Question For Ben Holmes

[Bud]

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...

Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was "undeformed".
Why would the truth need lies to support it?

[Bud]

As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <e5b33dc9-7eef-4eab...@h16g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...

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.

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

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

Fair enough, right?

Or would you like to keep running?


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

[Ben Holmes]

In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 24, 3:47=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> =A0 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...
>>

>> =A0 =A0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was "undeformed".

>> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>
> As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.

I see you snipped my response... here it is again:

********************************************************

[Bud]

On Sep 24, 11:45 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

> Bud says...
>
>
>
> >On Sep 24, 3:47=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> =A0 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...
>
> >> =A0 =A0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was "undeformed".
> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>
> >  As 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]

In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0...@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?

"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.


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.

>> 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*.

You're challenging what you *THINK* is the idea. But since you don't
*understand* the idea, you aren't even on the same page.

>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.

>> 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.

>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.

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

>> Fair enough, right?
>>
>> Or would you like to keep running?
>
> Why should I be misdirected by your strawmen?

You don't have a choice.

[timstter]

On Sep 25, 1:45 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Answer the simple question, Holmes. Did Lane lie or not?

NO need to direct people back to read the whole chapter, Holmes.

It was YOU who decided to quote Lane piecemeal on the premise that
everything he says is truthful, right?

When the premise fails it's the fault of the reader for not having
done enough research and context reading is it Holmes?

I don't think so, Holmes.

I don't think so at all.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Ben Holmes]

In article <773a5c44-1013-408b...@c8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...
>
>On Sep 25, 1:45=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:
>>
>> ********************************************************
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> You seem to think that it's okay for *you* to duck questions, but demand
>> answers from others.
>>
>> I'll answer this in full as soon as you provide the answer to *MY*
>> question.
>>
>> Fair enough, right?
>>
>> Or would you like to keep running?
>>
>

>Answer the simple question, Holmes. Did Lane lie or not?

You believe my question to be complex?

Too difficult to answer?

Requires too much reading comprehension?

>NO need to direct people back to read the whole chapter, Holmes.
>
>It was YOU who decided to quote Lane piecemeal on the premise that
>everything he says is truthful, right?
>
>When the premise fails it's the fault of the reader for not having
>done enough research and context reading is it Holmes?
>
>I don't think so, Holmes.
>
>I don't think so at all.

[Bud]

On Sep 25, 9:53 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

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]

In article <ef7b1123-9136-40a0...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 25, 9:53=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>> >On Sep 24, 11:45=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> =3D3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but more because I enjoy seeing=
> Ben =3D

>> >run,
>> >> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fan...
>>

>> >> >> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was=
> "undef=3D

>> >ormed".
>> >> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>>

>> >> > =3DA0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.

>>
>> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:
>>

>> > =A0I 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.
>>

>> > =A0Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Since when does the truth nee=

>d
>> >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?

Still don't know the topic, do you?

>> "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."
>>
>> Truth or a lie?

Dead silence. Point made.



<snipped>

[Bud]

On Sep 27, 12:22 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <ef7b1123-9136-40a0-8cc1-f541681b7...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

You are running from the fact that Mark Lane lied about CE399 being
"undeformed". Why did Lane lie about the evidence, and why would the truth
need such lies to support it?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <4508bb8f-845b-434e...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 27, 12:22=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <ef7b1123-9136-40a0-8cc1-f541681b7...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>> >On Sep 25, 9:53=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.googlegrou=

>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >On Sep 24, 11:45=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> =3D3D3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but more because I enjoy s=
>eeing=3D
>> > Ben =3D3D

>> >> >run,
>> >> >> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fan...
>>

>> >> >> >> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE=
>399 was=3D
>> > "undef=3D3D

>> >> >ormed".
>> >> >> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> > =3D3DA0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.

>>
>> >> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:
>>

>> >> > =3DA0I didn`t snip anything. My response appeared before yours did, =
>is
>> >> >all.
>>
>> >> Actually, you replied to your own post. (as anyone can see for themsel=

>ves
>> >> in a threaded newsreader)
>>
>> >> >> ********************************************************
>>
>> >> >> Forgetful, aren't you?
>>

>> >> >> I told you to go read Chapter Five, then get back to me when you co=

>uld
>> >> >> tell me what the topic was.
>>

>> >> > =3DA0Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Since when does the trut=
>h nee=3D

>> >d
>> >> >lies to support it?
>>

>> >> If you don't even know what the topic is, how can you accuse someone o=
>f
>> >> lying?
>>
>> > =A0Because 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?
>>
>> Still don't know the topic, do you?
>>
>> >> "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."
>>
>> >> Truth or a lie?
>>
>> Dead silence. Point made.
>>
>> <snipped>
>
> You are running from the fact that Mark Lane lied about CE399 being
>"undeformed". Why did Lane lie about the evidence, and why would the truth
>need such lies to support it?

Sorry "Bud", I have no need to run at all... the facts are in my favor. This is
why the forum dedicated to the Warren Commission is censored, and the forum
dedicated to conspiracy is wide open.

I've told you repeatedly that *YOU* have to answer questions too. Continue to
fail to answer questions, and *YOUR* questions will be ignored.

So why not tell us, "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4.", True or False? Truth or Lie?

Why are you running from this?

[Bud]

On Sep 28, 1:48 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <4508bb8f-845b-434e-843e-7917331f9...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Is it a fact that CE399 is "undeformed". Lane says it is. What say
you?

> This is
> why the forum dedicated to the Warren Commission is censored, and the forum
> dedicated to conspiracy is wide open.

Easier for you to hide behind your killfilter there than run like
you are forced to do here, eh?

> I've told you repeatedly that *YOU* have to answer questions too.

That is just the strawman you used to hide from Lame`s lies behind.
Any questions you ask me will not make CE399 "undeformed", and make
Lane`s lie the truth.

> Continue to
> fail to answer questions, and *YOUR* questions will be ignored.

You have to run and hide from me, you have no choice. Lane lied and
you lack the character to admit it.

> So why not tell us, "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4.", True or False? Truth or Lie?
>
> Why are you running from this?

I haven`t a clue what that has to do with anything. Lets make it
about what Lane said in his book and not spend so much time with these
silly diversions, alright?

[timstter]

On Sep 27, 12:07 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <773a5c44-1013-408b-838e-b9a8520be...@c8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,

Your question has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Bud asked,
Holmes.

His question was:

QUOTE ON:

Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was *undeformed*.

Why would the truth need lies to support it?

QUOTE OFF

Going off on some tangent about Chapter 5 has NOTHING to do with what
he asked. It is EASY to see who is creating a smokescreen here,
Holmes. That would be Ben Holmes.

Now the latest smokescreen is a chess move?

Chapter 5 and a chess move have NOTHING to do with what Bud asked,
Holmes.

The fact that you raised them simply demonstrates that you can't
answer his simple question.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <7745542b-b52f-4231...@ro10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...
>
>On Sep 27, 12:07=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <773a5c44-1013-408b-838e-b9a8520be...@c8g2000pbe.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> timstter says...
>>
>> >On Sep 25, 1:45=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

>> >> >> =3D3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but more because I enjoy seeing=
> Ben =3D

>> >run,
>> >> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fan...
>>

>> >> >> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was=
> "undef=3D

>> >ormed".
>> >> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>>

>> >> > =3DA0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.

>>
>> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:
>>
>> >> ********************************************************
>>
>> >> 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.
>>

>> >> You seem to think that it's okay for *you* to duck questions, but dema=

>nd
>> >> answers from others.
>>
>> >> I'll answer this in full as soon as you provide the answer to *MY*
>> >> question.
>>
>> >> Fair enough, right?
>>
>> >> Or would you like to keep running?
>>
>> >Answer the simple question, Holmes. Did Lane lie or not?
>>
>> You believe my question to be complex?
>>
>> Too difficult to answer?
>>
>> Requires too much reading comprehension?
>>
>> >NO need to direct people back to read the whole chapter, Holmes.
>>
>> >It was YOU who decided to quote Lane piecemeal on the premise that
>> >everything he says is truthful, right?
>>
>> >When the premise fails it's the fault of the reader for not having
>> >done enough research and context reading is it Holmes?
>>
>> >I don't think so, Holmes.
>>
>> >I don't think so at all.
>

>Your question has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Bud asked,
>Holmes.

Actually, it does. It matters little whether you run from it or not.

>His question was:
>
>QUOTE ON:
>
>Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was *undeformed*.
>Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>
>QUOTE OFF
>
>Going off on some tangent about Chapter 5 has NOTHING to do with what
>he asked. It is EASY to see who is creating a smokescreen here,
>Holmes. That would be Ben Holmes.

Oh? Can you put the two original unanswered questions in a timeline?

Who asked the first question that the other ran from?

>Now the latest smokescreen is a chess move?

Actually, it's definitive proof that "Bud" isn't correct, yet again. The
fact that *YOU* run from it too simply illustrates it yet again.

You cannot define truth and falsehood without the context of the actual
topic under discussion.

>Chapter 5 and a chess move have NOTHING to do with what Bud asked,
>Holmes.
>
>The fact that you raised them simply demonstrates that you can't
>answer his simple question.

The fact that you're attempting to defend "Bud's" refusal to answer the
question shows that you think he needs your help.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <1ca5f09f-88b5-427a...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 28, 1:48=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <4508bb8f-845b-434e-843e-7917331f9...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>> >On Sep 27, 12:22=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <ef7b1123-9136-40a0-8cc1-f541681b7...@m9g2000yqi.googlegrou=

>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >On Sep 25, 9:53=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.googleg=

>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >On Sep 24, 11:45=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> w=
>rote:
>> >> >> >> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.goog=
>leg=3D
>> >rou=3D3D
>> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but more because I en=
>joy s=3D
>> >eeing=3D3D
>> >> > Ben =3D3D3D

>> >> >> >run,
>> >> >> >> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fan...
>>

>> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated =
>that CE=3D
>> >399 was=3D3D
>> >> > "undef=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >ormed".
>> >> >> >> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> >> > =3D3D3DA0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.

>>
>> >> >> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:
>>

>> >> >> > =3D3DA0I didn`t snip anything. My response appeared before yours =
>did, =3D
>> >is
>> >> >> >all.
>>
>> >> >> Actually, you replied to your own post. (as anyone can see for them=
>sel=3D

>> >ves
>> >> >> in a threaded newsreader)
>>
>> >> >> >> ********************************************************
>>
>> >> >> >> Forgetful, aren't you?
>>

>> >> >> >> I told you to go read Chapter Five, then get back to me when you=
> co=3D

>> >uld
>> >> >> >> tell me what the topic was.
>>

>> >> >> > =3D3DA0Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Since when does the=
> trut=3D
>> >h nee=3D3D

>> >> >d
>> >> >> >lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> If you don't even know what the topic is, how can you accuse someon=
>e o=3D
>> >f
>> >> >> lying?
>>
>> >> > =3DA0Because Lane called CE399 "undeformed" and it isn`t. He knew it=
> wasn=3D
>> >`t
>> >> >and lied about the evidence. Why does the truth need lies to support =

>it.
>> >> >And why can`t you admit that Lane lied?
>>
>> >> Still don't know the topic, do you?
>>
>> >> >> "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."
>>
>> >> >> Truth or a lie?
>>
>> >> Dead silence. Point made.
>>
>> >> <snipped>
>>

>> > =A0You are running from the fact that Mark Lane lied about CE399 being
>> >"undeformed". Why did Lane lie about the evidence, and why would the tru=

>th
>> >need such lies to support it?
>>
>> Sorry "Bud", I have no need to run at all... the facts are in my favor.
>
> Is it a fact that CE399 is "undeformed". Lane says it is. What say
>you?

Still afraid of the answer, I see.



>> This is
>> why the forum dedicated to the Warren Commission is censored, and the for=

>um
>> dedicated to conspiracy is wide open.
>
> Easier for you to hide behind your killfilter there than run like
>you are forced to do here, eh?

Oh, don't worry... when you cease to be amusing, I'll killfile your posts
in this forum too.

Right now, I'm seeing how many posts you can run from answering questions
in.

>> I've told you repeatedly that *YOU* have to answer questions too.
>
> That is just the strawman you used to hide from Lame`s lies behind.
>Any questions you ask me will not make CE399 "undeformed", and make
>Lane`s lie the truth.

Still afraid of my questions, I see.


You see, *YOU* pose nothing that I cannot answer. My questions, on the
other hand, you simply *have* no answer for.

Since they illustrate how wrong you are.

>> Continue to
>> fail to answer questions, and *YOUR* questions will be ignored.
>
> You have to run and hide from me, you have no choice. Lane lied and
>you lack the character to admit it.

You have to run and hide from me, you have no choice. Lane told the truth

and you lack the character to admit it.

>> So why not tell us, "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4.", True or False? Truth o=

>r Lie?
>>
>> Why are you running from this?
>
> I haven`t a clue what that has to do with anything.

It proves that you were wrong. This is why you refuse to answer it.

>Lets make it
>about what Lane said in his book and not spend so much time with these
>silly diversions, alright?

If you had the courage to answer it, you'd see how it's *DIRECTLY* related
to your claims about Mark Lane.

I suspect you already know this, which is why you're running.

Still can't find that topic, can you?

[Bud]

On Sep 29, 12:52 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <1ca5f09f-88b5-427a-a6dd-292e3c2cc...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

I have no problem with the answer at all. CE399 is deformed.

> >> This is
> >> why the forum dedicated to the Warren Commission is censored, and the for=
> >um
> >> dedicated to conspiracy is wide open.
>
> >   Easier for you to hide behind your killfilter there than run like
> >you are forced to do here, eh?
>
> Oh, don't worry... when you cease to be amusing, I'll killfile your posts
> in this forum too.

Runners run, thats what they do.

> Right now, I'm seeing how many posts you can run from answering questions
> in.

Obviously all you are doing is trying to misdirect towards me so you
don`t have to address the lie Lane told.

> >> I've told you repeatedly that *YOU* have to answer questions too.
>
> >  That is just the strawman you used to hide from Lame`s lies behind.
> >Any questions you ask me will not make CE399 "undeformed", and make
> >Lane`s lie the truth.
>
> Still afraid of my questions, I see.

You posted these things Lane wrote. If you can`t defend what he said
why did you bother posting this series at all?

> You see, *YOU* pose nothing that I cannot answer.

Proven false.

> My questions, on the
> other hand, you simply *have* no answer for.
>
> Since they illustrate how wrong you are.

Show that I am wrong when I say CE399 is deformed. Show Lane is
correct when he says CE399 is undeformed. Do something besides dance
and misdirect.

> >> Continue to
> >> fail to answer questions, and *YOUR* questions will be ignored.
>
> >  You have to run and hide from me, you have no choice. Lane lied and
> >you lack the character to admit it.
>
> You have to run and hide from me, you have no choice. Lane told the truth
> and you lack the character to admit it.

<snicker> Lane told the truth, did he? Can you support his claim
that CE399 is undeformed?

> >> So why not tell us, "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4.", True or False? Truth o=
> >r Lie?
>
> >> Why are you running from this?
>
> >  I haven`t a clue what that has to do with anything.
>
> It proves that you were wrong. This is why you refuse to answer it.

The only thing it proves is your desperation to misdirect away from
Mark Lane`s lie about CE399.

> >Lets make it
> >about what Lane said in his book and not spend so much time with these
> >silly diversions, alright?
>
> If you had the courage to answer it, you'd see how it's *DIRECTLY* related
> to your claims about Mark Lane.

No, Lane`s book isn`t about chess. Thats just some kind of strawman
misdirection so you can pretend you are addressing an issue when you
are really running from it.

> I suspect you already know this, which is why you're running.
>
> Still can't find that topic, can you?

My question had nothing to do with the topic, it had to do with the
lie Lane told about the evidence. The lie you have been running from.

I wonder what the topic of the chapter in Bugliosi`s book was when
claimed Carrico called the neck wound "ragged" If the topic wasn`t
"Carrico`s opinion of the neck wound" you had no business bringing it
up.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <13b9d231-e065-4522...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 29, 12:52=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1ca5f09f-88b5-427a-a6dd-292e3c2cc...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>> >On Sep 28, 1:48=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <4508bb8f-845b-434e-843e-7917331f9...@o8g2000yqm.googlegrou=

>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >On Sep 27, 12:22=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <ef7b1123-9136-40a0-8cc1-f541681b7...@m9g2000yqi.googleg=

>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >On Sep 25, 9:53=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>> >> >> >> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.goog=

>leg=3D
>> >rou=3D3D
>> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >> >On Sep 24, 11:45=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.c=
>om> w=3D
>> >rote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.g=
>oog=3D
>> >leg=3D3D
>> >> >rou=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ps.=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot=
>e:
>> >> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but more because=
> I en=3D
>> >joy s=3D3D
>> >> >eeing=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > Ben =3D3D3D3D

>> >> >> >> >run,
>> >> >> >> >> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fan...
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied when he =
>stated =3D
>> >that CE=3D3D
>> >> >399 was=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > "undef=3D3D3D3D

>> >> >> >> >ormed".
>> >> >> >> >> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> >> >> > =3D3D3D3DA0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:
>>

>> >> >> >> > =3D3D3DA0I didn`t snip anything. My response appeared before y=
>ours =3D
>> >did, =3D3D
>> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >all.
>>
>> >> >> >> Actually, you replied to your own post. (as anyone can see for t=
>hem=3D
>> >sel=3D3D

>> >> >ves
>> >> >> >> in a threaded newsreader)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> ********************************************************
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Forgetful, aren't you?
>>

>> >> >> >> >> I told you to go read Chapter Five, then get back to me when =
>you=3D
>> > co=3D3D

>> >> >uld
>> >> >> >> >> tell me what the topic was.
>>

>> >> >> >> > =3D3D3DA0Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Since when doe=
>s the=3D
>> > trut=3D3D
>> >> >h nee=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >d
>> >> >> >> >lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> >> If you don't even know what the topic is, how can you accuse som=
>eon=3D
>> >e o=3D3D
>> >> >f
>> >> >> >> lying?
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0Because Lane called CE399 "undeformed" and it isn`t. He kn=
>ew it=3D
>> > wasn=3D3D
>> >> >`t
>> >> >> >and lied about the evidence. Why does the truth need lies to suppo=
>rt =3D

>> >it.
>> >> >> >And why can`t you admit that Lane lied?
>>
>> >> >> Still don't know the topic, do you?
>>
>> >> >> >> "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."
>>
>> >> >> >> Truth or a lie?
>>
>> >> >> Dead silence. Point made.
>>
>> >> >> <snipped>
>>

>> >> > =3DA0You are running from the fact that Mark Lane lied about CE399 b=
>eing
>> >> >"undeformed". Why did Lane lie about the evidence, and why would the =
>tru=3D

>> >th
>> >> >need such lies to support it?
>>

>> >> Sorry "Bud", I have no need to run at all... the facts are in my favor=
>.
>>
>> > =A0Is it a fact that CE399 is "undeformed". Lane says it is. What say

>> >you?
>>
>> Still afraid of the answer, I see.
>
> I have no problem with the answer at all. CE399 is deformed.

Do you think you're fooling anyone?

What's the topic?


<snipped>

[Jean Davison]

On Sep 30, 3:54 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <13b9d231-e065-4522-9cea-8136e4c3a...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

Do you think *you're* fooling anyone, Ben?

>
> What's the topic?

The topic of this thread is "Question For Ben Holmes," as
explained in post #1. Refusing to answer the question only makes you look
bad. So please keep it up!

Jean

[Bud]

Yah Jean, this has been fun. Ben knows Lane lied but can`t bring
himself to admit it, so he invents some bizarre angle where Lane can
say things that are untrue, as long as it is unrelated to the topic of
the chapter, or some other cockamamie reason I can`t begin to fathom.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <aee4219c-36e4-4040...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Sep 30, 3:54=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <13b9d231-e065-4522-9cea-8136e4c3a...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 29, 12:52=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <1ca5f09f-88b5-427a-a6dd-292e3c2cc...@a11g2000yqb.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 28, 1:48=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <4508bb8f-845b-434e-843e-7917331f9...@o8g2000yqm.googleg=

>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >On Sep 27, 12:22=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> w=
>rote:
>> >> >> >> In article <ef7b1123-9136-40a0-8cc1-f541681b7...@m9g2000yqi.goog=

>leg=3D
>> >rou=3D3D
>> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >> >On Sep 25, 9:53=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.co=
>m> wr=3D
>> >ote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.g=

>oog=3D
>> >leg=3D3D
>> >> >rou=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ps.=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >On Sep 24, 11:45=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkn=
>ife.c=3D
>> >om> w=3D3D
>> >> >rote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yq=
>m.g=3D
>> >oog=3D3D
>> >> >leg=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >rou=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ps.=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3D3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>=
> wrot=3D
>> >e:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but more be=
>cause=3D
>> > I en=3D3D
>> >> >joy s=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >eeing=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > Ben =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >run,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fan..=
>.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied w=
>hen he =3D
>> >stated =3D3D
>> >> >that CE=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >399 was=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > "undef=3D3D3D3D3D

>> >> >> >> >> >ormed".
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> > =3D3D3D3D3DA0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment=

>.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:
>>

>> >> >> >> >> > =3D3D3D3DA0I didn`t snip anything. My response appeared bef=
>ore y=3D
>> >ours =3D3D
>> >> >did, =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >all.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Actually, you replied to your own post. (as anyone can see fo=
>r t=3D
>> >hem=3D3D
>> >> >sel=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >ves
>> >> >> >> >> in a threaded newsreader)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************************
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Forgetful, aren't you?
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> I told you to go read Chapter Five, then get back to me wh=
>en =3D
>> >you=3D3D
>> >> > co=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >uld
>> >> >> >> >> >> tell me what the topic was.
>>

>> >> >> >> >> > =3D3D3D3DA0Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Since whe=
>n doe=3D
>> >s the=3D3D
>> >> > trut=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >h nee=3D3D3D3D

>> >> >> >> >d
>> >> >> >> >> >lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> >> >> If you don't even know what the topic is, how can you accuse =
>som=3D
>> >eon=3D3D
>> >> >e o=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >f
>> >> >> >> >> lying?
>>
>> >> >> >> > =3D3D3DA0Because Lane called CE399 "undeformed" and it isn`t. =
>He kn=3D
>> >ew it=3D3D
>> >> > wasn=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >`t
>> >> >> >> >and lied about the evidence. Why does the truth need lies to su=
>ppo=3D
>> >rt =3D3D

>> >> >it.
>> >> >> >> >And why can`t you admit that Lane lied?
>>
>> >> >> >> Still don't know the topic, do you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Truth or a lie?
>>
>> >> >> >> Dead silence. Point made.
>>
>> >> >> >> <snipped>
>>

>> >> >> > =3D3DA0You are running from the fact that Mark Lane lied about CE=
>399 b=3D
>> >eing
>> >> >> >"undeformed". Why did Lane lie about the evidence, and why would t=
>he =3D
>> >tru=3D3D

>> >> >th
>> >> >> >need such lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> Sorry "Bud", I have no need to run at all... the facts are in my fa=
>vor=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0Is it a fact that CE399 is "undeformed". Lane says it is. What =

>say
>> >> >you?
>>
>> >> Still afraid of the answer, I see.
>>

>> > =A0I have no problem with the answer at all. CE399 is deformed.

>>
>> Do you think you're fooling anyone?
>
> Do you think *you're* fooling anyone, Ben?
>
>>
>> What's the topic?
>
> The topic of this thread is "Question For Ben Holmes," as
>explained in post #1. Refusing to answer the question only makes you look
>bad. So please keep it up!
>
>Jean

This is perhaps the reason you refuse to post in an open forum.
Unfortunately, in this censored forum, I can't be more specific.

[Jean Davison]

On Sep 30, 10:04 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <aee4219c-36e4-4040-919e-9f6ead113...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jean Davison]

Maybe we could call it "implausible denial"?

Anyway, I've thoroughly enjoyed it, Bud.
Jean


.- Hide quoted text -

[Jean Davison]

On Sep 30, 10:04 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <aee4219c-36e4-4040-919e-9f6ead113...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

More dodge ball from Mr. Holmes. Keep it up!
Jean

[Ben Holmes]

In article <3c6238fc-1ed9-4b18...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Sep 30, 10:04=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <aee4219c-36e4-4040-919e-9f6ead113...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.=

>com>,
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> >On Sep 30, 3:54=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <13b9d231-e065-4522-9cea-8136e4c3a...@h4g2000yqo.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 29, 12:52=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <1ca5f09f-88b5-427a-a6dd-292e3c2cc...@a11g2000yqb.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Sep 28, 1:48=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>> >> >> >> In article <4508bb8f-845b-434e-843e-7917331f9...@o8g2000yqm.goog=

>leg=3D
>> >rou=3D3D
>> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >> >On Sep 27, 12:22=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.c=
>om> w=3D
>> >rote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <ef7b1123-9136-40a0-8cc1-f541681b7...@m9g2000yqi.g=

>oog=3D
>> >leg=3D3D
>> >> >rou=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ps.=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >On Sep 25, 9:53=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkni=
>fe.co=3D
>> >m> wr=3D3D
>> >> >ote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yq=
>o.g=3D

>> >oog=3D3D
>> >> >leg=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >rou=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ps.=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Sep 24, 11:45=3D3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burn=
>ingkn=3D
>> >ife.c=3D3D
>> >> >om> w=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >rote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g200=
>0yq=3D
>> >m.g=3D3D
>> >> >oog=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >leg=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >rou=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >ps.=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3D3D3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast=
>.net>=3D
>> > wrot=3D3D
>> >> >e:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but mo=
>re be=3D
>> >cause=3D3D
>> >> > I en=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >joy s=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >eeing=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> > Ben =3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >> >run,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fa=
>n..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Mark Lane clearly=
> lied w=3D
>> >hen he =3D3D
>> >> >stated =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >that CE=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >399 was=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> > "undef=3D3D3D3D3D3D

>> >> >> >> >> >> >ormed".
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjo=
>yment=3D

>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> > =3D3D3D3D3DA0I didn`t snip anything. My response appeare=
>d bef=3D
>> >ore y=3D3D
>> >> >ours =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >did, =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >all.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Actually, you replied to your own post. (as anyone can see=
> fo=3D
>> >r t=3D3D
>> >> >hem=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >sel=3D3D3D3D

>> >> >> >> >ves
>> >> >> >> >> >> in a threaded newsreader)
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> >> *******************************************************=

>*
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Forgetful, aren't you?
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I told you to go read Chapter Five, then get back to me=
> wh=3D
>> >en =3D3D
>> >> >you=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > co=3D3D3D3D

>> >> >> >> >uld
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> tell me what the topic was.
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> > =3D3D3D3D3DA0Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Sinc=
>e whe=3D
>> >n doe=3D3D
>> >> >s the=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > trut=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >h nee=3D3D3D3D3D

>> >> >> >> >> >d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> >> >> >> If you don't even know what the topic is, how can you accu=
>se =3D
>> >som=3D3D
>> >> >eon=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >e o=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >f
>> >> >> >> >> >> lying?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > =3D3D3D3DA0Because Lane called CE399 "undeformed" and it is=
>n`t. =3D
>> >He kn=3D3D
>> >> >ew it=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > wasn=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >`t
>> >> >> >> >> >and lied about the evidence. Why does the truth need lies to=
> su=3D
>> >ppo=3D3D
>> >> >rt =3D3D3D

>> >> >> >it.
>> >> >> >> >> >And why can`t you admit that Lane lied?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Still don't know the topic, do you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Truth or a lie?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Dead silence. Point made.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> <snipped>
>>

>> >> >> >> > =3D3D3DA0You are running from the fact that Mark Lane lied abo=
>ut CE=3D
>> >399 b=3D3D
>> >> >eing
>> >> >> >> >"undeformed". Why did Lane lie about the evidence, and why woul=
>d t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >tru=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >th
>> >> >> >> >need such lies to support it?
>>

>> >> >> >> Sorry "Bud", I have no need to run at all... the facts are in my=
> fa=3D
>> >vor=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0Is it a fact that CE399 is "undeformed". Lane says it is. =
>What =3D

>> >say
>> >> >> >you?
>>
>> >> >> Still afraid of the answer, I see.
>>

>> >> > =3DA0I have no problem with the answer at all. CE399 is deformed.

>>
>> >> Do you think you're fooling anyone?
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Do you think *you're* fooling anyone, Ben?
>>
>> >> What's the topic?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The topic of this thread is "Question For Ben Holmes=
>," as
>> >explained in post #1. =A0Refusing to answer the question only makes you =
>look
>> >bad. =A0So please keep it up!

>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> This is perhaps the reason you refuse to post in an open forum.
>> Unfortunately, in this censored forum, I can't be more specific.
>
> More dodge ball from Mr. Holmes. Keep it up!
> Jean
>

I'm still right there in the open forum where you now refuse to go. The
"dodge ball" is not a game of me dodging facts, it's a game of McAdams
putting up a wall to the facts.

If you truly have the facts on your side, why are you afraid to debate in
an open forum?

[Bud]

On Oct 1, 7:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <3c6238fc-1ed9-4b18-8103-78454a947...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

Why are you?

[Jean Davison]

On Oct 1, 6:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <3c6238fc-1ed9-4b18-8103-78454a947...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

What "facts" have you presented over there? You've dodged
Bud's question, both places.

>
> If you truly have the facts on your side, why are you afraid to debate in
> an open forum?

Who do you think you're kidding?


Jean