On May 19, 7:01=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<16e2ccbc-14c8-4f60-a90c-db29c3f46...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 19, 9:57=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> In article
<f86b34f7-8fe6-4fa5-82e0-587da638c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >com>,
> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> >> >On May 18, 11:10=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> In article
<daeeef70-3925-405e-bc7f-65a289ef7...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >s.c=3D3D
> >> >om>,
> >> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> >> >> >On May 17, 12:32=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >> >> >> In article
<204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d6544...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >rou=3D3D
> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
> >> >> >com>,
> >> >> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> >> >> >> >On May 16, 8:03=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wro=
te:
> >> >> >> >> In article
<4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >leg=3D3D
> >> >rou=3D3D3D
> >> >> >ps.=3D3D3D3D
> >> >> >> >com>,
> >> >> >> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> >> >> >> >> >On May 16, 7:03=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes
<ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wro=3D
> >te:
>
> >> >> >> >> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that
I've =
not=3D
>
> >> >> >> >> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what
I'd =
sai=3D
> >d.
> >> >> >> >> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false
assert=
ion=3D
> > if=3D3D
>
> >> >> >> >> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible
chan=
ce =3D
> >to =3D3D
> >> >do
> >> >> >> >> >the honest and right thing..."
>
> >> >> >"Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context,
Samant=
ha
> >> >> >has not *ONCE* addressed the lie he told."
>
> >> >> >Ben, you NEVER posted the entire quote to show I'm a liar.
>
> >> >"I posted the ENTIRE POST. =3D3DA0It's not possible to fail to quote
t=
he
> >> >particular statement of yours when the entire post has been
reposted."=
>
> >> >You may have, I did not read it all. =3DA0I'm not sure what lead
befor=
e me
> >> >saying ..."so now he claims...." =3DA0as this is starting
mid-sentence=
..
>
> >> >> >"Nor offered a retraction."
>
> >> >> >I did, even though I don't believe I said you claimed the two
> >> >> >fragments were tied to CE399 I apologized anyway. =3D3DA0This is
mo=
re th=3D
> >an
> >> >> >you have done.
>
> >> >"It's rather difficult to accept an apology when you still refuse to
> >> >admit what
> >> >> you stated..."
>
> >> >If I said in full context that you claimed the two fragments came
from=
> >> >CE399, then I apologize for that. If I didn't say this then there is
> >> >no need to apologize. That is whay I'm saying. I am not trying to
> >> >make anyone look bad by claiming things they did not say. You did
not
> >> >post the entire post
>
> >"Yes, I most certainly did. I'll repost it AGAIN today just for your
> >entertainment."
>
> >Just read it and I don't see how you can take the issue of more
> >fragments in JBC's wrist than missing from the CE399, and the WC
> >failing to mention this fact, as proof that I said you claimed the two
> >(or one of the fragments) came from this bullet.
>
"This really isn't rocket science, Rob. =A0Read your statement, you said
I claimed something... tell the lurkers here, and be VERY SPECIFIC...
what is it that I "claimed".
Then quote me doing so."
No it isn't rocket science and you are a laugh riot, in the header of
this thread you are accusing me of being a child molester, and yet I'm
supposed to apologize because you think I said, you said, that one or
two of the fragments could have come from CE399!!! That is not how I
read it, I read it that the bullet was put back into play, nothing
said you said the fragments came from CE399.
> >> >or I could have seen what was said leading up to
> >> >this statement. =3DA0As I have said before, I respond to what was
just=
> >> >said, that is why I put your statements (or anyone's) in quotes so
I'm=
> >> >just wondering what was said before.
>
> >> >"But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it..."
>
> >> >I apologized if I said you claimed that, I don't know what else I
can
> >> >do. =3DA0Just remember, you have not apologized for claiming
something=
way
> >> >worse.
>
> >"Why should I, Rob? You *STILL* can't even admit that you apologized
> >for something YOU DID."
>
> >You read too much into it,
>
""He claims..." is pretty specific. =A0If "he didn't claim..." then you
lied."
Here he goes splicing up my answer again.
"Particularly when what you had me "claiming" was so far out of the
realm of the possible that it could only be ridiculous."
Kinda like this, huh?:
When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could
have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide
the quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, *I'll be happy
to show everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child
molestation."*
So you can prove I claimed to be a child molester, right? You went to
a sick place Ben, so I am reluctant to agree with you. If that is how
you took it, I apologize (I think I have done this already), but you
need to do the same and not be so quick to call others a liar in the
future until it has been proven to be the case.
> >and you should apologize for the simple
> >fact that bringing child molestation to this board is inappropriate
> >for any reason,
>
"Lying about what I said is okay... but having it done to you in
return is not?"
I didnt' write it to be a lie, I am not a liar by nature, you just
assume everyone is. What you thought I lied about is NOT the same as
bringing up child molestation Ben, this is a horrific crime that
destroys the lives of children and only causes them in many cases to
do it to others when they grow up. Why you would even think to go
there is beyond me, but you did. Calling me a liar is enough I think.
> >and other CTers should feel the same way, but everyone
> >is just staying out of it. =A0I don't care if you are a LNer, a CTer or
> >somewhere in the middle,
>
"If you can't figure it out from all the posts I've made, then don't
worry about it. =A0I'm sure lurkers can..."
First of all, there AREN'T THAT MAY LURKERS BEN, get over it, not many
people are hanging on to your words or mine. Secondly, you took what
you thought was a slight and escalated it to a level a normal person
would not think to do in most cases.
> >bringing up the issue of child molestation in
> >whatever fa****on is wrong.
>
"Yep... it might clue you in to how I feel about people putting words
in my mouth that I've never said."
You can try and defend it, but the beloved lurkers will think you are
disturbed to use such a tactic I'm sure. What's next? Maybe just
send anthrax to those who you think put words in your mouth?
"I've done *precisely* the same thing before to others, and should
someone try to assert that I've said something I've never said in the
future, you'll see the *SAME CLAIM* again."
This only digs the hole deeper for you Ben, it shows you have had
mental issues for awhile, as NO rational person makes the leap from a
discussion board disagreement to child molestation accusations. You
are in the company of John McAdams. All you have to do is show you
never said that, why is that is not good enough?
> >Adding it to titles where it will stay
> >forever is really wrong.
"It also stays forever in the posts. =A0By adding it to the title, it
makes it easier for me to locate it in the future when you, or someone
else - refers to it without the context. =A0It also clues those who
aren't interested in such posts to avoid them..."
Ben, I'm not a neophyte with computers, I have been in the software
business for many years, I understand how searches work. It is a sick
tactic, whatever your reasons.
> >If you don't see this then there is no reason to really talk with you
> >in the future.
>
"Doesn't matter to me. =A0If I see an incorrect statement, or a post
with no context, I'll jump in. =A0You don't have to reply."
Ben, I have never minded this, what I do mind is when someone jumps in
screaming liar before they have proven anything. Your incorrect
statement about Tomlinson comes to mind (in regards to saying it was
NOT JFK's stretcher) as I could have jumped in and called you a liar,
like you did right out of the gate with Frazier, as I knew he did not
say that, but I didn't, did I? I gave you a chance to review and go
one way or the other. You admitted he did not say this, but would you
have given me the same chance? Probably not.
> >> >> >> >> >Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He
defends=
th=3D
> >e
> >> >> >> >> >official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer
t=
han=3D
>
> >> >> >> >> >DVP!!!
>
> >> >> >> >"And yet, you can't sup****t these assertions with any cites or
> >> >> >> >quotes."
>
> >> >> >> >You are a liar,
>
> >> >> >"And yet, you can't sup****t these assertions with any cites or
> >> >> >quotes..."
>
> >> >> >These *assertions* are in ALL of your posts, why do I have to
cite
> >> >> >them? =3D3DA0As you said, "searching Google is easy", so if
anyone =
wants=3D
>
> >> >> >them they know where to find them.
>
> >> >> >"You've stated that I'm a "LNer"
>
> >> >> >Cite for it."
>
> >> >> >You are the one arguing a LNer point (notice DVP went after me,
NOT=
> >> >> >you in this post) and quoting Bugliosi, not me. =3D3DA0Normally I
w=
ouldn=3D
> >'t
> >> >> >care as each person is entitled to their opinion, and like it or
no=
t,
> >> >> >that is what much of what we discuss is - opinion! =3D3DA0Where's
t=
he ci=3D
> >te I
> >> >> >claimed I was a child molester?
>
> >> >> >"You've asserted that I defend "official theory".
>
> >> >> >Cite for it."
>
> >> >> >You are defending them, you are sup****ting the idea the three
shot/=
2
> >> >> >hit scenario is very likely. =3D3DA0In my mind, that is
sup****ting =
them =3D
> >as
> >> >> >this is as key as sup****ting the SBT. =3D3DA0I know your initial
re=
ason =3D
> >was
> >> >> >to make me look bad, but that is what it has evolved into.
>
> >> >> >"You assert that I quote Bugliosi.
>
> >> >> >Quote it."
>
> >> >> >In a recent post you had a link to an article or something (I'll
> >> >> >admit, I never looked at it) that had his name in it, so I
assumed =
it
> >> >> >was his theory on events.
>
> >> >> >"You assert that my posts are "longer than DVP"
>
> >> >> >Produce one."
>
> >> >> >That is like saying produce a hen that lays eggs, everyone can
see =
for=3D
>
> >> >> >themselves how long these posts have gotten. =3D3DA0We have been
re=
peati=3D
> >ng
> >> >> >the same things forever now. =3D3DA0You made your points and I
made=
mine=3D
> >,
> >> >> >there is no need to go on and on about it.
>
> >> >> >> >I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
> >> >> >> >and you, to be full of crap.
>
> >> >> >"And yet, you only do so by lying about the testimony, and
> >> >> >misrepresenting the evidence."
>
> >> >> >This is your *assertion* and you have shown you are incapable of
> >> >> >proving it. =3D3DA0I know what Frazier said, it could have been
one=
bull=3D
> >et
> >> >> >or two or more that caused the fragments, but the main points are
h=
e
> >> >> >would NOT give his firm expert opinion that they came from just
one=
> >> >> >bullet and they could not match the two fragments using their new
> >> >> >wonder weapon - NAA.
>
> >> >> >Here is what Fraizier testified to:
>
> >> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment,
567=
> >> >> >(nose); and 569 (base) are ****tions of the originally same
bullet?
> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
> >> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in
unmutilat=
ed
> >> >> >condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit
> >> >> >together.
> >> >> >However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment,
s=
uch=3D
>
> >> >> >as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base
sectio=
n
> >> >> >of 569, **so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
> >> >> >course, they could be parts of separate bullets.**
>
> >> >> >You have said all along this makes it possible to be from one
bulle=
t,
> >> >> >and technically I can't argue with you on that (and have not),
but
> >> >> >what I have arugued for is this is NOT a definitive answer to
back
> >> >> >their theory. He and Nicol would NOT put themselves in a position
o=
f
> >> >> >lying by saying they thought they came from one bullet, and to me
t=
his=3D
>
> >> >> >raises a ton of doubt. =3D3DA0Even the words he uses are vague,
"co=
uld b=3D
> >e"
> >> >> >does NOT inspire a lot of confidence in me from an expert
witness.
> >> >> >There is NO proof they came from one bullet, two bullets or more
th=
an
> >> >> >two bullets, I agree with you on this, but the issue is they were
> >> >> >putting forth a theory that REQUIRED they come from just one
bullet=
> >> >> >and they COULDN'T PROVE THIS to be a fact.
>
> >> >> >"That's not needed... the evidence IS IN FAVOR OF CT'ers!"
>
> >> >> >It is, that is why no matter what you have argued, I realized
they =
had=3D
>
> >> >> >NOT met the standard of proof that is required to earn a
conviction=
> >> >> >for a capital crime.
>
> >> >> >> >"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is
*NOT=
* t=3D
> >he
> >> >> >> >same as becoming a LNT'er..."
>
> >> >> >> >Who lied?
>
> >> >> >"You did. =3D3D3DA0Would you
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
