> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is
a=
plus.
> > > >> > >>
**************************************************************=
********
>
> > > >>> >> 30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the
Aut=
opsy Re****t
> > > >> > >> contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Re****t stated that
the =
wound
> > > >> > >> extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and
scalp.=
... this
> > > >> > >> simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been
ab=
le to
> > > >> > >> point to *any* part of the Occipital that cannot be seen in
th=
e BOH
> > > >>> >> photo - yet the autopsy re****t, *all* prosectors, and over 40
e=
yewitnesses
> > > >> > >> place a large wound here that was devoid of bone and scalp.
>
> > > >> > >scarcely a mouse-peep, Lone Nut suckers are really ducking for
c=
over
> > > >> > >the past few day's
>
> > > >> > It's gotta be embarrassing for them... knowing that only lies
can=
keep 'em
> > > >> > afloat.
>
> > > >>> I've finally gotten around to the Mark Fuhrman book - and it's
dow=
nright funny
> > > >>> to see all the spin and lies the guy is putting out. =A0Perhaps
if=
I get the
> > > >>time,
> > > >> > I'll put a few of his better whoppers in a post for people to
rea=
d about.
>
> > > >> I suggest you deal with your own whoppers first, Ben.
>
> > > Running from the evidence won't convince anyone... if you can't deal
w=
ith the
> > > evidence, then the 80-90% in the polls will rise even further...
>
> > > >> You have argued that the presence of a *Lady in Yellow Pants* is
pr=
oof
> > > >> that the Nix and Zapruder films have been altered, haven't you?
You=
> > > >> have also been avoiding discussion of your theory, or admitting
you=
r
> > > >> mistake, for a couple of months now.
>
> > > Actually, there are those who seem to want to reopen it... but none
of=
them are
> > > LNT'ers... they're all trolls.
>
> > > You have *YOUR* op****tunity to defend the authenticity of the extant
Z=
-film, and
> > > you run from it.
>
> > > >> Had another poster made a blooper of that magnitude, you would
have=
> > > >> been all over him like a cheap suit, demanding a retraction
-within=
a
> > > >> 'reasonable' amount of time, of course. Then, within a day or so,
y=
ou
> > > >> would have started multiple threads, attacking the other poster,
wi=
th
> > > >> words like "liar" and "fool" in the header.
>
> > > By all means... do whatever you feel compelled to do.
>
> > > >> Fortunately for you, the posters who debunked your *Lady in
Yellow
> > > >> Pants* theory are decent folks who wouldn't dream of resorting to
s=
uch
> > > >> dirty tricks,
>
> > > ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> > > When you have to lie, all you've proven is that you're a liar, eh?
>
> > > >> and, although there are limits to their patience,
> > > >> they're perfectly willing to give you a year or so to fess up to
th=
e
> > > >> fact that you goofed up real bad. But why not bite the bullet
soone=
r
> > > >> rather than later, Ben?
>
> > > >> -Mark
>
> > > >ya need to focus son, the question #30.... gird those loins (you do
> > > >have some, eh?) and all that stuff. Hiding won't do! Simply shows
the=
> > > >coward in you..... Carry on Munchless... you graduate this year or
do=
> > > >we have a few more semesters with you, a simple minded idjit?
>
> > > Yeah... the trolls simply have nothing to say. =A0They lied about
the =
number of
> > > people visible in a particular frame - but they think they have me
"on=
the run"
> > > because the only kooks who want to debate are trolls.
>
> > > But should I begin debating with trolls, they'll do what they've
alway=
s done...
> > > lie and run away. =A0It takes very little intelligence to see
that...
|
