Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
alt.assassination.jfk
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Question For Ben Holmes
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Bud  
View profile  
 More options Sep 26 2012, 10:12 pm
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
Date: 26 Sep 2012 22:12:55 -0400
Local: Wed, Sep 26 2012 10:12 pm
Subject: Re: Question For Ben Holmes
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Sep 25, 9:53 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:

> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...

> >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.

> Actually, you replied to your own post. (as anyone can see for themselves
> in a threaded newsreader)

> >> ********************************************************

> >> 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?

> If you don't even know what the topic is, how can you accuse someone of
> lying?

  Because Lane called CE399 "undeformed" and it isn`t. He knew it wasn`t
and lied about the evidence. Why does the truth need lies to support it.
And why can`t you admit that Lane lied?

> "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."

> Truth or a lie?

> If the topic isn't understood, YOU CAN'T MAKE A TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE
> JUDGMENT.

  Of course I can. Lane lied. It doesn`t matter if the the topic of the
chapter of the book is about the migration of birds, once he said CE399
was "undeformed", he lied.

> And just for the fun of it, toss a coin and give me the answer, 'truth' or
> a 'lie', and I'll demonstrate that you're wrong.

  Look at you with the misdirection and dancing. How is any of this
going to make CE399 "undeformed"?

> >> 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.

> But you *aren't*.

  Show that I am wrong when I say that Lane called CE399 "undeformed".

> You're challenging what you *THINK* is the idea.

  I *know* the idea Lane was going for, he stated it. He was representing
a deformed bullet as being "undeformed". He was lying, and you haven`t the
character to admit it.

> But since you don't
> *understand* the idea, you aren't even on the same page.

  If I am wrong, what idea was Lane going for when he called CE399
undeformed?

> >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?

> Because *YOU* are running... and the only way to get you to stop running
> is to stop encouraging you to run away.

  You are still trying to pretend it is some failing of mine that Lane
lied about the evidence.

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

> >  Doesn`t work that way.

> You don't have a choice.

 Certainly you are free to run from Lane`s lies.

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

> You've not produced a lie yet.

  No? Lane can say something that is clearly untrue and it still isn`t
a lie? Then why do you keep challenging people to show Lane`s lies
when apparently you think he being truthful when he says untrue
things.

> You've produced what you *claim* is a lie based on a misunderstanding of
> what Mark Lane actually said.

  Correct my "misunderstanding", that should be fun. Show how it is my
misunderstanding of the word "undeformed" that us causing me to
misrepresent Lane.

> >> Fair enough, right?

> >> Or would you like to keep running?

> >  Why should I be misdirected by your strawmen?

> You don't have a choice.

  You don`t have any choice to erect them. You surely can`t admit Lane
lied, your whole flimsy house of cards goes crashing to the ground once
you do.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google