Received: by 10.181.12.101 with SMTP id ep5mr2651668wid.1.1348610536456;
        Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Question For Ben Holmes
Date: 25 Sep 2012 18:02:16 -0400
Lines: 61
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d5868d@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
References: <e5b33dc9-7eef-4eab-b7b5-fe693d907b3c@h16g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
 <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a698@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <k3r7oh01amv@drn.newsguy.com>
Return-Path: <n...@google.com>
X-Original-To: aa...@panix.com
Delivered-To: aa...@panix.com
Delivered-To: alt-assassination-...@moderators.isc.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=96.227.143.102; posting-account=m9ygJAoAAADodrMzQHwCTY_pcLb5nd8z
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/537.1 (KHTML, like
 Gecko) Chrome/21.0.1180.89 Safari/537.1,gzip(gfe)
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:42:41 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1348610536 166.84.1.3 (25 Sep 2012 17:02:16 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Sep 2012 17:02:16 -0500, 166.84.1.3
Path: ed8ni57351480wib.0!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sep 24, 11:45=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.=
com>,
> Bud says...
>
>
>
> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> =3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but more because I enjoy seeing Ben =
run,
> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fan...
>
> >> =3DA0 =3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was "undef=
ormed".
> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>
> > =A0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.
>
> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:

  I didn`t snip anything. My response appeared before yours did, is
all.

> ********************************************************
>
> Forgetful, aren't you?
>
> I told you to go read Chapter Five, then get back to me when you could
> tell me what the topic was.

  Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Since when does the truth need 
lies to support it?

> You seem to think that it's okay for *you* to duck questions, but demand
> answers from others.

  You seem to be confused about the process. You are putting ideas up for 
consideration. I can challenge *any* of these ideas you are presenting 
that I like. I can ignore what I like and address what I like. Right now I 
like focusing on the lie Lane told about CE 399. Why are you running from 
this issue?

> I'll answer this in full as soon as you provide the answer to *MY*
> question.

  Doesn`t work that way. You are producing Lane`s work. You have been
challenging LNers to shows lies in this work. When lies are shown, you
run.

> Fair enough, right?
>
> Or would you like to keep running?

  Why should I be misdirected by your strawmen?

> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com