skull and bones involvement
Sam
their publications time, newsweek, life magazine, ny times, etc. controlled
when and how information of the assassination was disseminated
jackal's sniping rifle, jfk's brain, and the missing bullet fragments are
all the types of things they like to collect in their tomb
with +/- 800 living members at any given time, they were one of, if not the,
major force behind the assassination
Gary Combs
"Sam" <jfk...@sammcclung.com> wrote in message
news:11jhpov...@corp.supernews.com...
Sam,
How could you possibly know all this....unless you too are a member of
skull and crossbones?
gc
Sam
news:776_e.22538$X6.1...@fe05.lga...
it's skull and bones, not skull and crossbones
see:
Secrets Of The Tomb
Skull And Bones, The Ivy League, And The Hidden Paths To Power
by Alexandra Robbins
Copyright 2002
and the multitude of other info (on the net, etc.) regarding s&b
if you have questions after that, perhaps i can steer you in the right
direction again
sam
not lee mcclung of s&b, 1892
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/3/skullroster.htm
Ben Holmes
>
>they bought zapruder's film then controlled its release to the public
I was under the impression that Time-Life did this.
>their publications time, newsweek, life magazine, ny times, etc. controlled
>when and how information of the assassination was disseminated
Yep... that *is* what the media does. Hence the very strong interest in the
media from intelligene organizations such as the CIA or KGB
>jackal's sniping rifle, jfk's brain, and the missing bullet fragments are
>all the types of things they like to collect in their tomb
>
>with +/- 800 living members at any given time, they were one of, if not the,
>major force behind the assassination
Silly. What, beyond the fact that successful people tend to go to Harvard, or
any other ivy league school, show any involvement by this "web" of a fraternity.
I'm Phi Delta Theta, but I haven't received any communications from the national
concerning what *we* are supposed to do.
luv-old-tv
I have the film and it clearly shows that the Irish driver shot him. Try
with people in the government to do a search with that name attached with
the word Jesuit.
example Tom Ridge "Jesuit". Especially with the mayor and governor of
Louisiana.
Later
"Sam" <jfk...@sammcclung.com> wrote in message
news:11jich4...@corp.supernews.com...
Sam
news:dhbl3...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <11jhpov...@corp.supernews.com>, Sam says...
>>
>>they bought zapruder's film then controlled its release to the public
>
> I was under the impression that Time-Life did this.
it is beyond the scope of my reply here to educate you on skull and bones
sufficiently for you and i to discuss it with much success
suffice it to say for now that time, inc. is a skull and bones conceived and
run organization
the appropriate source data has been referenced in other posts i made here,
to save you the trouble of looking it up, see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%22skull+and+bones%22+robbins&num=100&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=jfk...@sammcclung.com&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=27&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2005&safe=off
if you want to discuss this with me more intelligibly, read:
- the posts at the above-referenced address
- alexandra robbins' book, secrets of the tomb
- and as much of the multitude of info in other books and on the net as
you can absorb
then you and i can discuss skull and bones in more detail
>>their publications time, newsweek, life magazine, ny times, etc.
>>controlled
>>when and how information of the assassination was disseminated
>
>
> Yep... that *is* what the media does. Hence the very strong interest in
> the
> media from intelligene organizations such as the CIA or KGB
mister x in stone's (yale, class of 1968) jfk indicated it looked like a
black op the way the news of jfk's death went worldwide so quick, that was
some of what i was addressing immediately above, as well as how the
information has been controlled since then
had it not been for groden liberating the z film into public view, you and i
would probably not be discussing this now
groden is an american hero
>>jackal's sniping rifle, jfk's brain, and the missing bullet fragments are
>>all the types of things they like to collect in their tomb
>>
>>with +/- 800 living members at any given time, they were one of, if not
>>the,
>>major force behind the assassination
>
> Silly.
your response is quite common, evidence of how good a job s&b has done in
the past of hiding from the radar
> What, beyond the fact that successful people tend to go to Harvard, or
> any other ivy league school, show any involvement by this "web" of a
> fraternity.
the conclusion stated in your question? is based on your definition of
success
source data is cited above, educate yourself to the extent you want to and
then let's discuss it
> I'm Phi Delta Theta, but I haven't received any communications from the
> national
> concerning what *we* are supposed to do.
if you are comparing phi delta theta to skull and bones, let's wait till you
get up to speed on skull and bones and then continue this line of discussion
sam
who may have gone to an ivy league school
luv-old-tv
an education so that you could see beyond the numbing down that you got from
Phi Delta Theta.
Like name some prominent people that came from this fraternity you
attended.
About Bush and the election if you think between him and Kerry that we had a
real choice you are wrong. In Harvard/Yale the training grounds for almost
all presidents we have one fraternity that consist of every year 15 people
getting the tap to be a member of Skull and Bones. The order is that of the
Thule Society from Germany the same Fascist order that Hitler subscribed to
by the writings of Aleister Crowley (author of the LAW and honored by many
rock bands). Of the Skull and Bones people that you may have heard of are;
Weyerhaeuser- Largest Lumber Company in America
Rockefeller- The elite of the Elite
Goodyear- Largest tire manufacturer
Pillsbury- leader in the home cooking industry
Kellogg- cereal maker among other things
Kerry - disgrace to America, real name John Kohn a Jew with a Irish Catholic
sir (Kerry) name married to Teresa (Jewish also) whose Husband was also a
Bones Man
Bush sr. gave us NAFTA and 1st president to admit to NWO on 9/11/1991
Bush current president also resided over the USA on 9/11/2001 the same day
that NORAD was doing a mock invasion of the USA so when the terrorist strike
took place NORAD stood down thinking it was only a drill. That is one of
many issues that are un-answered.
If we took 15 men per year for the last 100 years we would have 150 men and
in the last election the USA had a population of 295,734,134. The law of
averages that our to presidential candidates could arise out of that
distinct number of Bones men claiming to be on opposite side of one another
is 147,867,142 to 1 based on the 100 year bones men ratio. That is an
amazing feat by any definition.
How many people have run for president from Phi Delta Theta.?
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:dhbl3...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ben Holmes
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhbl3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <11jhpov...@corp.supernews.com>, Sam says...
>>>
>>>they bought zapruder's film then controlled its release to the public
>>
>> I was under the impression that Time-Life did this.
>
>it is beyond the scope of my reply here to educate you on skull and bones
>sufficiently for you and i to discuss it with much success
>
>suffice it to say for now that time, inc. is a skull and bones conceived and
>run organization
>
>the appropriate source data has been referenced in other posts i made here,
>to save you the trouble of looking it up, see:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%22skull+and+bones%22+robbins&num=100&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=jfk...@sammcclung.com&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=27&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2005&safe=off
>
>if you want to discuss this with me more intelligibly, read:
> - the posts at the above-referenced address
> - alexandra robbins' book, secrets of the tomb
> - and as much of the multitude of info in other books and on the net as
>you can absorb
There is equally much material on the Flat Earth society. Don't believe in them
either.
>then you and i can discuss skull and bones in more detail
>
>
>>>their publications time, newsweek, life magazine, ny times, etc.
>>>controlled
>>>when and how information of the assassination was disseminated
>>
>>
>> Yep... that *is* what the media does. Hence the very strong interest in
>> the media from intelligene organizations such as the CIA or KGB
>
>mister x in stone's (yale, class of 1968) jfk indicated it looked like a
>black op the way the news of jfk's death went worldwide so quick, that was
>some of what i was addressing immediately above, as well as how the
>information has been controlled since then
>
>had it not been for groden liberating the z film into public view, you and i
>would probably not be discussing this now
>
>groden is an american hero
>
>>>jackal's sniping rifle, jfk's brain, and the missing bullet fragments are
>>>all the types of things they like to collect in their tomb
>>>
>>>with +/- 800 living members at any given time, they were one of, if not
>>>the, major force behind the assassination
>>
>> Silly.
>
>your response is quite common, evidence of how good a job s&b has done in
>the past of hiding from the radar
No, they've done a *lousy* job compared to the "Americans of the Cross Society".
The very secrecy surrounding the ACA is proof of their diabolical cleverness.
>> What, beyond the fact that successful people tend to go to Harvard, or
>> any other ivy league school, show any involvement by this "web" of a
>> fraternity.
>
>the conclusion stated in your question?
No, not at all. All you need to do is provide ANY FACT BEYOND THE OBVIOUS -
that successful people tend to go to Harvard...
I invite you to do so...
>is based on your definition of success
Won't argue this... it's merely silly. Successful people *do* tend to be
financially successful, regardless of the field they are in. While there are
certainly exceptions - such as the humanitarian work that Catholic Nuns do,
money has proven itself time and time again to show the value to society of a
person's contribution *to* that society.
>source data is cited above, educate yourself to the extent you want to and
>then let's discuss it
>
>> I'm Phi Delta Theta, but I haven't received any communications from the
>> national concerning what *we* are supposed to do.
>
>if you are comparing phi delta theta to skull and bones, let's wait till you
>get up to speed on skull and bones and then continue this line of discussion
They are *both* fraternities...
>sam
>who may have gone to an ivy league school
It is beyond the scope of this message to educate you on my amusement of the
Skull & Bone theories... I regard them in much the same light as the "Jews
control the Media" theories.
You could *EQUALLY* choose any other fraternity at Harvard, and compile an
amazing list of people who are members, who control an amazing amount of
political power, media power, financial power, etc.
But were you to do so, the silliness of choosing S&B over any other would become
apparent.
I'm looking for a fact *OUTSIDE* of the obvious fact that winners educated
themselves at the Ivy League to support this "conspiracy".
Sam
bye ben, life's too short...
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:dhbqm...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ben Holmes
>
>Silly indeed, I think the communication that you should received was to get
>an education so that you could see beyond the numbing down that you got from
>Phi Delta Theta.
You reveal a rather distorted idea of what a fraternity is. Perhaps you think
"Animal House" was the norm?
And the education I received is being put to use by pointing out how silly this
S&B conspiracy theory *is*.
Once again, CAN ANYONE point out -any fact- (that would support this silly
'conspiracy') beyond the obvious fact that many of the most successful men tend
to graduate from the Ivy league?
>Like name some prominent people that came from this fraternity you
>attended.
Does Frank Lloyd Wright ring a bell? Or perhaps Neil Armstrong?
Maybe you're the couch type... how about Burt Reynolds? Roger Ebert?
Maybe sports tickle your fancy... Tom Harmon, Lou Gehrig, Doak Walker...
Perhaps big business is where it's at:
Robert Allen (Former Chairman, AT&T)
William Allen (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
John Dasburg (CEO Burger King)
George Fisher (CEO Eastman Kodak)
John McLamore (Founder Burger King)
C.J. Silas (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
John Smale (CEO Procter & Gamble)
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift. You can Google all of this
information, it's publicly available.
>About Bush and the election if you think between him and Kerry that we had a
>real choice you are wrong.
How strange then, that Bush is so lambasted, and Kerry is so praised... and
that people are so *distinctly* divided between these two. If there truly *was*
no choice, why do most people have such strong opinions on who that choice
should be? Do you suppose that most people are stupid?
And if you don't understand the political differences between them, then you are
ignorant indeed.
>In Harvard/Yale the training grounds for almost all presidents
Yep... those who reach the highest levels of political or business success
certainly do tend to be the ones who've strived for the very best education they
could get.
What's so unusual about that?
>we have one fraternity that consist of every year 15 people
>getting the tap to be a member of Skull and Bones. The order is that of the
>Thule Society from Germany the same Fascist order that Hitler subscribed to
>by the writings of Aleister Crowley (author of the LAW and honored by many
>rock bands). Of the Skull and Bones people that you may have heard of are;
>
>Weyerhaeuser- Largest Lumber Company in America
>
>Rockefeller- The elite of the Elite
>
>Goodyear- Largest tire manufacturer
>
>Pillsbury- leader in the home cooking industry
>
>Kellogg- cereal maker among other things
>
>Kerry - disgrace to America, real name John Kohn a Jew with a Irish Catholic
>sir (Kerry) name married to Teresa (Jewish also) whose Husband was also a
>Bones Man
Ah! Nothing like adding a little antisemitism to your S&B conspiracy...
>Bush sr. gave us NAFTA
Yep... Clinton signed it.
>and 1st president to admit to NWO on 9/11/1991
>
>Bush current president also resided over the USA on 9/11/2001 the same day
>that NORAD was doing a mock invasion of the USA so when the terrorist strike
>took place NORAD stood down thinking it was only a drill.
LOL!!
>That is one of many issues that are un-answered.
>
> If we took 15 men per year for the last 100 years we would have 150 men and
>in the last election the USA had a population of 295,734,134. The law of
>averages that our to presidential candidates could arise out of that
>distinct number of Bones men claiming to be on opposite side of one another
>is 147,867,142 to 1 based on the 100 year bones men ratio. That is an
>amazing feat by any definition.
And an excellent example of how a poor understanding of statistics can be
twisted to 'prove' what you want to prove.
Now, if you were *honest*, you'd remove from the U.S. population *FIRST OF ALL*,
all people not constitutionally qualified for the Presidency. Then you'd take
the time to remove all people who never made the slightest attempt to *run* for
-ANY- political office, let alone the Presidency. Then you might start to get
to the true state of affairs...
But pray continue...
>How many people have run for president from Phi Delta Theta.?
Only one that I'm aware of.
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhbl3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <11jhpov...@corp.supernews.com>, Sam says...
>>>
>>>they bought zapruder's film then controlled its release to the public
>>
>> I was under the impression that Time-Life did this.
>>
>>
>>>their publications time, newsweek, life magazine, ny times, etc.
>>>controlled when and how information of the assassination was disseminated
>>
>>
>> Yep... that *is* what the media does. Hence the very strong interest in
>> the media from intelligene organizations such as the CIA or KGB
>>
>>
>>>jackal's sniping rifle, jfk's brain, and the missing bullet fragments are
>>>all the types of things they like to collect in their tomb
>>>
>>>with +/- 800 living members at any given time, they were one of, if not
>>>the, major force behind the assassination
>>
>> Silly. What, beyond the fact that successful people tend to go to
>> Harvard, or any other ivy league school, show any involvement by this
>> "web" of a fraternity.
A *STILL* unanswered question.
Ben Holmes
>
>(usual clicks)
>
>bye ben, life's too short...
Too short to answer one simple question... What fact, other than the obvious one
that successful people who rise to the top in business or politics tend to have
been those very same people who've gotten the very best education money can buy,
support your theory of a "conspiracy" of a group of people from the Ivy League?
Simply saying that "Here's a group of powerful, successful people" who all were
members of final club at Harvard - and that they must therefore be conspiring to
control the universe, means nothing at all.
You could *equally* be talking about the Scroll & Key club at Yale... they too,
have the same impressive membership.
This isn't any different from the antisemitic argument that the Jews control the
media...
You might, just *might*, consider that this is the same treatment (what you are
doing right now - failing to answer questions), as LNT'ers routinely give when
hard questions get asked of them.
luv-old-tv
> In article <p9qdnWFOKsn...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>
>>Silly indeed, I think the communication that you should received was to
>>get
>>an education so that you could see beyond the numbing down that you got
>>from
>>Phi Delta Theta.
>
> You reveal a rather distorted idea of what a fraternity is. Perhaps you
> think
> "Animal House" was the norm?
> And the education I received is being put to use by pointing out how silly
> this
> S&B conspiracy theory *is*.
Please demostrate any points you may have.
What does conspiracy mean to you? Just the word do not add the theory
concept since it was an added word.
>
> Once again, CAN ANYONE point out -any fact- (that would support this silly
> 'conspiracy') beyond the obvious fact that many of the most successful men
> tend
> to graduate from the Ivy league?
Could you clearly state what you mean. But right now; that is an ambiguous
question.
>
>
>>Like name some prominent people that came from this fraternity you
>>attended.
>
> Does Frank Lloyd Wright ring a bell? Or perhaps Neil Armstrong?
Sure I have heard of the Actor Neil Armstrong who acted in the great moon
landing, I think Burt Rynolds would have been more effective.
> Maybe you're the couch type... how about Burt Reynolds? Roger Ebert?
>
> Maybe sports tickle your fancy... Tom Harmon, Lou Gehrig, Doak Walker...
Sports is mind garbage wither you play or you watch or just talk about it.
Nothing impressive here.
> Perhaps big business is where it's at:
> Robert Allen (Former Chairman, AT&T)
> William Allen (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
> John Dasburg (CEO Burger King)
> George Fisher (CEO Eastman Kodak)
> John McLamore (Founder Burger King)
> C.J. Silas (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
> John Smale (CEO Procter & Gamble)
>
Hmm some pety CEO's and another burger entrepreneur. Yeah that is something
to hang your hat on.
> I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift. You can Google all of this
> information, it's publicly available.
>
>
>>About Bush and the election if you think between him and Kerry that we had
>>a
>>real choice you are wrong.
>
> How strange then, that Bush is so lambasted, and Kerry is so praised...
> and
> that people are so *distinctly* divided between these two. If there truly
> *was*
> no choice, why do most people have such strong opinions on who that choice
> should be? Do you suppose that most people are stupid?
You might use the word stupid but I prefer the word misled and decieved.
> And if you don't understand the political differences between them, then
> you are
> ignorant indeed.
>
Oh I understand the devisions set up in their minds but as a whole most of
us all want the same thing.
Example being: We all want security, yet our borders are wide open as the
average citizen is inspected at airports.
We want the borders closed; but the Skull and Bones President like the motto
of "out of Chaos comes Order" so we continue to inspect
the citizens, while the invasion of imergrants continue.
>
>>In Harvard/Yale the training grounds for almost all presidents
>
> Yep... those who reach the highest levels of political or business success
> certainly do tend to be the ones who've strived for the very best
> education they
> could get.
>
> What's so unusual about that?
Nothing; when you chose to stick your head up your butt and not see the
order of things.
I normally see people LOL when they have no intelligent answer.
So I will ask you "What happen to Building 7 in the WTC complex? How did it
fall?
Other Questions I have are;
Can You name any modern Sky Scraper made of steel and concrete that fell
because of fire?
If fire melted the beams why was it an even collapse of the structure?
Did you know that there is a math formula to calculate the fall of items and
the rate of fall for all 3 buildings in the WTC just does not calculate with
the formula.
Do you know what the words "pull it" mean?
Did someone suggest to pull bulding 7?
Who was in charge of security for the WTC?
Those are some very simple questions that the government will not answer
maybe you can.
>>That is one of many issues that are un-answered.
>>
>> If we took 15 men per year for the last 100 years we would have 150 men
>> and
>>in the last election the USA had a population of 295,734,134. The law of
>>averages that our to presidential candidates could arise out of that
>>distinct number of Bones men claiming to be on opposite side of one
>>another
>>is 147,867,142 to 1 based on the 100 year bones men ratio. That is an
>>amazing feat by any definition.
>
>
> And an excellent example of how a poor understanding of statistics can be
> twisted to 'prove' what you want to prove.
Twisted? Just facts pointed out here with goverment data.
>
>
> Now, if you were *honest*, you'd remove from the U.S. population *FIRST OF
> ALL*,
> all people not constitutionally qualified for the Presidency. Then you'd
> take
> the time to remove all people who never made the slightest attempt to
> *run* for
> -ANY- political office, let alone the Presidency. Then you might start to
> get
> to the true state of affairs...
>
> But pray continue...
>
>
>>How many people have run for president from Phi Delta Theta.?
>
>
> Only one that I'm aware of.
Care to name him or are you ashame of him.
Thank you for your reponse.
For your info I am not a liberal just a conservative that believes in the
USA.
omar
read all what
you wrote. I truly believe in all that since I have done my presonal
search and
analysis. Its crazy to know that people just dont want to see the
reality. When
people realize it will probably be to late. BUSH and its fellows are
manipulating
all towards their benefit only. This is scary and I will like to do
something. I just regret voting for Kerry, he is from the same group.
luv-old-tv
> In article <11jiuej...@corp.supernews.com>, Sam says...
>>
>>(usual clicks)
>>
>>bye ben, life's too short...
>
> Too short to answer one simple question... What fact, other than the
> obvious one
> that successful people who rise to the top in business or politics tend to
> have
> been those very same people who've gotten the very best education money
> can buy,
> support your theory of a "conspiracy" of a group of people from the Ivy
> League?
If we assume a random distribution of ability throughout the United States,
then our evidence cannot be accounted for by chance. It must reflect, just
on the basis of mathematical laws of average, a conscious series of choices.
Unless you want to assume that all wisdom and a11 ability in the United
States is generated solely by 15 Yale graduates each year! And a educated
poerson like yourself would not daretake that chance or would you?
luv-old-tv
"omar" <omarec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127849930.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank You, it is not all about Skull and Bones, but about major deception as
to what divides this country into either red or blue. These people all vote
the same and then come out and tell us something like the opposite of what
they just did. Because the American people are more inclined to believe the
media we accept that as fact without really seeking out the truth, a simple
Google search will easily allow us to see that red is blue while blue is
red. But the rhetoric is likening to that of a WWF match on pay-per-view.
I am neither of those groups and the current president does not represent
anything conservative. I want freedom and preservation of democracy and
someone to vote for whom does not follow the order as it currently exist.
The Belief that from Chaos comes order is absurd!
Don
Ben Holmes
>> In article <11jiuej...@corp.supernews.com>, Sam says...
>>>
>>>(usual clicks)
>>>
>>>bye ben, life's too short...
>>
>> Too short to answer one simple question... What fact, other than the
>> obvious one that successful people who rise to the top in business or
>> politics tend to have been those very same people who've gotten the
>> very best education money can buy, support your theory of a "conspiracy"
>> of a group of people from the Ivy League?
>
>If we assume a random distribution of ability throughout the United States,
>then our evidence cannot be accounted for by chance.
You're talking nonsense right now. If you assume a "random distribution of
ability" - of *COURSE* there's a "random distribution of ability"... did you
suppose that Californians are smarter than Texans? Or that Alaskans can lift
heavier weights than Floridians?
What they *all* have in common, is the desire, should they have the requisite
ability, to attend Ivy League colleges. They know, as anyone of intelligence
knows, that the better an education you achieve, the higher you can go in life.
>It must reflect, just
>on the basis of mathematical laws of average, a conscious series of choices.
Yep... those that can, quite often choose Ivy League colleges. No-one in their
right mind *intentionally* selects a state college when they can afford and have
been chosen to attend, an Ivy League college.
>Unless you want to assume that all wisdom and a11 ability in the United
>States is generated solely by 15 Yale graduates each year!
Only you are making such a silly assertion. I certainly don't.
>And a educated
>poerson like yourself would not daretake that chance or would you?
An "educated" person such as myself is wasting my time right now...
I note: *No-one*, including yourself, has answered the question yet. Why is
that?
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhc25...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <p9qdnWFOKsn...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>>
>>>Silly indeed, I think the communication that you should received was to
>>>get an education so that you could see beyond the numbing down that you
>>>got from Phi Delta Theta.
>>
>> You reveal a rather distorted idea of what a fraternity is. Perhaps you
>> think "Animal House" was the norm?
>
>> And the education I received is being put to use by pointing out how silly
>> this S&B conspiracy theory *is*.
>
>Please demostrate any points you may have.
Already did. Still waiting for someone to respond to it.
>What does conspiracy mean to you?
You may accept the dictionary term, it's fine by me.
>Just the word do not add the theory
>concept since it was an added word.
>
>> Once again, CAN ANYONE point out -any fact- (that would support this silly
>> 'conspiracy') beyond the obvious fact that many of the most successful men
>> tend to graduate from the Ivy league?
>
>Could you clearly state what you mean. But right now; that is an ambiguous
>question.
Not ambiguous at all. Your conspiracy theories about 'Skull & Bone' are not any
different from proclaiming that there is a conspiracy by those who've attended
law school to control the Supreme Court... and the proof, is that EACH AND EVERY
ONE OF THE JUSTICES WENT TO LAW SCHOOL.
I'm merely asking you for a fact *other* than the obvious to support your
conspiracy theory.
Why is this so difficult to do?
>>>Like name some prominent people that came from this fraternity you
>>>attended.
>>
>> Does Frank Lloyd Wright ring a bell? Or perhaps Neil Armstrong?
>
>
>Sure I have heard of the Actor Neil Armstrong who acted in the great moon
>landing,
Well, I think you've just placed yourself in the kook category.
> I think Burt Rynolds would have been more effective.
>
>> Maybe you're the couch type... how about Burt Reynolds? Roger Ebert?
>>
>> Maybe sports tickle your fancy... Tom Harmon, Lou Gehrig, Doak Walker...
>
>Sports is mind garbage wither you play or you watch or just talk about it.
Ah... let me guess... the cynic with the 98 pound body...
>Nothing impressive here.
>
>> Perhaps big business is where it's at:
>> Robert Allen (Former Chairman, AT&T)
>> William Allen (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
>> John Dasburg (CEO Burger King)
>> George Fisher (CEO Eastman Kodak)
>> John McLamore (Founder Burger King)
>> C.J. Silas (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
>> John Smale (CEO Procter & Gamble)
>>
>Hmm some pety CEO's and another burger entrepreneur. Yeah that is something
>to hang your hat on.
Billion dollar companies, as I look over the list... yep... small stuff.
>> I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift. You can Google all of this
>> information, it's publicly available.
Hmmm... sadly, we see no point to all of this.
>>>About Bush and the election if you think between him and Kerry that we had
>>>a real choice you are wrong.
>>
>> How strange then, that Bush is so lambasted, and Kerry is so praised...
>> and that people are so *distinctly* divided between these two. If
>> there truly *was* no choice, why do most people have such strong
>> opinions on who that choice should be? Do you suppose that most people
>> are stupid?
>
>You might use the word stupid but I prefer the word misled and decieved.
Ah... yes... Kook...
>> And if you don't understand the political differences between them, then
>> you are ignorant indeed.
>>
>Oh I understand the devisions set up in their minds but as a whole most of
>us all want the same thing.
>Example being: We all want security, yet our borders are wide open as the
>average citizen is inspected at airports.
>We want the borders closed; but the Skull and Bones President like the motto
>of "out of Chaos comes Order" so we continue to inspect
>the citizens, while the invasion of imergrants continue.
>
>
>>
>>>In Harvard/Yale the training grounds for almost all presidents
>>
>> Yep... those who reach the highest levels of political or business success
>> certainly do tend to be the ones who've strived for the very best
>> education they
>> could get.
>>
>> What's so unusual about that?
>
>Nothing; when you chose to stick your head up your butt and not see the
>order of things.
And yet... a very simple question, STILL unanswered.
Or when normal people respond to kooks.
>So I will ask you "What happen to Building 7 in the WTC complex? How did it
>fall?
>Other Questions I have are;
>Can You name any modern Sky Scraper made of steel and concrete that fell
>because of fire?
>If fire melted the beams why was it an even collapse of the structure?
>Did you know that there is a math formula to calculate the fall of items and
>the rate of fall for all 3 buildings in the WTC just does not calculate with
>the formula.
>Do you know what the words "pull it" mean?
>Did someone suggest to pull bulding 7?
>Who was in charge of security for the WTC?
>Those are some very simple questions that the government will not answer
>maybe you can.
Sounds to me like someone is a kook, and wants to ask dumb questions.
Try answering *my* question.
>>>That is one of many issues that are un-answered.
>>>
>>> If we took 15 men per year for the last 100 years we would have 150 men
>>> and
>>>in the last election the USA had a population of 295,734,134. The law of
>>>averages that our to presidential candidates could arise out of that
>>>distinct number of Bones men claiming to be on opposite side of one
>>>another
>>>is 147,867,142 to 1 based on the 100 year bones men ratio. That is an
>>>amazing feat by any definition.
>>
>>
>> And an excellent example of how a poor understanding of statistics can be
>> twisted to 'prove' what you want to prove.
>
>Twisted? Just facts pointed out here with goverment data.
As shown immediately below, just total nonsense.
Sorta like saying that the brown-box turtle is endangered because the ratio of
eagles to fireflies is increasing.
>> Now, if you were *honest*, you'd remove from the U.S. population *FIRST OF
>> ALL*, all people not constitutionally qualified for the Presidency. Then
>> you'd take the time to remove all people who never made the slightest
>> attempt to *run* for -ANY- political office, let alone the Presidency.
>> Then you might start to get to the true state of affairs...
>>
>> But pray continue...
>>
>>
>>>How many people have run for president from Phi Delta Theta.?
>>
>>
>> Only one that I'm aware of.
>
> Care to name him or are you ashame of him.
Look it up. It should take you no more than 30 seconds... assuming a fast
Internet connection.
>Thank you for your reponse.
>For your info I am not a liberal just a conservative that believes in the
>USA.
Nonsense. No real conservative would make the sort of comments you've been
making. You *think* you're a conservative, IMO.
>>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>>news:dhbl3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> In article <11jhpov...@corp.supernews.com>, Sam says...
>>>>>
>>>>>they bought zapruder's film then controlled its release to the public
>>>>
>>>> I was under the impression that Time-Life did this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>their publications time, newsweek, life magazine, ny times, etc.
>>>>>controlled when and how information of the assassination was
>>>>>disseminated
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep... that *is* what the media does. Hence the very strong interest in
>>>> the media from intelligene organizations such as the CIA or KGB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>jackal's sniping rifle, jfk's brain, and the missing bullet fragments
>>>>>are
>>>>>all the types of things they like to collect in their tomb
>>>>>
>>>>>with +/- 800 living members at any given time, they were one of, if not
>>>>>the, major force behind the assassination
>>>>
>>>> Silly. What, beyond the fact that successful people tend to go to
>>>> Harvard, or any other ivy league school, show any involvement by this
>>>> "web" of a fraternity.
>>
>> A *STILL* unanswered question.
And *STILL* unanswered. Wonder why?
luv-old-tv
> In article <obCdnS_uesz...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>
>>
>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>news:dhc2...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <11jiuej...@corp.supernews.com>, Sam says...
>>>>
>>>>(usual clicks)
>>>>
>>>>bye ben, life's too short...
>>>
>>> Too short to answer one simple question... What fact, other than the
>>> obvious one that successful people who rise to the top in business or
>>> politics tend to have been those very same people who've gotten the
>>> very best education money can buy, support your theory of a "conspiracy"
>>> of a group of people from the Ivy League?
>>
>>If we assume a random distribution of ability throughout the United
>>States,
>>then our evidence cannot be accounted for by chance.
>
> You're talking nonsense right now. If you assume a "random distribution
> of
> ability" - of *COURSE* there's a "random distribution of ability"... did
> you
> suppose that Californians are smarter than Texans? Or that Alaskans can
> lift
> heavier weights than Floridians?
And I was the one Writing non-sense right now. Surely you jest with this
incomplete juncture of absent minded preludes to another subject matter;
as it has nothing to do with the answer to your question that you were
given.
> What they *all* have in common, is the desire, should they have the
> requisite
> ability, to attend Ivy League colleges. They know, as anyone of
> intelligence
> knows, that the better an education you achieve, the higher you can go in
> life.
(sigh)
They? Like someone named John Jacob Astor? Do you know or have you heard of
him?
Look him up then make the simple-minded point you are so despratley trying
to make.
>
>
>
>>It must reflect, just
>>on the basis of mathematical laws of average, a conscious series of
>>choices.
>
> Yep... those that can, quite often choose Ivy League colleges. No-one in
> their
> right mind *intentionally* selects a state college when they can afford
> and have
> been chosen to attend, an Ivy League college.
The question is can those without education be selected to those prominate
schools? While those with money and skills be rejected to be selected in
lets say Skull and Bones?
>
>>Unless you want to assume that all wisdom and a11 ability in the United
>>States is generated solely by 15 Yale graduates each year!
>
> Only you are making such a silly assertion. I certainly don't.
Well if it is indeed a silly assertion; explain how one can become a member
of Skull and Bones.
>>And a educated
>>poerson like yourself would not daretake that chance or would you?
>
> An "educated" person such as myself is wasting my time right now...
That or maybe your parents wasted the money to get you a real education and
it is me wasting my time with an escapee of a "Funny Farm".
>
>
> I note: *No-one*, including yourself, has answered the question yet. Why
> is
> that?
>
Done that; you chose another course and concluded that you might be right.
Dude stop all your double talk and get a grip with this; you nor I can ever
be a Skull and Bones member nor can anyone in our families past or future.
Money cannot buy you into this group because John F Kerry surely was lacking
in the funding department until after he married the wife of an ex- S&B
person. By the time he met her he had already served 4 months in Vietnam and
showed the world he could betray his country. So could it be a bloodline
thing Maybe we should just look there.
luv-old-tv
> In article <ROCdnd0Bz9URB6Te...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv
> says...
>>
>>
>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>news:dhc25...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <p9qdnWFOKsn...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>>>
>>>>Silly indeed, I think the communication that you should received was to
>>>>get an education so that you could see beyond the numbing down that you
>>>>got from Phi Delta Theta.
>>>
>>> You reveal a rather distorted idea of what a fraternity is. Perhaps you
>>> think "Animal House" was the norm?
>>
>>> And the education I received is being put to use by pointing out how
>>> silly
>>> this S&B conspiracy theory *is*.
>>
>>Please demostrate any points you may have.
>
>
> Already did. Still waiting for someone to respond to it.
>
>
>>What does conspiracy mean to you?
>
> You may accept the dictionary term, it's fine by me.
Great the dictionary defines consparicy as "not accepting the official
record of an event" in this case 75% of the USA does not accept
the Governments account of the Kennedy Assaination with the exception of
you. You accept it and the rest of us are "kooks" in your own words.
The only one kooky here is yourself and by the way you anawer the rest of
this post we can assume you are an unintelligant kook at best.
>>Just the word do not add the theory
>>concept since it was an added word.
>>
>>> Once again, CAN ANYONE point out -any fact- (that would support this
>>> silly
>>> 'conspiracy') beyond the obvious fact that many of the most successful
>>> men
>>> tend to graduate from the Ivy league?
>>
>>Could you clearly state what you mean. But right now; that is an ambiguous
>>question.
>
> Not ambiguous at all. Your conspiracy theories about 'Skull & Bone' are
> not any
> different from proclaiming that there is a conspiracy by those who've
> attended
> law school to control the Supreme Court... and the proof, is that EACH AND
> EVERY
> ONE OF THE JUSTICES WENT TO LAW SCHOOL.
Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson both practiced law without ever
attending Law School. Both became presidents who appointed Justices. But
that really does not matter since you like using stupid examples of nothing
to superimpose something to the trivial troll who might come upon your
ridiculous written statements.
> I'm merely asking you for a fact *other* than the obvious to support your
> conspiracy theory.
>
> Why is this so difficult to do?
>
>
>>>>Like name some prominent people that came from this fraternity you
>>>>attended.
>>>
>>> Does Frank Lloyd Wright ring a bell? Or perhaps Neil Armstrong?
>>
>>
>>Sure I have heard of the Actor Neil Armstrong who acted in the great moon
>>landing,
>
>
> Well, I think you've just placed yourself in the kook category.
So you really think someone can travel through the Reynolds solar system
(radiation) and live to tell about it. And I am the Kook?
So why has NASA never been back in the last 30 years and why haven't the
Russian's been?
>
>> I think Burt Rynolds would have been more effective.
>>
>>> Maybe you're the couch type... how about Burt Reynolds? Roger Ebert?
>>>
>>> Maybe sports tickle your fancy... Tom Harmon, Lou Gehrig, Doak Walker...
>>
>>Sports is mind garbage wither you play or you watch or just talk about it.
>
> Ah... let me guess... the cynic with the 98 pound body...
Sure if that is all your simple-mind can come up with.
>
>>Nothing impressive here.
>>
>>> Perhaps big business is where it's at:
>>> Robert Allen (Former Chairman, AT&T)
>>> William Allen (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
>>> John Dasburg (CEO Burger King)
>>> George Fisher (CEO Eastman Kodak)
>>> John McLamore (Founder Burger King)
>>> C.J. Silas (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
>>> John Smale (CEO Procter & Gamble)
>>>
>>Hmm some pety CEO's and another burger entrepreneur. Yeah that is
>>something
>>to hang your hat on.
>
>
> Billion dollar companies, as I look over the list... yep... small stuff.
No Presidents. Hell with your limited education you could be a CEO.
>
>>> I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift. You can Google all of
>>> this
>>> information, it's publicly available.
>
>
> Hmmm... sadly, we see no point to all of this.
>
I looked it up and that is why I find you somewhat goofy for even
mentioniung it.
>
>>>>About Bush and the election if you think between him and Kerry that we
>>>>had
>>>>a real choice you are wrong.
>>>
>>> How strange then, that Bush is so lambasted, and Kerry is so praised...
>>> and that people are so *distinctly* divided between these two. If
>>> there truly *was* no choice, why do most people have such strong
>>> opinions on who that choice should be? Do you suppose that most people
>>> are stupid?
>>
>>You might use the word stupid but I prefer the word misled and decieved.
>
>
> Ah... yes... Kook...
Name calling is for those who still mentally reside in grammer school.
>
>
>>> And if you don't understand the political differences between them, then
>>> you are ignorant indeed.
>>>
>>Oh I understand the devisions set up in their minds but as a whole most of
>>us all want the same thing.
>>Example being: We all want security, yet our borders are wide open as the
>>average citizen is inspected at airports.
>>We want the borders closed; but the Skull and Bones President like the
>>motto
>>of "out of Chaos comes Order" so we continue to inspect
>>the citizens, while the invasion of imergrants continue.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>In Harvard/Yale the training grounds for almost all presidents
>>>
>>> Yep... those who reach the highest levels of political or business
>>> success
>>> certainly do tend to be the ones who've strived for the very best
>>> education they
>>> could get.
>>>
>>> What's so unusual about that?
>>
>>Nothing; when you chose to stick your head up your butt and not see the
>>order of things.
>
>
> And yet... a very simple question, STILL unanswered.
We have already demostrated that those attended your school; could not cut
the mustard.
Remember no Presidents. Your questions is solved by your own admission.
Then I should be ROFLMAO at you.
>
>>So I will ask you "What happen to Building 7 in the WTC complex? How did
>>it
>>fall?
>>Other Questions I have are;
>>Can You name any modern Sky Scraper made of steel and concrete that fell
>>because of fire?
>>If fire melted the beams why was it an even collapse of the structure?
>>Did you know that there is a math formula to calculate the fall of items
>>and
>>the rate of fall for all 3 buildings in the WTC just does not calculate
>>with
>>the formula.
>>Do you know what the words "pull it" mean?
>>Did someone suggest to pull bulding 7?
>>Who was in charge of security for the WTC?
>>Those are some very simple questions that the government will not answer
>>maybe you can.
>
>
> Sounds to me like someone is a kook, and wants to ask dumb questions.
>
You are one of the most uneducated bums I have ran across in recent memory.
You have no debating skill and have the mentality of a adolescent on drugs
trying to act cool as your world collapse by the weight of my keyboard. No
one will ever recognize you until you pull your head out of your butt and
gun pointed at your head. Now answer those dumb questions or troll on down
the UseNet in hopes of finding someone that finds you credible.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhcag...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <obCdnS_uesz...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>>news:dhc2...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> In article <11jiuej...@corp.supernews.com>, Sam says...
>>>>>
>>>>>(usual clicks)
>>>>>
>>>>>bye ben, life's too short...
>>>>
>>>> Too short to answer one simple question... What fact, other than the
>>>> obvious one that successful people who rise to the top in business or
>>>> politics tend to have been those very same people who've gotten the
>>>> very best education money can buy, support your theory of a "conspiracy"
>>>> of a group of people from the Ivy League?
>>>
>>>If we assume a random distribution of ability throughout the United
>>>States, then our evidence cannot be accounted for by chance.
>>
>> You're talking nonsense right now. If you assume a "random distribution
>> of ability" - of *COURSE* there's a "random distribution of ability"...
>> did you suppose that Californians are smarter than Texans? Or that
>> Alaskans can lift heavier weights than Floridians?
>
>And I was the one Writing non-sense right now.
Yep, you were. It's complete nonsense to suppose that there's a surfeit of
ability born in any one locality.
>Surely you jest with this
>incomplete juncture of absent minded preludes to another subject matter;
>
>as it has nothing to do with the answer to your question that you were
>given.
You haven't *ANSWERED* my question... you didn't even make an attempt at it!
>> What they *all* have in common, is the desire, should they have the
>> requisite ability, to attend Ivy League colleges. They know, as anyone
>> of intelligence knows, that the better an education you achieve, the
>> higher you can go in life.
>
>(sigh)
>They? Like someone named John Jacob Astor? Do you know or have you heard of
>him?
>Look him up then make the simple-minded point you are so despratley trying
>to make.
I've *made* the point. There's nothing you can do to refute it.
>>>It must reflect, just
>>>on the basis of mathematical laws of average, a conscious series of
>>>choices.
>>
>> Yep... those that can, quite often choose Ivy League colleges. No-one in
>> their right mind *intentionally* selects a state college when they can
>> afford and have been chosen to attend, an Ivy League college.
>
>The question is can those without education be selected to those prominate
>schools?
Rather stupid question, isn't it?
Sorta like asking if someone who's been a couch potato all his life has a chance
at being invited to try out for a football team.
Why would the Ivy League approve applications from those who are totally
unqualified to learn at the level they teach?
>While those with money and skills be rejected to be selected in
>lets say Skull and Bones?
>>
>>>Unless you want to assume that all wisdom and a11 ability in the United
>>>States is generated solely by 15 Yale graduates each year!
>>
>> Only you are making such a silly assertion. I certainly don't.
>
>Well if it is indeed a silly assertion; explain how one can become a member
>of Skull and Bones.
You start by working hard enough to be accepted at Harvard.
>>>And a educated
>>>poerson like yourself would not daretake that chance or would you?
>>
>> An "educated" person such as myself is wasting my time right now...
>
>That or maybe your parents wasted the money to get you a real education
My parents had a wonderful philosophy. When you turn 18, you were on your own.
>and it is me wasting my time with an escapee of a "Funny Farm".
When you can't answer one simple question???
>> I note: *No-one*, including yourself, has answered the question yet. Why
>> is that?
>>
>Done that;
No, you haven't.
I've asked for ANY fact whatsoever, that will support a 'conspiracy' of the
Skull & Bones club to rule the world, or whatever you think they are doing...
that does *NOT* involve their mere membership.
I've already pointed out the conspiracy of the Law schools to control the
Supreme Court, it's *just* as silly an argument.
I *EXPECT* Skull & Bones members to be successful in life... I *EXPECT* ALL
those who graduate from Harvard to be successful in life... if you don't, you're
a fool.
>you chose another course and concluded that you might be right.
>Dude stop all your double talk and get a grip with this; you nor I can ever
>be a Skull and Bones member nor can anyone in our families past or future.
>Money cannot buy you into this group because John F Kerry surely was lacking
>in the funding department until after he married the wife of an ex- S&B
>person. By the time he met her he had already served 4 months in Vietnam and
>showed the world he could betray his country. So could it be a bloodline
>thing Maybe we should just look there.
LOL!!!
A conspiracy looking for facts to support it!!
And I'm *still* looking for this fact... why can't anyone provide it?
luv-old-tv
Take a nap and try again your question has been answered many time already!
>
>
>>> What they *all* have in common, is the desire, should they have the
>>> requisite ability, to attend Ivy League colleges. They know, as anyone
>>> of intelligence knows, that the better an education you achieve, the
>>> higher you can go in life.
>>
>>(sigh)
>>They? Like someone named John Jacob Astor? Do you know or have you heard
>>of
>>him?
>>Look him up then make the simple-minded point you are so despratley trying
>>to make.
>
>
> I've *made* the point. There's nothing you can do to refute it.
Who is and how did John Jacob Astor come to power?
>
>
>
>
>>>>It must reflect, just
>>>>on the basis of mathematical laws of average, a conscious series of
>>>>choices.
>>>
>>> Yep... those that can, quite often choose Ivy League colleges. No-one
>>> in
>>> their right mind *intentionally* selects a state college when they can
>>> afford and have been chosen to attend, an Ivy League college.
>>
>>The question is can those without education be selected to those prominate
>>schools?
>
> Rather stupid question, isn't it?
Not when you look at some of the people in power.
>
> Sorta like asking if someone who's been a couch potato all his life has a
> chance
> at being invited to try out for a football team.
>
> Why would the Ivy League approve applications from those who are totally
> unqualified to learn at the level they teach?
But they do.
>
>
>>While those with money and skills be rejected to be selected in
>>lets say Skull and Bones?
>>>
>>>>Unless you want to assume that all wisdom and a11 ability in the United
>>>>States is generated solely by 15 Yale graduates each year!
>>>
>>> Only you are making such a silly assertion. I certainly don't.
>>
>>Well if it is indeed a silly assertion; explain how one can become a
>>member
>>of Skull and Bones.
>
>
> You start by working hard enough to be accepted at Harvard.
Did you forget this was about Skull and Bones. I am starting to understand
how to debate Al gore with the like s of you.
>
>
>>>>And a educated
>>>>poerson like yourself would not daretake that chance or would you?
>>>
>>> An "educated" person such as myself is wasting my time right now...
>>
>>That or maybe your parents wasted the money to get you a real education
>
>
> My parents had a wonderful philosophy. When you turn 18, you were on your
> own.
At least the were decent. So what happen to you?
>
>>and it is me wasting my time with an escapee of a "Funny Farm".
>
>
> When you can't answer one simple question???
Done that! You have yet to answer one question from me.
>
>
>>> I note: *No-one*, including yourself, has answered the question yet.
>>> Why
>>> is that?
>>>
>>Done that;
>
> No, you haven't.
>
Yep
> I've asked for ANY fact whatsoever, that will support a 'conspiracy' of
> the
> Skull & Bones club to rule the world, or whatever you think they are
> doing...
> that does *NOT* involve their mere membership.
So you add Qoute BH "that does *NOT* involve their mere membership" and
make the original question seem unanswered and what the hell is wrong with
you?
>
> I've already pointed out the conspiracy of the Law schools to control the
> Supreme Court, it's *just* as silly an argument.
And I pointed out how Lincoln and Jefferson disputed that juvenile
reflection you hold dear to.
>
> I *EXPECT* Skull & Bones members to be successful in life... I *EXPECT*
> ALL
> those who graduate from Harvard to be successful in life... if you don't,
> you're
> a fool.
>
Your expectations does no eliminate the fact that out of 150 S&B members in
the last 100 years that we would arrive at GW BUSH and JF KERRY at our last
election.
>>you chose another course and concluded that you might be right.
>>Dude stop all your double talk and get a grip with this; you nor I can
>>ever
>>be a Skull and Bones member nor can anyone in our families past or future.
>>Money cannot buy you into this group because John F Kerry surely was
>>lacking
>>in the funding department until after he married the wife of an ex- S&B
>>person. By the time he met her he had already served 4 months in Vietnam
>>and
>>showed the world he could betray his country. So could it be a bloodline
>>thing Maybe we should just look there.
>
> LOL!!!
>
> A conspiracy looking for facts to support it!!
>
ROFLMAO at an idiot trying to debate me.. with double talk.
Hence do you prefer to talk about Harvard or Skull and Bones.
Make up your mind!
There is no Conspiracy in the fact that both nominees were Skull and Bones.
The Conspiracy that exist is that Skull and Bones is a major player in World
Events to what extent we do not know because as JF KERRY and GW BUSH stated
on meet the press "ITS A SECRET"
What happen to building 7 on 911?
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhcbn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <ROCdnd0Bz9URB6Te...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv
>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>>news:dhc25...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> In article <p9qdnWFOKsn...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Silly indeed, I think the communication that you should received was to
>>>>>get an education so that you could see beyond the numbing down that you
>>>>>got from Phi Delta Theta.
>>>>
>>>> You reveal a rather distorted idea of what a fraternity is. Perhaps you
>>>> think "Animal House" was the norm?
>>>
>>>> And the education I received is being put to use by pointing out how
>>>> silly
>>>> this S&B conspiracy theory *is*.
>>>
>>>Please demostrate any points you may have.
>>
>>
>> Already did. Still waiting for someone to respond to it.
>>
>>
>>>What does conspiracy mean to you?
>>
>> You may accept the dictionary term, it's fine by me.
>
>Great the dictionary defines consparicy as "not accepting the official
>record of an event"
Well, it's to be expected, I guess. When you can't make an argument by using
facts, simply resort to lies.
Let's go take a look at a dictionary online, shall we?
YourDictionary.com states:
"An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0586500.html
Law.com says:
"n. when people work together by agreement to commit an illegal act. A
conspiracy may exist when the parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal
result, or to use illegal means to achieve something that in itself is lawful.
To prove a conspiracy those involved must have agreed to the plan before all the
actions have been taken, or it is just a series of independent illegal acts. A
conspiracy can be criminal for planning and carrying out illegal activities, or
give rise to a civil lawsuit for damages by someone injured by the conspiracy.
Thus, a scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be
prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an
auto to sue for damages for the fraud and conspiracy."
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=310&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
WordReference.com offers these three:
"a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)"
"a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act"
"a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal
purpose"
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/conspiracy
The American Heritage Dictionary at Bartleby.com states:
"An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/C0586500.html
Dictionary.com offers:
"An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy
Are you beginning to sense a pattern here?
You've simply lied. I even attempted to Google your "definition" that you gave,
"not accepting the official record of an event", and Google doesn't list *ANY*
reference to that statement.
I defy you to produce the dictionary that you used.
>in this case 75% of the USA does not accept
>the Governments account of the Kennedy Assaination
Actually, the numbers go as high as 90%. You should keep up with current
events...
>with the exception of you.
How strange??? Can you point to ANY STATEMENT OF MINE *AT ALL* that state that
I accept the "government's account" of the Kennedy assassination?
I suspect that everyone can see what a kook you are, that you aren't even aware
that I've been a CT'er most of my life.
>You accept it and the rest of us are "kooks" in your own words.
And this simply goes to prove it. You don't even know the most basic of facts.
>The only one kooky here is yourself and by the way you anawer the rest of
>this post we can assume you are an unintelligant kook at best.
Spell checker's are a wonderful invention. I generally don't waste the time, as
my spelling is fairly accurate as is... but *you* might consider starting to use
one.
>>>Just the word do not add the theory
>>>concept since it was an added word.
>>>
>>>> Once again, CAN ANYONE point out -any fact- (that would support this
>>>> silly
>>>> 'conspiracy') beyond the obvious fact that many of the most successful
>>>> men
>>>> tend to graduate from the Ivy league?
>>>
>>>Could you clearly state what you mean. But right now; that is an ambiguous
>>>question.
>>
>> Not ambiguous at all. Your conspiracy theories about 'Skull & Bone' are
>> not any different from proclaiming that there is a conspiracy by those
>> who've attended law school to control the Supreme Court... and the proof,
>> is that EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE JUSTICES WENT TO LAW SCHOOL.
>
>Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson both practiced law without ever
>attending Law School.
Neither one of them are or were members of the Supreme Court.
>Both became presidents who appointed Justices. But
>that really does not matter since you like using stupid examples of nothing
>to superimpose something to the trivial troll who might come upon your
>ridiculous written statements.
Actually, my analogy is quite precise. I've been begging anyone to provide just
ONE SINGLE FACT outside of the education these men got to support any
'conspiracy' of the Skull & Bones.
And you *STILL* haven't... Why is that?
>> I'm merely asking you for a fact *other* than the obvious to support your
>> conspiracy theory.
>>
>> Why is this so difficult to do?
>>
>>
>>>>>Like name some prominent people that came from this fraternity you
>>>>>attended.
>>>>
>>>> Does Frank Lloyd Wright ring a bell? Or perhaps Neil Armstrong?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure I have heard of the Actor Neil Armstrong who acted in the great moon
>>>landing,
>>
>>
>> Well, I think you've just placed yourself in the kook category.
>
>So you really think someone can travel through the Reynolds solar system
>(radiation) and live to tell about it. And I am the Kook?
>So why has NASA never been back in the last 30 years and why haven't the
>Russian's been?
Don't keep up on the news, do you? Just last week, NASA announced a plan to
begin sending astronauts back to the moon by 2018.
What are you going to do when they find the American Flag on the Moon?
>>> I think Burt Rynolds would have been more effective.
>>>
>>>> Maybe you're the couch type... how about Burt Reynolds? Roger Ebert?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe sports tickle your fancy... Tom Harmon, Lou Gehrig, Doak Walker...
>>>
>>>Sports is mind garbage wither you play or you watch or just talk about it.
>>
>> Ah... let me guess... the cynic with the 98 pound body...
>
>Sure if that is all your simple-mind can come up with.
Anyone foolish enough to denigrate athletics is most likely the one in the most
need of it.
>>>Nothing impressive here.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps big business is where it's at:
>>>> Robert Allen (Former Chairman, AT&T)
>>>> William Allen (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
>>>> John Dasburg (CEO Burger King)
>>>> George Fisher (CEO Eastman Kodak)
>>>> John McLamore (Founder Burger King)
>>>> C.J. Silas (CEO Phillips Petroleum)
>>>> John Smale (CEO Procter & Gamble)
>>>>
>>>Hmm some pety CEO's and another burger entrepreneur. Yeah that is
>>>something to hang your hat on.
>>
>>
>> Billion dollar companies, as I look over the list... yep... small stuff.
>
>No Presidents.
Benjamin Harrison, as best as I recall my early U.S. History, was certainly in
that position...
Looking stupid, right about now, aren't you?
Don't recognize billion dollar companies, and can't do simply Google searches.
>Hell with your limited education you could be a CEO.
Well, as we've just seen, it's *you* that has a limited education...
Perhaps this is why you can't answer just one simple question...
>>>> I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift. You can Google all of
>>>> this information, it's publicly available.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm... sadly, we see no point to all of this.
>>
>
>I looked it up and that is why I find you somewhat goofy for even
>mentioniung it.
No, you *didn't* look it up. Otherwise, you'd have known that the membership of
Phi Delta Theta included a former President.
*YOU* asked for it, I provided it.
Virtually any of the fraternities that date from the 1800's can provide
impressive membership stats.
>>>>>About Bush and the election if you think between him and Kerry that we
>>>>>had
>>>>>a real choice you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> How strange then, that Bush is so lambasted, and Kerry is so praised...
>>>> and that people are so *distinctly* divided between these two. If
>>>> there truly *was* no choice, why do most people have such strong
>>>> opinions on who that choice should be? Do you suppose that most people
>>>> are stupid?
>>>
>>>You might use the word stupid but I prefer the word misled and decieved.
>>
>>
>> Ah... yes... Kook...
>
>Name calling is for those who still mentally reside in grammer school.
Who's calling names? I'm merely accurately categorizing you.
>>>> And if you don't understand the political differences between them, then
>>>> you are ignorant indeed.
>>>>
>>>Oh I understand the devisions set up in their minds but as a whole most of
>>>us all want the same thing.
>>>Example being: We all want security, yet our borders are wide open as the
>>>average citizen is inspected at airports.
>>>We want the borders closed; but the Skull and Bones President like the
>>>motto
>>>of "out of Chaos comes Order" so we continue to inspect
>>>the citizens, while the invasion of imergrants continue.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In Harvard/Yale the training grounds for almost all presidents
>>>>
>>>> Yep... those who reach the highest levels of political or business
>>>> success certainly do tend to be the ones who've strived for the very
>>>> best education they could get.
>>>>
>>>> What's so unusual about that?
>>>
>>>Nothing; when you chose to stick your head up your butt and not see the
>>>order of things.
>>
>>
>> And yet... a very simple question, STILL unanswered.
>
>We have already demostrated that those attended your school; could not cut
>the mustard.
ROTFLMAO!!! You could only *dream* of being as successful as those I listed...
or any number of other famous Phi Delta Theta's
>Remember no Presidents. Your questions is solved by your own admission.
Nope. Never stated that we had no President's among our fraternity. I *told*
you that the information was publically available... and anyone with a fast
Internet connection can locate the info in less than a minute.
Something, I note, that you couldn't do.
Yep... most kooks rarely attempt to tell normal people about their strange
beliefs... knowing, of course, that most people will either laugh, or politely
change the subject.
>You have no debating skill and have the mentality of a adolescent on drugs
>trying to act cool as your world collapse by the weight of my keyboard.
Oh, I think I'll let the lurkers make that decision...
>No
>one will ever recognize you until you pull your head out of your butt and
>gun pointed at your head. Now answer those dumb questions or troll on down
>the UseNet in hopes of finding someone that finds you credible.
Why should I answer your questions when all I've asked is *one*... that still
hasn't been answered???
luv-old-tv
Yep I have determined that you are a freaking idiot that does not know how
to use google or common sense.
try here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Read it and weap!
Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of
events. Even though some conspiracies are proven to exist, many more, even
though they come to be widely accepted,
LOL you idiot!
> You've simply lied. I even attempted to Google your "definition" that you
> gave,
> "not accepting the official record of an event", and Google doesn't list
> *ANY*
> reference to that statement.
>
> I defy you to produce the dictionary that you used.
How does that crow taste?
>
>>in this case 75% of the USA does not accept
>>the Governments account of the Kennedy Assaination
>
> Actually, the numbers go as high as 90%. You should keep up with current
> events...
Thank you; for that stat, but I am a conservative so I keep those numbers
conservative.
Now how was it again that Building 7 fell? Oh that is right you were more
intent on making a absolute fool of yourself here tonight..
You are a freaking kook!
Don
luv-old-tv
>>So you really think someone can travel through the Reynolds solar system
>>(radiation) and live to tell about it. And I am the Kook?
>>So why has NASA never been back in the last 30 years and why haven't the
>>Russian's been?
>
> Don't keep up on the news, do you? Just last week, NASA announced a plan
> to
> begin sending astronauts back to the moon by 2018.
>
the news. Heh, you believe everything don't you.
With the current deficit do you really think we can afford to attempt the
impossible and fly through radiation fields of space?
Or do you contend that maybe those space shuttles with the 2 billion dollar
shield that did not work last month, will be that much better and not catch
on fire trying to get out into orbit in 2018?
> What are you going to do when they find the American Flag on the Moon?
Hopefully the world will purge itself silly notions like that and people
like you by then.
>
>>>> I think Burt Rynolds would have been more effective.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you're the couch type... how about Burt Reynolds? Roger Ebert?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe sports tickle your fancy... Tom Harmon, Lou Gehrig, Doak
>>>>> Walker...
>>>>
>>>>Sports is mind garbage wither you play or you watch or just talk about
>>>>it.
>>>
>>> Ah... let me guess... the cynic with the 98 pound body...
>>
>>Sure if that is all your simple-mind can come up with.
>
>
> Anyone foolish enough to denigrate athletics is most likely the one in the
> most
> need of it.
This might explain why you are not doing so great with me, intellectually.
>>No Presidents.
>
> Benjamin Harrison, as best as I recall my early U.S. History, was
> certainly in
> that position...
Still no Presidents. Oh Gary Coleman ran in our last election. But he was no
president nor was he part of the Skulls and Bones.
> Looking stupid, right about now, aren't you?
>
Yep; if you say so.
> Don't recognize billion dollar companies, and can't do simply Google
> searches.
>
>
>>Hell with your limited education you could be a CEO.
>
> Well, as we've just seen, it's *you* that has a limited education...
>
> Perhaps this is why you can't answer just one simple question...
>
>
>>>>> I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift. You can Google all of
>>>>> this information, it's publicly available.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm... sadly, we see no point to all of this.
>>>
>>
>>I looked it up and that is why I find you somewhat goofy for even
>>mentioniung it.
>
> No, you *didn't* look it up. Otherwise, you'd have known that the
> membership of
> Phi Delta Theta included a former President.
>
> *YOU* asked for it, I provided it.
Yep you have done a great job of providing me with proof that you are a real
KOOK, a goofy one at that.
Don
Gary Combs
sam
not lee mcclung of s&b, 1892
Soo, you reveal you are distant kin to a 1892 skull and bones member? And
why you saying it's skull and bones, doesn't bones me more than one bone,
and who's to say the bones are not crossed?
Lighten up,
gc
Gary Combs
sam
not lee mcclung of s&b, 1892
Soo, you reveal you are distant kin to a 1892 skull and bones member? And
Ben Holmes
No comment???
>>>Surely you jest with this
>>>incomplete juncture of absent minded preludes to another subject matter;
>>>
>>>as it has nothing to do with the answer to your question that you were
>>>given.
>>
>> You haven't *ANSWERED* my question... you didn't even make an attempt at
>> it!
>
>Take a nap and try again your question has been answered many time already!
No, it hasn't. If you think it has been, simply quote it here. Surely an
engineer knows how to cut & paste.
All I'd like to know is simply *ONE FACT* that isn't related to being members of
the Skull & Bones, which shows that they are involved in a conspiracy of any
sort at all.
>>>> What they *all* have in common, is the desire, should they have the
>>>> requisite ability, to attend Ivy League colleges. They know, as anyone
>>>> of intelligence knows, that the better an education you achieve, the
>>>> higher you can go in life.
>>>
>>>(sigh)
>>>They? Like someone named John Jacob Astor? Do you know or have you heard
>>>of
>>>him?
>>>Look him up then make the simple-minded point you are so despratley trying
>>>to make.
>>
>>
>> I've *made* the point. There's nothing you can do to refute it.
>
>Who is and how did John Jacob Astor come to power?
Do you suppose that he was a lazy couch potato that had everything handed to
him?
If so, make your case... but what he has to do with a S&B conspiracy should be
made clear first.
>>>>>It must reflect, just
>>>>>on the basis of mathematical laws of average, a conscious series of
>>>>>choices.
>>>>
>>>> Yep... those that can, quite often choose Ivy League colleges. No-one
>>>> in
>>>> their right mind *intentionally* selects a state college when they can
>>>> afford and have been chosen to attend, an Ivy League college.
>>>
>>>The question is can those without education be selected to those prominate
>>>schools?
>>
>> Rather stupid question, isn't it?
>
>Not when you look at some of the people in power.
Feel free to name *ANYONE* who is "in power", who's attended an Ivy League
school, and yet had failing grades in elementary, junior, and high school.
>> Sorta like asking if someone who's been a couch potato all his life has a
>> chance at being invited to try out for a football team.
>>
>> Why would the Ivy League approve applications from those who are totally
>> unqualified to learn at the level they teach?
>
>But they do.
No, they don't. Other than the reverse discrimination efforts that went on for
awhile, Ivy League schools require *far more* in terms of SAT scores, grade
averages, course curricula, and outside activities than non-Ivy League schools.
You may try to state otherwise, but if so, you're simply a fool.
Try this: contrast the Ivy League school *OF YOUR CHOICE* against any non-Ivy
League school *OF YOUR CHOICE*. List all requirements side by side. Make your
case with *EVIDENCE AND FACTS*.
>>>While those with money and skills be rejected to be selected in
>>>lets say Skull and Bones?
>>>>
>>>>>Unless you want to assume that all wisdom and a11 ability in the United
>>>>>States is generated solely by 15 Yale graduates each year!
>>>>
>>>> Only you are making such a silly assertion. I certainly don't.
>>>
>>>Well if it is indeed a silly assertion; explain how one can become a
>>>member of Skull and Bones.
>>
>>
>> You start by working hard enough to be accepted at Harvard.
>
>Did you forget this was about Skull and Bones. I am starting to understand
>how to debate Al gore with the like s of you.
Ah yes... Yale. Same point.
Care to try again?
>>>>>And a educated
>>>>>poerson like yourself would not daretake that chance or would you?
>>>>
>>>> An "educated" person such as myself is wasting my time right now...
>>>
>>>That or maybe your parents wasted the money to get you a real education
>>
>>
>> My parents had a wonderful philosophy. When you turn 18, you were on your
>> own.
>
>At least the were decent. So what happen to you?
I've become educated enough to recognize kooks when I see them.
And smart enough to ask questions that they can't answer.
>>>and it is me wasting my time with an escapee of a "Funny Farm".
>>
>>
>> When you can't answer one simple question???
>
>Done that! You have yet to answer one question from me.
All you have to do is quote it here:
>>>> I note: *No-one*, including yourself, has answered the question yet.
>>>> Why is that?
>>>>
>>>Done that;
>>
>> No, you haven't.
>>
>Yep
Then you shouldn't have any problems at all QUOTING it.
>> I've asked for ANY fact whatsoever, that will support a 'conspiracy' of
>> the Skull & Bones club to rule the world, or whatever you think they are
>> doing... that does *NOT* involve their mere membership.
>
>So you add Qoute BH "that does *NOT* involve their mere membership"
This *WAS* a part of the original question... I've asked it several times now,
in different forms, and they've *ALL* included the proviso that any "fact" you
name must be apart from their mere membership.
Why is this so difficult to understand???
I thought you said you've *answered* this already???
>and make the original question seem unanswered and what the hell is wrong
>with you?
Here is the question in it's original, first posted form: "What, beyond the fact
that successful people tend to go to Harvard, or any other ivy league school,
show any involvement by this "web" of a fraternity."
Note that I *specifically* disallow any answer that merely relates to their
attendence at a particular school, or obviously, membership in a school
fraternity.
Now, you're either an incredibly *stupid* person, and can't figure out what I've
been repeatedly asking for, or you simply don't have an answer.
Which is it?
>> I've already pointed out the conspiracy of the Law schools to control the
>> Supreme Court, it's *just* as silly an argument.
>
>And I pointed out how Lincoln and Jefferson disputed that juvenile
>reflection you hold dear to.
Neither Lincoln nor Jefferson were members of the Supreme Court.
I'm beginning to lean towards "stupid"...
>> I *EXPECT* Skull & Bones members to be successful in life... I *EXPECT*
>> ALL those who graduate from Harvard to be successful in life... if you
>> don't, you're a fool.
>>
>
>Your expectations does no eliminate the fact that out of 150 S&B members in
>the last 100 years that we would arrive at GW BUSH and JF KERRY at our last
>election.
I would *expect* that our Presidents would tend to come from Ivy League schools.
>>>you chose another course and concluded that you might be right.
>>>Dude stop all your double talk and get a grip with this; you nor I can
>>>ever
>>>be a Skull and Bones member nor can anyone in our families past or future.
>>>Money cannot buy you into this group because John F Kerry surely was
>>>lacking
>>>in the funding department until after he married the wife of an ex- S&B
>>>person. By the time he met her he had already served 4 months in Vietnam
>>>and
>>>showed the world he could betray his country. So could it be a bloodline
>>>thing Maybe we should just look there.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>
>> A conspiracy looking for facts to support it!!
>>
>ROFLMAO at an idiot trying to debate me.. with double talk.
>
>Hence do you prefer to talk about Harvard or Skull and Bones.
>Make up your mind!
Answer the question.
>There is no Conspiracy in the fact that both nominees were Skull and Bones.
>The Conspiracy that exist is that Skull and Bones is a major player in World
>Events
Name a *SINGLE* fact that supports that statement, *OTHER* than mere membership
in Skull & Bones.
Or admit that Law schools are attempting to 'conspire' to control the Supreme
Court... or are you going to dispute the FACT that each and every member of the
Supreme Court is a Law school graduate???
>to what extent we do not know because as JF KERRY and GW BUSH stated
>on meet the press "ITS A SECRET"
And you're a liar. I *DEFY* you to produce a question similar to "How is the
Skull & Bones going to control the world" - answered by "ITS A SECRET".
You won't be able to produce any such question.
>What happen to building 7 on 911?
Has nothing to do with the S&B conspiracy... answer my question and I'll be more
inclined to answer yours.
Sam
>
> sam
> not lee mcclung of s&b, 1892
>
> Soo, you reveal you are distant kin to a 1892 skull and bones member?
how did you formulate the thought of asking that? since he had the same last
name as me? are you related to all the combs that were alive in 1892?
in response to your question, not to my knowledge, unless along the lines
that we are all related, you...me...everybody (remember the blues brothers?)
> And why you saying it's skull and bones,
i'm not saying that, they are, you just aren't paying attention to the
discussion
> doesn't bones me more than one bone,
did you mean to say "mean" instead of "me"?
> and who's to say the bones are not crossed?
you misstated their name, you were corrected, and now you're heading off on
a tangent
>
> Lighten up,
> gc
lighter than you,
sam
Sam
"Gary Combs" <glcc...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
news:MHo_e.2441$hw2....@fe02.lga...
Ben Holmes
I've already *told* you that your phrase *CANNOT* be found by Google. You're a
liar.
Kindly provide the URL for the Google search on your *EXACT* phrase.
>or common sense.
>try here
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
>
> Read it and weap!
Well, first, Wikipedia is not a "dictionary". I *did* state that I'll accept
the common dictionary meaning, did I not?
Do you understand that Wikipedia is *NOT* a dictionary??? Why do you bother to
attempt to use it as an authoritative source?
Second, you aren't using it to look at any definition of "conspiracy", but
"conspiracy theory". Here, for example, is what Wikipedia states on
"conspiracy":
"Conspiracy, in common usage, is the act of working in secret to obtain some
goal, usually understood with negative connotations. Etymologically, the term
comes from Latin con- "with, together", and spirare "to breathe".
As a legal term, conspiracy has historically been defined, in America, as an
agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end
through illegal actions. For example, planning to rob a bank in order to raise
money for charity is still an illegal conspiracy. The conspiracy does not need
to have been planned in secret in order to meet the definition of the crime."
>Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of
>events. Even though some conspiracies are proven to exist, many more, even
>though they come to be widely accepted,
Not a definition of "conspiracy".
Care to try again?
>LOL you idiot!
My words, precisely...
>> You've simply lied. I even attempted to Google your "definition" that you
>> gave, "not accepting the official record of an event", and Google doesn't
>> list *ANY* reference to that statement.
>>
>> I defy you to produce the dictionary that you used.
>
>How does that crow taste?
I wouldn't know.
You HAVEN'T produced *ANY* URL that came from a Google search of your precise
phrase, nor can you.
You HAVEN'T produced *ANY* dictionary ... don't you think you should figure out
what a dictionary is first?
>>>in this case 75% of the USA does not accept
>>>the Governments account of the Kennedy Assaination
>>
>> Actually, the numbers go as high as 90%. You should keep up with current
>> events...
>
>Thank you; for that stat, but I am a conservative so I keep those numbers
>conservative.
You have a poor understanding of what it means to be a conservative.
And it looks like you rather cowardly snipped without answering...
I seem to recall a wee bit more to that statement... where did it go?
And why didn't you respond to it before you cowardly snipped it with no notice?
>Now how was it again that Building 7 fell?
Never answered, and probably, judging from your behavior and sheer stupidity, it
wouldn't be worth my time.
>Oh that is right you were more
>intent on making a absolute fool of yourself here tonight..
I'll let the lurkers determine that.
> You are a freaking kook!
Not only are you a kook, you're a *cowardly* kook, as shown below...
>Don
What happened to your assertion that I was a believer in the governments
position on the JFK assassination? In fact, just for the fun of it, here's the
material you *snipped* with no response...
I'm sure lurkers will get a kick out of seeing how much you were too cowardly to
answer:
****************************************************************
>in this case 75% of the USA does not accept
>the Governments account of the Kennedy Assaination
Actually, the numbers go as high as 90%. You should keep up with current
events...
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhcqn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>So you really think someone can travel through the Reynolds solar system
>>>(radiation) and live to tell about it. And I am the Kook?
>>>So why has NASA never been back in the last 30 years and why haven't the
>>>Russian's been?
>>
>> Don't keep up on the news, do you? Just last week, NASA announced a plan
>> to begin sending astronauts back to the moon by 2018.
>>
>Last week bananas were cancer causing and this week they are not, so says
>the news. Heh, you believe everything don't you.
>
>With the current deficit do you really think we can afford to attempt the
>impossible and fly through radiation fields of space?
Of course...
But I'm not stupid enough to think it's impossible.
>Or do you contend that maybe those space shuttles with the 2 billion dollar
>shield that did not work last month, will be that much better and not catch
>on fire trying to get out into orbit in 2018?
Nah, those shuttles never fly... they are just filmed on a lot somewhere in
Hollywood.
>> What are you going to do when they find the American Flag on the Moon?
>
>
>Hopefully the world will purge itself silly notions like that and people
>like you by then.
Is the Earth still flat?
Do pygmies live in the center of the earth?
>>>>> I think Burt Rynolds would have been more effective.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you're the couch type... how about Burt Reynolds? Roger Ebert?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe sports tickle your fancy... Tom Harmon, Lou Gehrig, Doak
>>>>>> Walker...
>>>>>
>>>>>Sports is mind garbage wither you play or you watch or just talk about
>>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>> Ah... let me guess... the cynic with the 98 pound body...
>>>
>>>Sure if that is all your simple-mind can come up with.
>>
>>
>> Anyone foolish enough to denigrate athletics is most likely the one in the
>> most need of it.
>
>This might explain why you are not doing so great with me, intellectually.
LOL! Good for laughs, you surely are!
>>>No Presidents.
>>
>> Benjamin Harrison, as best as I recall my early U.S. History, was
>> certainly in that position...
>
>Still no Presidents.
Strangely, doing a Google search on "Benjamin Harrison" pulls up a website
claiming that he was our 23rd President.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your kooky theories...
>Oh Gary Coleman ran in our last election. But he was no
>president nor was he part of the Skulls and Bones.
And red shoelaces aren't as common as black shoelaces.
>> Looking stupid, right about now, aren't you?
>>
>Yep; if you say so.
>
>> Don't recognize billion dollar companies, and can't do simply Google
>> searches.
>>
>>
>>>Hell with your limited education you could be a CEO.
>>
>> Well, as we've just seen, it's *you* that has a limited education...
>>
>> Perhaps this is why you can't answer just one simple question...
>>
>>
>>>>>> I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift. You can Google all of
>>>>>> this information, it's publicly available.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm... sadly, we see no point to all of this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I looked it up and that is why I find you somewhat goofy for even
>>>mentioniung it.
>>
>> No, you *didn't* look it up. Otherwise, you'd have known that the
>> membership of Phi Delta Theta included a former President.
>>
>> *YOU* asked for it, I provided it.
>
>Yep you have done a great job of providing me with proof that you are a real
>KOOK, a goofy one at that.
>
>Don
Don, do yourself a favor, start producing either answers or facts.
Gary Combs
Sam,
I do stand corrected. on more than one mistake. Glad you were light
hearted, you didn't slam me to hard, and yes....you are indeed lighter than
me. Glad to read your posts for your views are enlighting as you choose your
words very good, IMO.
gc
luv-old-tv
>>With the current deficit do you really think we can afford to attempt the
>>impossible and fly through radiation fields of space?
>
>
> Of course...
>
>
> But I'm not stupid enough to think it's impossible.
So you think.
>
>>Or do you contend that maybe those space shuttles with the 2 billion
>>dollar
>>shield that did not work last month, will be that much better and not
>>catch
>>on fire trying to get out into orbit in 2018?
>
>
> Nah, those shuttles never fly... they are just filmed on a lot somewhere
> in
> Hollywood.
>
Shuttle flying and men walking on the moon is in comparrison to apple and
oranges.
>
>>> What are you going to do when they find the American Flag on the Moon?
>>
>>
>>Hopefully the world will purge itself silly notions like that and people
>>like you by then.
>
>
> Is the Earth still flat?
Yep!
> Do pygmies live in the center of the earth?
No UFO's do...........lol
>>> Anyone foolish enough to denigrate athletics is most likely the one in
>>> the
>>> most need of it.
>>
>>This might explain why you are not doing so great with me, intellectually.
>
>
> LOL! Good for laughs, you surely are!
>
Thank you.
>
>>>>No Presidents.
>>>
>>> Benjamin Harrison, as best as I recall my early U.S. History, was
>>> certainly in that position...
>>
>>Still no Presidents.
>
> Strangely, doing a Google search on "Benjamin Harrison" pulls up a website
> claiming that he was our 23rd President.
I'll concede however; official BH sites do not even bother making mention of
Phi Delta Theta.
And I really don't blame those sites after all you make the claim to have
been one and that has not really impressed me much at this point.
Sam
thanks gary, no slamming intended, just trying to stay focused on issues
Anthony Marsh
And who decides which dictionary is acceptable? If a word is not in the
American Dictionary, but is in the Oxford dictionary, YOU get to decide
if the word really exists based on your bias?
Wikipedia is not exactly a dictionary, more like an encyclopedia, a
people's encyclopedia. Sometimes an encyclopedia will give you more
information about the source of usage of a word than a high school
dictionary.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhda9...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>With the current deficit do you really think we can afford to attempt the
>>>impossible and fly through radiation fields of space?
>>
>>
>> Of course...
>>
>>
>> But I'm not stupid enough to think it's impossible.
>
>So you think.
Don't have to "think", it's been *done*.
This is the "boogie man" of the moon hoax kooks.
>>>Or do you contend that maybe those space shuttles with the 2 billion
>>>dollar
>>>shield that did not work last month, will be that much better and not
>>>catch
>>>on fire trying to get out into orbit in 2018?
>>
>>
>> Nah, those shuttles never fly... they are just filmed on a lot somewhere
>> in Hollywood.
>>
>Shuttle flying and men walking on the moon is in comparrison to apple and
>oranges.
Nonsense...
>>>> What are you going to do when they find the American Flag on the Moon?
>>>
>>>
>>>Hopefully the world will purge itself silly notions like that and people
>>>like you by then.
>>
>>
>> Is the Earth still flat?
>
>Yep!
Figures...
>> Do pygmies live in the center of the earth?
>No UFO's do...........lol
>
>>>> Anyone foolish enough to denigrate athletics is most likely the one in
>>>> the most need of it.
>>>
>>>This might explain why you are not doing so great with me, intellectually.
>>
>>
>> LOL! Good for laughs, you surely are!
>>
>Thank you.
>>
>>>>>No Presidents.
>>>>
>>>> Benjamin Harrison, as best as I recall my early U.S. History, was
>>>> certainly in that position...
>>>
>>>Still no Presidents.
>>
>> Strangely, doing a Google search on "Benjamin Harrison" pulls up a website
>> claiming that he was our 23rd President.
>
>I'll concede however; official BH sites do not even bother making mention of
>Phi Delta Theta.
Why not *start* with conceding that you didn't know Benjamin Harrison was one of
our Presidents? After all, you denied it above in this post... And
interestingly, snipped it up so that it wasn't understandable.
Rather a cowardly act, don't you think?
>And I really don't blame those sites after all you make the claim to have
>been one and that has not really impressed me much at this point.
A statement, that doesn't seem to make any sense...
So, tell everyone, why did you think that Benjamin Harrison was not a former
President of the United States?
Ben Holmes
I stated that I would be willing to accept the dictionary meaning. You, Tony,
will be *TOTALLY* unable to find a dictionary that is commonly accepted as such,
and that contains a definition that I will refuse to accept.
This isn't rocket science, Tony. An "encyclopedia" is *NOT* a dictionary, or do
you understand the difference? "Conspiracy Theory" is *NOT* the word
"conspiracy", or do you undestand the difference?
>If a word is not in the
>American Dictionary, but is in the Oxford dictionary, YOU get to decide
>if the word really exists based on your bias?
Creating strawmen is fun, isn't it, Tony?
>Wikipedia is not exactly a dictionary,
No, Tony, it's *NOT* a dictionary. It's just *that* simple.
>more like an encyclopedia, a
>people's encyclopedia.
Yep... that what Wikipedia itself claims. So you *can* read!!!
>Sometimes an encyclopedia will give you more
>information about the source of usage of a word than a high school
>dictionary.
Which, of course, is *NOT* the definition of the word.
Why are you so obtuse, Tony? Just for the fun of it?
It's standard for your intelligence that you accept by implication that "the
dictionary defines consparicy as "not accepting the official record of an event"
>>Do you understand that Wikipedia is *NOT* a dictionary??? Why do you bother to
luv-old-tv
>
> All I'd like to know is simply *ONE FACT* that isn't related to being
> members of
> the Skull & Bones, which shows that they are involved in a conspiracy of
> any
> sort at all.
>
Our two-parry Republican-Democrat (= one Hegelian party, no one else welcome
or allowed) system is a
reflection of this Hegelianism. A small group - a very small group - by
using Hegel, can manipulate, and to some extent, control society for its own
purposes.
Every 100 years we get 150 Bonesmen and with that number we got (2) Bush vs.
Kerry to prove the above mentioned fact
Progress in the Hegelian State is through contrived conflict: the clash of
opposites makes for progress. If
you can control the opposites, you dominate the nature of the outcome. Hence
we are now either red or blue states.
We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian
conflict: Naziism vs.
Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making
positions - Bush, Harriman,
Stimson, Lovett, and so on - all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the
conflict through use of "right" and "left." Again Kerry and Bush made that
point in our last election if you really want to call it that.
You want see the Order of things here and may require reading some books not
comic boooks but something that will remove your defense of the fraturnity
but the mere fact that Buck and Kerry got the same education and philisophy
from a group Then come into politics and stand against each other as
oppisites does produce a lot of questions.
Your Question may have not been answered in your mind-set which is rather
off focus in any arena ;but anyone reading this can use common sense and get
the gist of the answer.
You seem to have put togather a question that reqiures some; which came
first the chicken or the the egg concept where no answer can be right in
your limited reasoning.
You see I have ask you a simple question and it is not built around
conditions that has grey areas but indeed if thought out using math and
science you can straightforwardly answer. Look at if you will.
HOW DID BUILDING 7 FALL FROM FIRE?
DON
Sam
> Every 100 years we get 150 Bonesmen and with that number we got (2) Bush
> vs. Kerry to prove the above mentioned fact
looks like you meant to say every 10 years @ 15 members per year = 150
members every 10 years
some calculate +/- 800 living members at any given time, given average life
expectancies
where were the +/- 800 bonesmen 11-22-63?
how many were in dallas?
d.c.?
perhaps bonespersons is a more accurate term now than bonesmen, as women
have been admitted since threat of a lawsuit in the early 1990s, though
william f. buckley tried using a court order to block women's admittance
luv-old-tv
capabilities considering the amount of education you received during you
service to our nation. I respect you for that service, I mean someone had to
clean the latrines and clean the kitchen and pick up cigarette butts. I don't
think they could have recruited a better person than someone like you. After
all those things do not require any substantial math skills or not much
reasoning outside knowing what cleaning product was required for what ever
task was given to you. And if the math become to intense for you,; hell you
could always slip out into the alley and pull your G.I.JOE boots off; if the
math got past the numbers 10 or above. I am sorry I used those equations
that gave you a headache; but I was under the assumption that you had a real
education. Not one given to you by the government.
Now that I know; that you are nothing more than an imbecile I want use
things like logic or anything that does not land in perspective what your
trainer brainwashed you with.
Hell you might have a flash-back and go on a rampage and try cleaning the
toilets at Mickey Dee's (Mac Donald's for you) as the world watches you on
CNN.
I will not even bother you anymore about simple ole building 7. You were
only originally aware of the twin towers; and then I made you think about
another building it must have really befuddled you.
Good day Sergeant Bilko
DON
luv-old-tv
"Sam" <jfk...@sammcclung.com> wrote in message
news:11jlla7...@corp.supernews.com...
Sam; I stand corrected it was 10 and not 100. On the other I am not now nor
will I ever be politically correct on gender or races. Look what happen to
evolution, invented to make owing slaves *politically correct* now it is a
full blown religion! Go figure what new thing with things we try to make
politically correct today.
By the way I don't know how many Masters of death was in Dallas on the day
of Treason in 1962. We only know that some major lies came from it.
curtj...@webtv.net
Of what I have read here so far:
I think I would need further proof than the Zapruder film to verify
that the Irish driver shot Kennedy. What about that hole in JFK's
back, anyway?
On Skull and Bones: I think more has to be presented that they are a
secret society to maintain control of a secret government that controls
in general United States policy and it's political process. I am aware
of the financing of Hitler through some of its membership. I know the
Bushes have been dealing with Arabs for a long time, with oil
interests. Bush was circumvented a Martha Stewart type conviction for
alleged HEC stock manipulation in a Arab/oil company venture. There
has been talk of the Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, and
after 9/11, the Bin Laden relatives were allowed to leave the country.
The more meaningful attempt to link skull and bones and the Al-Qaeda
to somehow be in cahoots to allow American involvement in Iraq, say for
oil interests would be something that I would like to see proved.
Why would there be a demolition of Building 7? Were the explosives
already in place, and they had to get rid of the evidence? What
possibly could allow that building to fall on it's own?
On the Twin Towers, how could they have had all those explosives for
what was it was said?, three months, and not have had them been
discovered?
On the building that collapsed in Germany, what was the cause of it's
collapse, and how could that particular building be compared to the
WTC? Why didn't they let more people out before they detonated it?
Wouldn't the people on the ground near the WTC's heard a massive
explosion from the explosives?
Why possibly could there be a moon hoax? Would they go to all the
trouble to have a tv launch, and not have it go to the moon? Where did
the rocket go? What motivation could they have had to have such an
elaborate technical hoax?
Why, Ben do you use the flat-earth society in 'retaliation' when one
can go to JFK sites with just as many hits and find all sorts of truth
and mistruths?
What is the origin of the word kook?
All for now,
CJ
Anthony Marsh
> "Sam" <jfk...@sammcclung.com> wrote in message
> news:11jlla7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>"luv-old-tv" wrote in part
>>
>>>Every 100 years we get 150 Bonesmen and with that number we got (2) Bush
>>>vs. Kerry to prove the above mentioned fact
>>
>>looks like you meant to say every 10 years @ 15 members per year = 150
>>members every 10 years
>>
>>some calculate +/- 800 living members at any given time, given average
>>life expectancies
>>
>>where were the +/- 800 bonesmen 11-22-63?
>>how many were in dallas?
>>d.c.?
>>
>>perhaps bonespersons is a more accurate term now than bonesmen, as women
>>have been admitted since threat of a lawsuit in the early 1990s, though
>>william f. buckley tried using a court order to block women's admittance
>
>
> Sam; I stand corrected it was 10 and not 100. On the other I am not now nor
> will I ever be politically correct on gender or races. Look what happen to
> evolution, invented to make owing slaves *politically correct* now it is a
> full blown religion! Go figure what new thing with things we try to make
> politically correct today.
>
I am not sure what your point is, but you do not have to be politically
correct. Some people make mistakes when they overdo it. And remember
that not just Africans and not just blacks were slaves. Brits were
slaves under the Romans and almost every place in the world had some
type of slavery at some time, even Native Americans.
>
>
> By the way I don't know how many Masters of death was in Dallas on the day
> of Treason in 1962. We only know that some major lies came from it.
>
>
luv-old-tv
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:h%C_e.16000$lP3.3772@trndny08...
My point was I am not nor will I ever be posturing myself with some liberal
agenda like political correctness. If you seem think: otherwise, I will not
deny you that right.
Anthony Marsh
And who the Hell are you to be deciding what the rules of debate are?
> This isn't rocket science, Tony. An "encyclopedia" is *NOT* a dictionary, or do
> you understand the difference? "Conspiracy Theory" is *NOT* the word
> "conspiracy", or do you undestand the difference?
>
Dictionaries often define terms using more than one word. Such as
"fouling shot." Not every dictionary will define each possible expression.
>
>
>>If a word is not in the
>>American Dictionary, but is in the Oxford dictionary, YOU get to decide
>>if the word really exists based on your bias?
>
>
> Creating strawmen is fun, isn't it, Tony?
>
My point remains who are you to be in charge?
>
>
>>Wikipedia is not exactly a dictionary,
>
>
>
> No, Tony, it's *NOT* a dictionary. It's just *that* simple.
>
>
>
>>more like an encyclopedia, a
>>people's encyclopedia.
>
>
> Yep... that what Wikipedia itself claims. So you *can* read!!!
>
Not every lurker has bothered reading that on the Web site.
>
>
>>Sometimes an encyclopedia will give you more
>>information about the source of usage of a word than a high school
>>dictionary.
>
>
> Which, of course, is *NOT* the definition of the word.
>
And who the Hell are you to determine for the rest of us what the
definition of the word is? Your dictionary may list only one definition
of a word while others may list many. And the definition can change
according to usage, jargon, context.
> Why are you so obtuse, Tony? Just for the fun of it?
>
Just to point out your absurdness.
> It's standard for your intelligence that you accept by implication that "the
> dictionary defines consparicy as "not accepting the official record of an event"
>
No, that is not how the word "consparicy" is defined. And some people
may use words in a different context.
tomnln
I Doubt it. But, if you REALLY wanna know which of you is Important to the
CT Community?
Why don't we put it to A VOTE?
CT's ONLY allowed to Vote (we don't want McAdams & jw helping you)
1 I cast my vote for Ben. (see tony, I'm ahead of you again)
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:RiD_e.4194$tX3.1264@trndny06...
luv-old-tv
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eBD_e.79879$Cc5.35144@lakeread06...
> Hey Tony;
>
> I Doubt it. But, if you REALLY wanna know which of you is Important to the
> CT Community?
>
> Why don't we put it to A VOTE?
>
> CT's ONLY allowed to Vote (we don't want McAdams & jw helping you)
>
> 1 I cast my vote for Ben. (see tony, I'm ahead of you again)
>
>
Coming from someone who writes back to his own post I am sure that Tony
might detect you to be a little more than Kooky.
I just figured I would leave you be; since you seemed so content in
responding to yourself. But after reading you might cast a vote for a known
kook like Ben aka Sergeant Bilko I can rest at ease now that you are a
confirmed kook.
Good day
Don
Ben Holmes
I'm glad you recognize that the question hasn't been answered. It saves me the
effort of pointing out how stupid you must be not to be able to answer such a
simple question.
Why aren't you worried about the conspiracy of Law School's to control the
Supreme Court?
>You seem to have put togather a question that reqiures some; which came
>first the chicken or the the egg concept where no answer can be right in
>your limited reasoning.
>
>
>
>You see I have ask you a simple question and it is not built around
>conditions that has grey areas but indeed if thought out using math and
>science you can straightforwardly answer. Look at if you will.
>
>HOW DID BUILDING 7 FALL FROM FIRE?
I *did*, didn't I, tell you that there's no reason for me to answer your
questions when you refuse to answer mine?
What part of it didn't you understand?
> DON
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Sam" <jfk...@sammcclung.com> wrote in message
>news:11jlla7...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "luv-old-tv" wrote in part
>>> Every 100 years we get 150 Bonesmen and with that number we got (2) Bush
>>> vs. Kerry to prove the above mentioned fact
>>
>> looks like you meant to say every 10 years @ 15 members per year = 150
>> members every 10 years
>>
>> some calculate +/- 800 living members at any given time, given average
>> life expectancies
>>
>> where were the +/- 800 bonesmen 11-22-63?
>> how many were in dallas?
>> d.c.?
>>
>> perhaps bonespersons is a more accurate term now than bonesmen, as women
>> have been admitted since threat of a lawsuit in the early 1990s, though
>> william f. buckley tried using a court order to block women's admittance
>
>Sam; I stand corrected it was 10 and not 100. On the other I am not now nor
>will I ever be politically correct on gender or races. Look what happen to
>evolution, invented to make owing slaves *politically correct* now it is a
>full blown religion!
Hmmm, I don't mind paying what I owe to a slave. But there aren't any slaves
around, nor do I owe them anything.
And, as slavery has existed for thousands of years, seems rather lazy for
society to just now get around to making it "politically correct", don't you
think?
Ben Holmes
Look yourself in the mirror. Didn't you just *try* to do that to me?
>> This isn't rocket science, Tony. An "encyclopedia" is *NOT* a dictionary,
>> or do you understand the difference? "Conspiracy Theory" is *NOT* the
>> word "conspiracy", or do you undestand the difference?
>>
>
>Dictionaries often define terms using more than one word. Such as
>"fouling shot." Not every dictionary will define each possible expression.
This is really simple, Tony... we aren't talking about a "fouling shot". Words
have meanings, and both Don and myself were quite specific in the beginning.
The word, not phrase, but *word*, was "conspiracy". The authoritative reference
that I stated I would accept is what 99.9% of people would accept for the
definition of a word, a dictionary.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>>>If a word is not in the
>>>American Dictionary, but is in the Oxford dictionary, YOU get to decide
>>>if the word really exists based on your bias?
>>
>>
>> Creating strawmen is fun, isn't it, Tony?
>>
>
>My point remains who are you to be in charge?
Because I was *asked* to provide a definition. Do you have a problem with me
answering a question?
Did someone ask *you* the definition of "conspiracy"???
Actually, it strikes me why you've jumped in... you've had a distaste for
dictionaries, haven't you? Ever since you were unable to provide any definition
of "racist" that forbid Blacks from being racist.
>>>Wikipedia is not exactly a dictionary,
>>
>>
>>
>> No, Tony, it's *NOT* a dictionary. It's just *that* simple.
>>
>>
>>
>>>more like an encyclopedia, a
>>>people's encyclopedia.
>>
>>
>> Yep... that what Wikipedia itself claims. So you *can* read!!!
>>
>
>Not every lurker has bothered reading that on the Web site.
Not even you, evidently... with your comment that it's not "exactly" a
dictionary.
Shades of grey, right, Tony?
>>>Sometimes an encyclopedia will give you more
>>>information about the source of usage of a word than a high school
>>>dictionary.
>>
>>
>> Which, of course, is *NOT* the definition of the word.
>>
>
>And who the Hell are you to determine for the rest of us what the
>definition of the word is?
I don't. I merely point out that there is *NO* dictionary that gives any such
definition. You'll have to take it up with the dictionary people...
>Your dictionary may list only one definition
>of a word while others may list many.
Sorry, Tony, I *SPECIFIED* that I'd accept any dictionary. Can't read???
>And the definition can change
>according to usage, jargon, context.
Why bother, Tony? Just provide the name of the dictionary, publish date, and
quote the definition that comes close to the silly one that Don offered.
But I really won't hold my breath for you to offer a cite.
>> Why are you so obtuse, Tony? Just for the fun of it?
>>
>
>Just to point out your absurdness.
You're looking stupid, Tony. You should take your time, and re-read what you
post.
>> It's standard for your intelligence that you accept by implication that
>> "the dictionary defines consparicy as "not accepting the official record
>> of an event"
>>
>
>No, that is not how the word "consparicy" is defined.
Bravo! So you agree with me. This *is* all I've been stating for some time
now...
>And some people may use words in a different context.
People can use "racist" in any context they desire... but when they refuse to
use it in reference to a Black racist, they aren't revealing their knowledge of
the English language, but their political and cultural beliefs.
Ben Holmes
>
>Hey Tony;
>
>I Doubt it. But, if you REALLY wanna know which of you is Important to the
>CT Community?
>
>Why don't we put it to A VOTE?
>
>CT's ONLY allowed to Vote (we don't want McAdams & jw helping you)
>
>1 I cast my vote for Ben. (see tony, I'm ahead of you again)
Oh no! Here it comes... David, charging back to assert that I'm really Tomnln.
Ben Holmes
Hmmm... and I thought *David* would be the first with this silly assertion.
Looks like we have another Internet challenged fool who can't read headers.
Sam
news:1127936885.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
not to be curt (heh heh), or redundant, but robbins' book is probably the
most authoratative, she infiltrated skull & bones as she was (probably not
any longer, they won't even talk to her anymore apparently) in scroll and
key, the other major secret organzation at yale
here's some stuff from robins:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
> I am aware
> of the financing of Hitler through some of its membership. I know the
> Bushes have been dealing with Arabs for a long time, with oil
> interests.
supposedly, saudi oil supply will run out, caspian sea is next area of
exploitation lined up, to get th eoil from caspian sea area down to indian
ocean deep water port = have to go through afghanistan (sound familiar?) and
pakistan = deep water port of gawadar being developed on indian ocean in
pakistan...nopting chinese are building nuclear power plants in pakistan and
will supposedly wind up being major competitors for caspian sea oil, with
advent of widespread automobile use in china for first time in history
> Bush was circumvented a Martha Stewart type conviction for
> alleged HEC stock manipulation in a Arab/oil company venture. There
> has been talk of the Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, and
> after 9/11, the Bin Laden relatives were allowed to leave the country.
> The more meaningful attempt to link skull and bones and the Al-Qaeda
> to somehow be in cahoots to allow American involvement in Iraq, say for
> oil interests would be something that I would like to see proved.
>
> Why would there be a demolition of Building 7? Were the explosives
> already in place, and they had to get rid of the evidence? What
> possibly could allow that building to fall on it's own?
>
> On the Twin Towers, how could they have had all those explosives for
> what was it was said?, three months, and not have had them been
> discovered?
>
> On the building that collapsed in Germany, what was the cause of it's
> collapse, and how could that particular building be compared to the
> WTC? Why didn't they let more people out before they detonated it?
> Wouldn't the people on the ground near the WTC's heard a massive
> explosion from the explosives?
inside the building on ground floor or near it supposedly was evidence of a
large explosion
wasn't wtc bombed back in 1990s unsuccessfully? bombing of uss cole?
practice makes perfect?
> Why possibly could there be a moon hoax? Would they go to all the
> trouble to have a tv launch, and not have it go to the moon? Where did
> the rocket go? What motivation could they have had to have such an
> elaborate technical hoax?
didn't some "private citizens" watch some of the lunar landing activity
through telescopes?
<rest snipped>
Ben Holmes
curtj...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>luv-old-tv wrote:
>> Look Sergeant Bilko I know a lot of that was pretty far above your limited
>> capabilities considering the amount of education you received during you
>> service to our nation. I respect you for that service, I mean someone had to
>> clean the latrines and clean the kitchen and pick up cigarette butts. I don't
>> think they could have recruited a better person than someone like you. After
>> all those things do not require any substantial math skills or not much
>> reasoning outside knowing what cleaning product was required for what ever
>> task was given to you. And if the math become to intense for you,; hell you
>> could always slip out into the alley and pull your G.I.JOE boots off; if the
>> math got past the numbers 10 or above. I am sorry I used those equations
>> that gave you a headache; but I was under the assumption that you had a real
>> education. Not one given to you by the government.
As I pointed out, even a student in a high school physics class could point out
the flaws in your thinking... yet you claim to be an "engineer". :)
>> Now that I know; that you are nothing more than an imbecile I want use
>> things like logic or anything that does not land in perspective what your
>> trainer brainwashed you with.
And yet, you *still* can't answer one simple question. What fact, OTHER THAN
THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN SKULL & BONES, would lead the average person into concluding
that there is a conspiracy of *any* sort.
Hmmm... perhaps you could make the case that Ivy League graduates have conspired
to earn far more than the average...
>> Hell you might have a flash-back and go on a rampage and try cleaning the
>> toilets at Mickey Dee's (Mac Donald's for you) as the world watches you on
>> CNN.
Wouldn't know anything about it. I rarely eat at fast food joints, and have
certainly never worked in one.
>> I will not even bother you anymore about simple ole building 7. You were
>> only originally aware of the twin towers; and then I made you think about
>> another building it must have really befuddled you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Good day Sergeant Bilko
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DON
>
>Of what I have read here so far:
>
>I think I would need further proof than the Zapruder film to verify
>that the Irish driver shot Kennedy. What about that hole in JFK's
>back, anyway?
This is Ritchie Linton's contention too... you also have to account for the
wounds in Connally - and as Connally was *NOT* wisked to a military controlled
arena, we can be quite sure of where they are located on his body.
The trajectories would be quite easy to work out... after all, Greer was seated
in a *known* location, as was JFK and Connally.
But Ritchie won't debate this either.
He actually *agreed* with the flat-earth... I'm actually unsure if he meant it
or not.
Kooks accepting *one* "conspiracy", often accept a whole range of others...
witness Don here, the Skull & Bones, 9/11, Moon "Hoax"... and for all I know,
the flat-earth theory too...
As for JFK sites, you can't correct 'em. But it matters very little to me
whether a person is a LNT'er or a CT'er. If they are asserting as fact,
something that is not, or cannot be backed up, I point it out. I'm sure you've
noted that I debate CT'ers almost as often as I debate LNT'ers.
>What is the origin of the word kook?
Good question... I saw one reference to "cuckoo", but I don't know...
>All for now,
>
>CJ
Sam
news:M6Kdne0OR68...@giganews.com...
or '63...one might wonder where john ashcroft was 11-22-63, the guy who got
a governorship when the plane mel carnahan was on crashed...
<open quote>
In January 2001, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd used Skull and Bones
in a simile: "When W. met the press with his choice for attorney general,
John Ashcroft, before Christmas, he vividly showed how important it is to
him that his White House be as leak-proof as the Skull and Bones 'tomb.' "
<end quote>*
robbins', secrets of the tomb, page 10
tomnln
Are you SURE you wanna engage me in a game of Insults?????
"luv-old-tv" <ol...@hvacdetailer.com> wrote in message
news:T76dnfNPJKf...@giganews.com...
luv-old-tv
Watch JFK the Jesuit Oliver Stone did a great job deverting this hot potato
away from the Catholic Church.
> On Skull and Bones: I think more has to be presented that they are a
> secret society to maintain control of a secret government that controls
> in general United States policy and it's political process. I am aware
> of the financing of Hitler through some of its membership. I know the
> Bushes have been dealing with Arabs for a long time, with oil
> interests. Bush was circumvented a Martha Stewart type conviction for
> alleged HEC stock manipulation in a Arab/oil company venture. There
> has been talk of the Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, and
> after 9/11, the Bin Laden relatives were allowed to leave the country.
> The more meaningful attempt to link skull and bones and the Al-Qaeda
> to somehow be in cahoots to allow American involvement in Iraq, say for
> oil interests would be something that I would like to see proved.
I really do not think oil is the reason we are there. I do know for a fact
that Afghanistan poppy fields are blooming once again. But considering that
some kook might think that is a conspiracy of sorts and deny that once again
the USA has liberated the drug trade that founded the Skull and Bone boys.
Oh; but we should not dare say something like that even though history
proves this case.
> Why would there be a demolition of Building 7? Were the explosives
> already in place, and they had to get rid of the evidence? What
> possibly could allow that building to fall on it's own?
>
Mathematically impossible, but there are idiots that still believe that it
just fell on it's own.
> On the Twin Towers, how could they have had all those explosives for
> what was it was said?, three months, and not have had them been
> discovered?
Well Bushes little brother could answer that one; after all he was head of
security during that time frame.
>
> On the building that collapsed in Germany, what was the cause of it's
> collapse, and how could that particular building be compared to the
> WTC? Why didn't they let more people out before they detonated it?
> Wouldn't the people on the ground near the WTC's heard a massive
> explosion from the explosives?
If you are referring to the Reichstag Fire, this was a bombing done by the
SS and Blamed on the communist party. This act alone permitted Germany to
transform from a democracy into a dictatorship.
> Why possibly could there be a moon hoax? Would they go to all the
> trouble to have a tv launch, and not have it go to the moon? Where did
> the rocket go? What motivation could they have had to have such an
> elaborate technical hoax?
>
It seems they wanted to stand up Russia. I was not aware of this until
after speaking with a Russian Engineer in Sacramento; he openly talked with
me about the improvability of any such moon journeys by us or them. I did
some research and concluded that he was right, after examining the evidence
within the realm of science and logic.
> Why, Ben do you use the flat-earth society in 'retaliation' when one
> can go to JFK sites with just as many hits and find all sorts of truth
> and mistruths?
>
> What is the origin of the word kook?
>
Well if Ben is good at anything it is attempting distort words, evade simple
math calculations and not answer straightforward questions. I am new here
and seem to think of him as a regular here who is in his mid to late 50's.
He appears to of had some form of brain trauma maybe shot in some war or
just cannot cope with logic. Either way I have had better conversations with
construction workers who at least have the ability to speak clear and the
intelligence to agree to disagree if needed. Ben is bland and void of any
logic; I suspect the military caused this mental handicap and lack of
personality. Not sure but I am fully aware that he is full of character
flaws. Not to mention a kook.
luv-old-tv
> Uh Uh Uh Don;
>
> Are you SURE you wanna engage me in a game of Insults?????
>
luv-old-tv
Got to ask because you are nutty than hell.
But are you responding to 2 people in this post?
I know that was a question and you don't have the ability to answer
questions or function within the realms of math or logic, which is the sole
reason I will never engage in anything outside of the absurd with you
anymore. Because any topic that is serious might cause you to strain your
brain and make me want to get out the preparation H.
But I must ask are you attempting to converse with 2 people in this nutty
post of yours?
( ) YES
( ) NO
Just put an x in the box, no need to respond. Just wanted something to email
my friends at work, so that they could see for themselves how goofy you are.
Nothing really exciting here or anything to get a flash-back and harm anyone
about just a simple question with a yes/no answer box is all.
Don
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:dhf6m...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ben Holmes
Yep... Russian Engineers who were familiar with the Russian space program are
fairly common in Sacramento.
>he openly talked with
>me about the improvability of any such moon journeys by us or them. I did
>some research and concluded that he was right, after examining the evidence
>within the realm of science and logic.
An excellent point is raised... the race to the moon was indeed a race, and
Russia was certainly racing too... but when the U.S. succeeded, Russia gave
up... but strangely, for all of their technical expertise, they failed to note
that the Moon Landing was done in Hollywood.
The public relations coup of the century, and Russia simply missed it. How
unusual!
>> Why, Ben do you use the flat-earth society in 'retaliation' when one
>> can go to JFK sites with just as many hits and find all sorts of truth
>> and mistruths?
>>
>> What is the origin of the word kook?
>>
>
>Well if Ben is good at anything it is attempting distort words,
Don's specialty is snipping without answering. This is how he manages to look
less of a dope, at the expense, of course, of honesty.
>evade simple
>math calculations and not answer straightforward questions.
Ah... what *is* that fact???
You know, the *ONE SINGLE FACT* not related to their membership in the Skull and
Bones that would lead the average person to suspect a conspiracy by the Skull
and Bones?
Wonder how you've managed to *CONTINUE* to evade that simple question??
Sam was at least honest, he dropped out. Don simply snips away, when he gets
nailed.
>I am new here
>and seem to think of him as a regular here who is in his mid to late 50's.
>He appears to of had some form of brain trauma maybe shot in some war or
>just cannot cope with logic.
Yep... just can't deal with simple debate, can you?
>Either way I have had better conversations with
>construction workers who at least have the ability to speak clear and the
>intelligence to agree to disagree if needed.
In other words, they won't point out that you don't have the energy to look up
words you don't know, refuse to point out that your knowledge of U.S. history is
suspect at best, and don't laugh when you claim to be an engineer who believes
in kook theory after kook theory...
Nice guys, I'm sure.
>Ben is bland and void of any
>logic; I suspect the military caused this mental handicap and lack of
>personality. Not sure but I am fully aware that he is full of character
>flaws. Not to mention a kook.
You may insult all you wish. When you *can't* answer simple questions, or your
own words show you for a fool, you can't blame me for it.
And when you snip inconvenient questions or statements, it shows *YOUR*
cowardice, not anyone else's...
Ben Holmes
>
>hmmm...
>
>Got to ask because you are nutty than hell.
Facts got you worried? Don't worry, it's not the facts that *I* bring to the
table that make you look silly, it's your own words.
>But are you responding to 2 people in this post?
What, you can't tell? Stick around long enough in the usenet groups, and
perhaps someday *you too* will be able to converse with more than one person at
a time.
If you wish to converse with only *one* person, the normal method is email.
(Write this down...)
>I know that was a question and you don't have the ability to answer
>questions
I'm sure Freud would have a great time with that statement... given your
complete inability to answer simple questions.
>or function within the realms of math or logic,
It's not *I* that wishes to prove that a building fell faster than physics will
allow.
>which is the sole
>reason I will never engage in anything outside of the absurd with you
>anymore.
I was unaware that you were dealing with any serious topic to begin with!!
I generally don't consider "Skull & Bones", "Moon Hoax", "Flat Earth", "9/11
Done by the Government", "Must wear Aluminum headgear", and other assorted kooky
topics as anything more than lite fare. Just something to get a good laugh out
of.
If you wanted a serious topic, you can start with the subject of this usenet
group... look at the name of this group if you have a hard time figuring it
out... it's pretty much self-explanatory.
>Because any topic that is serious might cause you to strain your
>brain and make me want to get out the preparation H.
You confuse serious with silly.
>But I must ask are you attempting to converse with 2 people in this nutty
>post of yours?
>
>( ) YES
>
>( ) NO
If *you* can't follow a thread, why should I help you? Perhaps this will shock
you, but I've been in conversations with *multiple* people, *ALL AT THE SAME
TIME*.
I don't find it difficult to keep the separate conversations separate.
But here's a hint for you: count the ">".
>Just put an x in the box, no need to respond.
Doesn't matter whether I respond or not. Anything you don't like, you'll
cowardly snip anyway...
Do you *enjoy* being known by your actions as a coward?
>Just wanted something to email
>my friends at work, so that they could see for themselves how goofy you are.
Judging by the way you snip up messages here, I rather doubt if any friends of
yours will see anything in it's original form.
Don't deceive yourself... people will sooner or later figure it out...
>Nothing really exciting here or anything to get a flash-back and harm anyone
>about just a simple question with a yes/no answer box is all.
I'm still waiting for you to answer the very first question that you jumped in
to "answer". Why is it that you can't answer it?
And Don is so confused, he couldn't answer this one...
>>>> Now that I know; that you are nothing more than an imbecile I want use
>>>> things like logic or anything that does not land in perspective what
>>>> your
>>>> trainer brainwashed you with.
>>
>> And yet, you *still* can't answer one simple question. What fact, OTHER
>> THAN THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN SKULL & BONES, would lead the average person into
>> concluding that there is a conspiracy of *any* sort.
Still no answer...
Nor, clearly, will Don. I rather doubt if he even knows as much as David... and
David was clearly not knowledgeable on this case either.
Don has no doubt heard the term all his life, perhaps he can help out here.
>>>All for now,
>>>
>>>CJ
tomnln
Thank You Sir.
"luv-old-tv" <ol...@hvacdetailer.com> wrote in message
news:rdWdndNvMt2...@giganews.com...
Ted Gittinger
Yes, Marsh, but it took Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to make slavery
politically correct. THAT was the man's point, that it was not until the
19th century that there was a theory to justify human bondage.
(Bud, I trust ou are rolling on the floor about now.)
ted
luv-old-tv
( ) YES
( ) NO
That was the simple format given to you? Yet again you failed to follow the
logic and comprehend it. Instead you begin dribbling and typing your world
view and how your unlearned point of views. If you wish to act like a
trained monkey it is your business you have a guaranteed freedom in the USA
to be a damn fool. I see you have used that liberty to its fullest, and well
you should you are a man who sold out his education for our freedom. With
you around I bet the troops had the cleanest laundry on base and we
appreciate you for that. We need clean uniforms for our boys to die in as
our government leads us down the road to tyranny.
In the future I will use words that your trainers used so you need not try
and think again.
AHHHTEN----HUT
ABOUT FACE
FORWARD
HALT
Now pick up those cigarette butts, then go clean the latrines.
lazu...@webtv.net
evolution to make slavery politically correct."
Darwin's book was published in 1859, only two years before the American
Civil War. How many slave-holders were even aware of it? How many U.S.
legislators et al knew anything about the theory? I doubt if this
influenced public thinking towards slavery at all, nor did it put a
crimp in the abolitionists' struggles to end an institution that had
already been "politically correct" for nearly 300 years!
Anthony Marsh
Close. What you mean is "scientific" theory. Of course there were
religious and political theories before that.
Anthony Marsh
What is that called in psychology? Is that transference? If I accuse you
of doing something wrong, you turn the tables on me and say that I am
just doing the same thing.
>
>
>
>>>This isn't rocket science, Tony. An "encyclopedia" is *NOT* a dictionary,
>>>or do you understand the difference? "Conspiracy Theory" is *NOT* the
>>>word "conspiracy", or do you undestand the difference?
>>>
>>
>>Dictionaries often define terms using more than one word. Such as
>>"fouling shot." Not every dictionary will define each possible expression.
>
>
>
> This is really simple, Tony... we aren't talking about a "fouling shot". Words
> have meanings, and both Don and myself were quite specific in the beginning.
> The word, not phrase, but *word*, was "conspiracy". The authoritative reference
> that I stated I would accept is what 99.9% of people would accept for the
> definition of a word, a dictionary.
>
Words have meaning in context. The meaning can change depending on the
context. Also jargon.
> Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>
Why it is so difficult for you to understand English? Is that a foreign
language to you? Lack of education? What?
>
>
>>>>If a word is not in the
>>>>American Dictionary, but is in the Oxford dictionary, YOU get to decide
>>>>if the word really exists based on your bias?
>>>
>>>
>>>Creating strawmen is fun, isn't it, Tony?
>>>
>>
>>My point remains who are you to be in charge?
>
>
>
>
> Because I was *asked* to provide a definition. Do you have a problem with me
> answering a question?
>
No. Just don't declare that your word is law.
>
> Did someone ask *you* the definition of "conspiracy"???
>
>
> Actually, it strikes me why you've jumped in... you've had a distaste for
> dictionaries, haven't you? Ever since you were unable to provide any definition
> of "racist" that forbid Blacks from being racist.
>
I already did. Racist is by definition discrimination by whites against
non-whites.
>
>
>
>>>>Wikipedia is not exactly a dictionary,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, Tony, it's *NOT* a dictionary. It's just *that* simple.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>more like an encyclopedia, a
>>>>people's encyclopedia.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep... that what Wikipedia itself claims. So you *can* read!!!
>>>
>>
>>Not every lurker has bothered reading that on the Web site.
>
>
>
> Not even you, evidently... with your comment that it's not "exactly" a
> dictionary.
>
Encyclopediae also often include dictionary definitions of words.
> Shades of grey, right, Tony?
>
>
>
>>>>Sometimes an encyclopedia will give you more
>>>>information about the source of usage of a word than a high school
>>>>dictionary.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which, of course, is *NOT* the definition of the word.
>>>
>>
>>And who the Hell are you to determine for the rest of us what the
>>definition of the word is?
>
>
> I don't. I merely point out that there is *NO* dictionary that gives any such
> definition. You'll have to take it up with the dictionary people...
>
>
There are many dictionaries out there. So, maybe your high school
dictionary does not have the word, but a college dictionary might.
>
>>Your dictionary may list only one definition
>>of a word while others may list many.
>
>
> Sorry, Tony, I *SPECIFIED* that I'd accept any dictionary. Can't read???
>
>
>>And the definition can change
>>according to usage, jargon, context.
>
>
>
> Why bother, Tony? Just provide the name of the dictionary, publish date, and
> quote the definition that comes close to the silly one that Don offered.
>
I am not here to defend Don. He is entitled to his opinion.
>
> But I really won't hold my breath for you to offer a cite.
>
>
I have no interest in citing anything for you concerning someone else's
issue.
>
>>>Why are you so obtuse, Tony? Just for the fun of it?
>>>
>>
>>Just to point out your absurdness.
>
>
>
> You're looking stupid, Tony. You should take your time, and re-read what you
> post.
>
>
>
>>>It's standard for your intelligence that you accept by implication that
>>>"the dictionary defines consparicy as "not accepting the official record
>>>of an event"
>>>
>>
>>No, that is not how the word "consparicy" is defined.
>
>
>
> Bravo! So you agree with me. This *is* all I've been stating for some time
> now...
>
Maybe you have a different dictionary. I could not find the word
"consparicy" in mine.
>
>
>>And some people may use words in a different context.
>
>
> People can use "racist" in any context they desire... but when they refuse to
> use it in reference to a Black racist, they aren't revealing their knowledge of
> the English language, but their political and cultural beliefs.
>
>
Yes, people can misused words. They do all the time. So what?
Using the term Black racist is itself a form of racism. Just like
"reverse discrimination."
Anthony Marsh
You really felt that you had to take some time out of your busy schedule
just to tell us that you are a racist and a right-wing loony? As if we
couldn't have figured that out on our own?
McFly
Well since you took the time out of your busy schedule why not.
There you go assuming things again. Were did you gather the info
that I might be a racist; you kooky SOB?
I am not sure what you can figure out on your own since you assume
so many things and have knowledge of nothing.
I'll jot you down on the list of kooks who have nothing say
and nothing sustainable to base what they assume things on.
Now go take some more government issued medication and relax old man; try
not to pretend that your fingers are cheetos so you will have some after
your nap.
That is if you still have your teeth!
Later Kook
Don
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhfma...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>( ) YES
>( ) NO
>
>That was the simple format given to you?
Yep... it was indeed a simple question.
>Yet again you failed to follow the
>logic and comprehend it.
Unfortunately for *YOUR* reading comprehension, I did indeed quite specifically
answer it. With *MORE* than a one word answer.
>Instead you begin dribbling and typing your world
>view and how your unlearned point of views. If you wish to act like a
>trained monkey it is your business you have a guaranteed freedom in the USA
>to be a damn fool. I see you have used that liberty to its fullest, and well
>you should you are a man who sold out his education for our freedom. With
>you around I bet the troops had the cleanest laundry on base and we
>appreciate you for that. We need clean uniforms for our boys to die in as
>our government leads us down the road to tyranny.
When you can't answer the specific points, insult the messenger...
Lurkers... look below to see what Don couldn't answer...
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
Actually, this would be an easy thesis to prove... all Ted and Tony have to do
is cite slave owners using Dawin's theory to justify themselves.
McFly
> In article <LaqdnVdxeaO...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>
>>
>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>news:dhfma...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>>( ) YES
>>( ) NO
>>
>>That was the simple format given to you?
>
> Yep... it was indeed a simple question.
>
>>Yet again you failed to follow the
>>logic and comprehend it.
>
> Unfortunately for *YOUR* reading comprehension, I did indeed quite
> specifically
> answer it. With *MORE* than a one word answer.
>
ROFLOL
Bilko you do have a good sense of humor and some personality to boot.
Good one. Kudos' to you.
BIG SNIP
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhgst...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <LaqdnVdxeaO...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>>news:dhfma...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>( ) YES
>>>( ) NO
>>>
>>>That was the simple format given to you?
>>
>> Yep... it was indeed a simple question.
>>
>>>Yet again you failed to follow the
>>>logic and comprehend it.
>>
>> Unfortunately for *YOUR* reading comprehension, I did indeed quite
>> specifically answer it. With *MORE* than a one word answer.
>>
>
>ROFLOL
>
>Bilko you do have a good sense of humor and some personality to boot.
>
>Good one. Kudos' to you.
>
>
>
>BIG SNIP
Cowardly of you, isn't it?
By the way, where is the answer to the simple question first asked?
curtj...@webtv.net
I do remember looking up skull and bones and the author's name. Most
of that stuff is very interesting and their moral portrayal via
'discoveries' is far different than the usual political perspective of
wise, benevolent people in suits and ties looking out for our interest.
Quite the opposite, with money self interests, violence thru
'neutralization, and a lot of manuevering to obtain controlling
interests.
Curt goes good with my personality....brief and not saying anymore than
has to be said. That's how Forrest got his personality...:).
>
> here's some stuff from robins:
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
thanx for posting. will read later.
>
>
> > I am aware
> > of the financing of Hitler through some of its membership. I know the
> > Bushes have been dealing with Arabs for a long time, with oil
> > interests.
>
> supposedly, saudi oil supply will run out, caspian sea is next area of
> exploitation lined up, to get th eoil from caspian sea area down to indian
> ocean deep water port = have to go through afghanistan (sound familiar?) and
> pakistan = deep water port of gawadar being developed on indian ocean in
> pakistan...nopting chinese are building nuclear power plants in pakistan and
> will supposedly wind up being major competitors for caspian sea oil, with
> advent of widespread automobile use in china for first time in history
it's one reason that I will not rule out a Bush/Al-Qaeda coalition
because of Bin Laden's 'former' CIA ties, the Bush interest in Saudi
oil, and the bounty for obtaining 'oil rights' from the region. And
it's always been a ploy of high politics to create an 'enemy' to sell
the public.
>
>
> > Bush was circumvented a Martha Stewart type conviction for
> > alleged HEC stock manipulation in a Arab/oil company venture. There
> > has been talk of the Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, and
> > after 9/11, the Bin Laden relatives were allowed to leave the country.
> > The more meaningful attempt to link skull and bones and the Al-Qaeda
> > to somehow be in cahoots to allow American involvement in Iraq, say for
> > oil interests would be something that I would like to see proved.
> >
> > Why would there be a demolition of Building 7? Were the explosives
> > already in place, and they had to get rid of the evidence? What
> > possibly could allow that building to fall on it's own?
> >
> > On the Twin Towers, how could they have had all those explosives for
> > what was it was said?, three months, and not have had them been
> > discovered?
> >
> > On the building that collapsed in Germany, what was the cause of it's
> > collapse, and how could that particular building be compared to the
> > WTC? Why didn't they let more people out before they detonated it?
> > Wouldn't the people on the ground near the WTC's heard a massive
> > explosion from the explosives?
>
> inside the building on ground floor or near it supposedly was evidence of a
> large explosion
that would be a very interesting 'unfolding'.
>
> wasn't wtc bombed back in 1990s unsuccessfully? bombing of uss cole?
> practice makes perfect?
well we need more for a skull and bones influence.
>
> > Why possibly could there be a moon hoax? Would they go to all the
> > trouble to have a tv launch, and not have it go to the moon? Where did
> > the rocket go? What motivation could they have had to have such an
> > elaborate technical hoax?
>
> didn't some "private citizens" watch some of the lunar landing activity
> through telescopes?
dunno.
>
>
> <rest snipped>
CJ
Bud
I was wondering when the second wave of trolls was going to make
their appearance.
Sam
>> inside the building on ground floor or near it supposedly was evidence of
>> a
>> large explosion
> that would be a very interesting 'unfolding'.
the story has been around since day 1
sam wrote:
>> wasn't wtc bombed back in 1990s unsuccessfully? bombing of uss cole?
>> practice makes perfect?
curt wrote:
> well we need more for a skull and bones influence.
haven't looked at a s&b influence, was drawing parallels between previous
bombings and possibility wtc tower(s) was (were) brought down by explosives,
not planes
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, maybe Ted, but leave me out. I have not said that slave owners
used Darwin's theory to justify themselves. Some racists have used
Darwin's theory to justify themselves.
curtj...@webtv.net
I could see tying in the church to the mafia, but they like the JFK
movie stated could only have done so much where the planning of the
parade route, and general assassination would have had to come from
other sources. Are you tying in the Catholic Church to skull and bones
or any other cloutful political society?
>
> > On Skull and Bones: I think more has to be presented that they are a
> > secret society to maintain control of a secret government that controls
> > in general United States policy and it's political process. I am aware
> > of the financing of Hitler through some of its membership. I know the
> > Bushes have been dealing with Arabs for a long time, with oil
> > interests. Bush was circumvented a Martha Stewart type conviction for
> > alleged HEC stock manipulation in a Arab/oil company venture. There
> > has been talk of the Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, and
> > after 9/11, the Bin Laden relatives were allowed to leave the country.
> > The more meaningful attempt to link skull and bones and the Al-Qaeda
> > to somehow be in cahoots to allow American involvement in Iraq, say for
> > oil interests would be something that I would like to see proved.
>
> I really do not think oil is the reason we are there. I do know for a fact
> that Afghanistan poppy fields are blooming once again. But considering that
> some kook might think that is a conspiracy of sorts and deny that once again
> the USA has liberated the drug trade that founded the Skull and Bone boys.
> Oh; but we should not dare say something like that even though history
> proves this case.
>
control of the drug trade. What would be the reason for not having oil
be a reason? As soon as 9/11 happened, it wasn't long before the U.S.
was allowed 4 major oil companies to go into Saudi Arabia where it was
prohibitited by Khadaffi earlier.
>
> > Why would there be a demolition of Building 7? Were the explosives
> > already in place, and they had to get rid of the evidence? What
> > possibly could allow that building to fall on it's own?
> >
> Mathematically impossible, but there are idiots that still believe that it
> just fell on it's own.
Well, what was said previously, that it was commanded to be demolished,
must have had some reprucussions. What was the man's reason for
'pulling it'?
>
>
> > On the Twin Towers, how could they have had all those explosives for
> > what was it was said?, three months, and not have had them been
> > discovered?
>
> Well Bushes little brother could answer that one; after all he was head of
> security during that time frame.
>
>
> >
> > On the building that collapsed in Germany, what was the cause of it's
> > collapse, and how could that particular building be compared to the
> > WTC? Why didn't they let more people out before they detonated it?
> > Wouldn't the people on the ground near the WTC's heard a massive
> > explosion from the explosives?
>
>
> If you are referring to the Reichstag Fire, this was a bombing done by the
> SS and Blamed on the communist party. This act alone permitted Germany to
> transform from a democracy into a dictatorship.
>
So Germany that was usually at war with Russia got it's way to go East
German Communist because of it?
>
> > Why possibly could there be a moon hoax? Would they go to all the
> > trouble to have a tv launch, and not have it go to the moon? Where did
> > the rocket go? What motivation could they have had to have such an
> > elaborate technical hoax?
> >
> It seems they wanted to stand up Russia. I was not aware of this until
> after speaking with a Russian Engineer in Sacramento; he openly talked with
> me about the improvability of any such moon journeys by us or them. I did
> some research and concluded that he was right, after examining the evidence
> within the realm of science and logic.
>
>
>
> > Why, Ben do you use the flat-earth society in 'retaliation' when one
> > can go to JFK sites with just as many hits and find all sorts of truth
> > and mistruths?
> >
> > What is the origin of the word kook?
> >
>
> Well if Ben is good at anything it is attempting distort words, evade simple
> math calculations and not answer straightforward questions. I am new here
> and seem to think of him as a regular here who is in his mid to late 50's.
> He appears to of had some form of brain trauma maybe shot in some war or
> just cannot cope with logic. Either way I have had better conversations with
> construction workers who at least have the ability to speak clear and the
> intelligence to agree to disagree if needed. Ben is bland and void of any
> logic; I suspect the military caused this mental handicap and lack of
> personality. Not sure but I am fully aware that he is full of character
> flaws. Not to mention a kook.
Ben will keep one honest in debate whether he has no knowledge of the
subject or not, or at least attempt to.
Ted Gittinger
Not my point at all. Darwin provided the scientific underpinnings, but
southerners were already using many other justificantions, including
biblical ones. The southern literature of the times is replete with
writings on the subject. Darwin's theories were simply the most respectable
ones available, whether they were yet popular or not in literary circles in
Richmond and Charleston. Entire college courses on the subject are included
in antebellum studies in many southern universities to this day.
ted
>
Ted Gittinger
What I mean is Darwin's theory. Don't tell me what I mean, old bean. You
ain't qualified.
ted
Sam
>>> inside the building on ground floor or near it supposedly was evidence
>>> of a
>>> large explosion
> curt wrote:
>> that would be a very interesting 'unfolding'.
> the story has been around since day 1
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html
Ben Holmes
curtj...@webtv.net says...
I don't *need* to know the subject, I merely have to force others to *support*
what they say with citation and references.
Keeps everyone honest, including me.
Ben Holmes
Nah, this is the same guy... "Luv-old-tv", "McFly", and Don are the same.
Ben Holmes
You just *did*. You decided that a dictionary was not an appropriate answer,
even though I was *ASKED* provide an answer. You've decided that the rules call
for something else, who knows what...
>>>>This isn't rocket science, Tony. An "encyclopedia" is *NOT* a dictionary,
>>>>or do you understand the difference? "Conspiracy Theory" is *NOT* the
>>>>word "conspiracy", or do you undestand the difference?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dictionaries often define terms using more than one word. Such as
>>>"fouling shot." Not every dictionary will define each possible expression.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is really simple, Tony... we aren't talking about a "fouling shot".
>> Words have meanings, and both Don and myself were quite specific in the
>> beginning. The word, not phrase, but *word*, was "conspiracy". The
>> authoritative reference that I stated I would accept is what 99.9% of
>> people would accept for the definition of a word, a dictionary.
>>
>
>Words have meaning in context. The meaning can change depending on the
>context. Also jargon.
Conspiracy is the word, Tony. Find ANY dictionary that defines it as you're
attempting to support.
>> Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>>
>
>Why it is so difficult for you to understand English?
It's not. I'm the only one using the Dictionary terms. Don is not, and you're
defending *his* inaccurate reference.
>Is that a foreign
>language to you? Lack of education? What?
*YOU'RE* the one attempting to defend the use of an encyclopedia to define a
word.
Dishonest, aren't you?
>>>>>If a word is not in the
>>>>>American Dictionary, but is in the Oxford dictionary, YOU get to decide
>>>>>if the word really exists based on your bias?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Creating strawmen is fun, isn't it, Tony?
>>>>
>>>
>>>My point remains who are you to be in charge?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because I was *asked* to provide a definition. Do you have a problem\
>> with me answering a question?
>>
>
>No. Just don't declare that your word is law.
I didn't. You, on the other hand, are refusing to acknowledge normally accepted
conventions.
*Dictionaries* are the preferred source for the meaning of a word.
And nothing you can do can change that.
>> Did someone ask *you* the definition of "conspiracy"???
>>
>>
>> Actually, it strikes me why you've jumped in... you've had a distaste
>> for dictionaries, haven't you? Ever since you were unable to provide
>> any definition of "racist" that forbid Blacks from being racist.
>>
>
>I already did.
No, you didn't. And I pointed it out at the time. Websites have a wide range
of believability and worth.
>Racist is by definition discrimination by whites against non-whites.
Nope. You cannot find a dictionary that so states.
(I was right!! You *do* have a distaste for dictionaries!!)
>>>>>Wikipedia is not exactly a dictionary,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, Tony, it's *NOT* a dictionary. It's just *that* simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>more like an encyclopedia, a
>>>>>people's encyclopedia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yep... that what Wikipedia itself claims. So you *can* read!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not every lurker has bothered reading that on the Web site.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not even you, evidently... with your comment that it's not "exactly" a
>> dictionary.
>>
>
>Encyclopediae also often include dictionary definitions of words.
And horses often eat grass... they are a very poor source of beef, however.
>> Shades of grey, right, Tony?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Sometimes an encyclopedia will give you more
>>>>>information about the source of usage of a word than a high school
>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which, of course, is *NOT* the definition of the word.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And who the Hell are you to determine for the rest of us what the
>>>definition of the word is?
>>
>>
>> I don't. I merely point out that there is *NO* dictionary that gives
>> any such definition. You'll have to take it up with the dictionary
>> people...
>>
>>
>
>There are many dictionaries out there. So, maybe your high school
>dictionary does not have the word, but a college dictionary might.
No, it doesn't work that way, Tony...
Supply the cite, or shut up. It's that simple.
>>>Your dictionary may list only one definition
>>>of a word while others may list many.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, Tony, I *SPECIFIED* that I'd accept any dictionary. Can't read???
>>
>>
>>>And the definition can change
>>>according to usage, jargon, context.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why bother, Tony? Just provide the name of the dictionary, publish date,
>> and quote the definition that comes close to the silly one that Don offered.
>>
>
>I am not here to defend Don. He is entitled to his opinion.
Ah! But this is *EXACTLY* what you are doing.
>> But I really won't hold my breath for you to offer a cite.
>
>
>I have no interest in citing anything for you concerning someone else's
>issue.
Nor any issue that *YOU* raise either. Coward.
>>>>Why are you so obtuse, Tony? Just for the fun of it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Just to point out your absurdness.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're looking stupid, Tony. You should take your time, and re-read what
>> you post.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>It's standard for your intelligence that you accept by implication that
>>>>"the dictionary defines consparicy as "not accepting the official record
>>>>of an event"
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, that is not how the word "consparicy" is defined.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bravo! So you agree with me. This *is* all I've been stating for some time
>> now...
>>
>
>Maybe you have a different dictionary. I could not find the word
>"consparicy" in mine.
I'm a tad more literate than you are, then. Unless poor spelling has a definite
point to make, I don't bother with it.
>>>And some people may use words in a different context.
>>
>>
>> People can use "racist" in any context they desire... but when they
>> refuse to use it in reference to a Black racist, they aren't revealing
>> their knowledge of the English language, but their political and cultural
>> beliefs.
>
>Yes, people can misused words. They do all the time. So what?
>Using the term Black racist is itself a form of racism. Just like
>"reverse discrimination."
To point out that a particular Black is a racist is, in itself, racist???
Not according to the dictionary, it isn't.
You're a kook.
Bud
Yet, as I understand it, Darwinism doesn`t support an inferior vs.
superior characterization. That a species in existence is a successful
one is all that theory supports.
Another aspect that always intrigued me is the politics surrounding
this science. The left sees the Scopes trial as a great victiry, but
are uneasy when it comes to applying evolution to humans. Again, as I
understand it, environment is a big factor in determining
chracteristics, and environmental conditions vary greatly on this
planet. Yet if someone suggests this might have led to the creation of
different types of people, that is considered borderline taboo. If you
say people might be different is seen as a small step away from saying
some people might be better than others. But if the evidence indicates
that people who developed in one place are different than people who
developed someplace else, it should be a requirement to state this
truth, if truth it is. Certain places, say Ireland, does not have large
predators, so the need to be fleet-footed to escape being dinner is not
as great as say, Africa, which is rife with large predators. This might
account for why Ireland doesn`t take many gold medals in running events
in the Olympics. Slow runners were taken out of the gene pool by tens
of thousands of years of predatory selection in Africa, it was more of
a survival trait than in Ireland.
> ted
> >
McFly
> In article <Ht2dndfEh7A...@giganews.com>, luv-old-tv says...
>>> secret society to maintain control of a secret government that controls
>>> in general United States policy and it's political process. I am aware
>>> of the financing of Hitler through some of its membership. I know the
>>> Bushes have been dealing with Arabs for a long time, with oil
>>> interests. Bush was circumvented a Martha Stewart type conviction for
>>> alleged HEC stock manipulation in a Arab/oil company venture. There
>>> has been talk of the Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, and
>>> after 9/11, the Bin Laden relatives were allowed to leave the country.
>>> The more meaningful attempt to link skull and bones and the Al-Qaeda
>>> to somehow be in cahoots to allow American involvement in Iraq, say for
>>> oil interests would be something that I would like to see proved.
>>
>>I really do not think oil is the reason we are there. I do know for a fact
>>that Afghanistan poppy fields are blooming once again. But considering
>>that
>>some kook might think that is a conspiracy of sorts and deny that once
>>again
>>the USA has liberated the drug trade that founded the Skull and Bone boys.
>>Oh; but we should not dare say something like that even though history
>>proves this case.
>>
>>
>>
>>> already in place, and they had to get rid of the evidence? What
>>> possibly could allow that building to fall on it's own?
>>>
>>Mathematically impossible, but there are idiots that still believe that it
>>just fell on it's own.
>>
>>
>>> what was it was said?, three months, and not have had them been
>>> discovered?
>>
>>Well Bushes little brother could answer that one; after all he was head of
>>security during that time frame.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On the building that collapsed in Germany, what was the cause of it's
>>> collapse, and how could that particular building be compared to the
>>> WTC? Why didn't they let more people out before they detonated it?
>>> Wouldn't the people on the ground near the WTC's heard a massive
>>> explosion from the explosives?
>>
>>
>>If you are referring to the Reichstag Fire, this was a bombing done by the
>>SS and Blamed on the communist party. This act alone permitted Germany to
>>transform from a democracy into a dictatorship.
>>
>>
>>> trouble to have a tv launch, and not have it go to the moon? Where did
>>> the rocket go? What motivation could they have had to have such an
>>> elaborate technical hoax?
>>>
>> It seems they wanted to stand up Russia. I was not aware of this until
>>after speaking with a Russian Engineer in Sacramento;
>
> are
> fairly common in Sacramento.
Gee.
Did I say that? However; one of the larghest migrated cities in the USA for
Russians is Sacramento.
>
>>he openly talked with
>>me about the improvability of any such moon journeys by us or them. I did
>>some research and concluded that he was right, after examining the
>>evidence
>>within the realm of science and logic.
>
> An excellent point is raised... the race to the moon was indeed a race,
> and
> Russia was certainly racing too... but when the U.S. succeeded, Russia
> gave
> up... but strangely, for all of their technical expertise, they failed to
> note
> that the Moon Landing was done in Hollywood.
>
> The public relations coup of the century, and Russia simply missed it.
> How
> unusual!
No 911 has been the crime of the century. I never stated the Russian
Engineer was with the space program or public relations.
Just two professionals sharing ideas and noting perspectives about each
others government; which made me look into what he had stated about the moon
movie. Sold to the world as truth.
Intelligent people do those things in a professional enviroment.
What do soldiers do? See how many beers than can drink and carry on Deja vu
type conversations?
>
>>> Why, Ben do you use the flat-earth society in 'retaliation' when one
>>> can go to JFK sites with just as many hits and find all sorts of truth
>>> and mistruths?
>>>
>>> What is the origin of the word kook?
>>>
>>
>>Well if Ben is good at anything it is attempting distort words,
>
>
> Don's specialty is snipping
SNIP
Don
Ben Holmes
Sorry, I don't speak Russian. You'll have to translate "larghest".
An illiterate engineer... how unique!
>>>he openly talked with
>>>me about the improvability of any such moon journeys by us or them. I did
>>>some research and concluded that he was right, after examining the
>>>evidence
>>>within the realm of science and logic.
>>
>> An excellent point is raised... the race to the moon was indeed a race,
>> and Russia was certainly racing too... but when the U.S. succeeded, Russia
>> gave up... but strangely, for all of their technical expertise, they
>> failed to note that the Moon Landing was done in Hollywood.
>>
>> The public relations coup of the century, and Russia simply missed it.
>> How unusual!
>
>No 911 has been the crime of the century.
Making the mistake of thinking that "The public relatiosn coup of the century"
is in any way similar to "The crime of the century" is undoubtedly a result of
your inability to read simple English.
Your further confusion about events *decades* apart is amusing...
>I never stated the Russian
>Engineer was with the space program or public relations.
Then he didn't have the knowledge base to offer an opinion, did he?
I prefer people who know what they're talking about.
>Just two professionals sharing ideas and noting perspectives about each
>others government; which made me look into what he had stated about the moon
>movie. Sold to the world as truth.
Note: you didn't have anything to say about the most telling point of all.
Russia had a *huge* public relations coup in the making, all they had to do is
reveal to the world that the U.S. had lied. They didn't do it. Do you suppose
that there's a chapter of Skull & Bones in Moscow?
>Intelligent people do those things in a professional enviroment.
>
>What do soldiers do? See how many beers than can drink and carry on Deja vu
>type conversations?
I get the distinct impression that you wouldn't know.
>>>> Why, Ben do you use the flat-earth society in 'retaliation' when one
>>>> can go to JFK sites with just as many hits and find all sorts of truth
>>>> and mistruths?
>>>>
>>>> What is the origin of the word kook?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well if Ben is good at anything it is attempting distort words,
>>
>>
>> Don's specialty is snipping
>
>SNIP
>
>Don
Coward, aren't you, Don?
McFly
Well an exhausted engineer; who made a bad decision to respond to a known
kook.
My bad!
>>>>he openly talked with
>>>>me about the improvability of any such moon journeys by us or them. I
>>>>did
>>>>some research and concluded that he was right, after examining the
>>>>evidence
>>>>within the realm of science and logic.
>>>
>>> An excellent point is raised... the race to the moon was indeed a race,
>>> and Russia was certainly racing too... but when the U.S. succeeded,
>>> Russia
>>> gave up... but strangely, for all of their technical expertise, they
>>> failed to note that the Moon Landing was done in Hollywood.
>>>
>>> The public relations coup of the century, and Russia simply missed it.
>>> How unusual!
>>
>>No 911 has been the crime of the century.
>
>
> Making the mistake of thinking that "The public relatiosn coup of the
> century"
> is in any way similar to "The crime of the century" is undoubtedly a
> result of
> your inability to read simple English.
>
> Your further confusion about events *decades* apart is amusing...
Let's play the twist game shall we?
>
>>I never stated the Russian
>>Engineer was with the space program or public relations.
>
>
> Then he didn't have the knowledge base to offer an opinion, did he?
> I prefer people who know what they're talking about.
How strange of you to say that.
Well you do not think I know what I am talking about; but you persist in
having a form of dialog with me.
You went as far as to have claimed to have read a book by Matthys Levy just
one day after calling him a kook. That was very anomalous. You prefer to
dwindle in conspiracy newsgroups; yet you just stated "I prefer people who
know what they're talking about."
Is there something wrong with what you just stated; because if I thought
like you I would not even associate in this venue.
Your logic is that of a kook!
>
>>Just two professionals sharing ideas and noting perspectives about each
>>others government; which made me look into what he had stated about the
>>moon
>>movie. Sold to the world as truth.
>
> Note: you didn't have anything to say about the most telling point of all.
> Russia had a *huge* public relations coup in the making, all they had to
> do is
> reveal to the world that the U.S. had lied. They didn't do it. Do you
> suppose
> that there's a chapter of Skull & Bones in Moscow?
>
>
>>Intelligent people do those things in a professional enviroment.
>>
>>What do soldiers do? See how many beers than can drink and carry on Deja
>>vu
>>type conversations?
>
>
> I get the distinct impression that you wouldn't know.
>
That coming from a drop-out; who could not handle the free-thinking world
and chose to go to a structured world that required no thought; just take
orders.
I get an impression that you are a washed up military man who is a very
lonely old kook in need of some psychological help.
>
>>>>> Why, Ben do you use the flat-earth society in 'retaliation' when one
>>>>> can go to JFK sites with just as many hits and find all sorts of truth
>>>>> and mistruths?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the origin of the word kook?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well if Ben is good at anything it is attempting distort words,
>>>
>>>
>>> Don's specialty is snipping
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>Don
>
> Coward, aren't you, Don?
Is that supposed to trigger something with me?
Is that the beginning stages of some form of military brain washing
procedure that will whip us into shape? Quite a primitive tactic in the
civilian world.
Have you had your water checked lately?
Don
Ben Holmes
No engineer would attempt to gauge the temperature of a fire by the smoke it
generates...
No engineer would *NOT* know that steel will lose strength as heat increases.
>>>>>he openly talked with
>>>>>me about the improvability of any such moon journeys by us or them. I
>>>>>did
>>>>>some research and concluded that he was right, after examining the
>>>>>evidence
>>>>>within the realm of science and logic.
>>>>
>>>> An excellent point is raised... the race to the moon was indeed a race,
>>>> and Russia was certainly racing too... but when the U.S. succeeded,
>>>> Russia
>>>> gave up... but strangely, for all of their technical expertise, they
>>>> failed to note that the Moon Landing was done in Hollywood.
>>>>
>>>> The public relations coup of the century, and Russia simply missed it.
>>>> How unusual!
>>>
>>>No 911 has been the crime of the century.
>>
>>
>> Making the mistake of thinking that "The public relations coup of the
>> century" is in any way similar to "The crime of the century" is
>> undoubtedly a result of your inability to read simple English.
>>
>> Your further confusion about events *decades* apart is amusing...
>
>
>Let's play the twist game shall we?
What's wrong with your "ability" to debate, Eh, Don? The ease with which I nail
you on your stupidities is funny... "engineer"... sure... :)
And why can't you respond to the point? Tell everyone *WHY* Russia decided to
keep the secret... or do you suppose that Russia was fooled too?
And will you *answer* this, or snip it?
>>>I never stated the Russian
>>>Engineer was with the space program or public relations.
>>
>>
>> Then he didn't have the knowledge base to offer an opinion, did he?
>
>> I prefer people who know what they're talking about.
>
>
>How strange of you to say that.
Yep... it's a very *non* kook sort of thing to say. Only kooks will take the
word of those who don't know.
And refuse to accept the opinion of those who *do* know, such as Matthys Levy.
>Well you do not think I know what I am talking about; but you persist in
>having a form of dialog with me.
Nah... you're only a "blackboard" to get the real facts out to lurkers.
>You went as far as to have claimed to have read a book by Matthys Levy just
>one day after calling him a kook.
Based on falsified evidence. You lied about what he said. When I found out the
truth, I changed my opinion.
Interestingly, *I've* provided a quote that can be checked by anyone - you
haven't.
>That was very anomalous. You prefer to
>dwindle in conspiracy newsgroups; yet you just stated "I prefer people who
>know what they're talking about."
There are people on this newsgroup that are more knowledgeable in their narrow
specialty than pretty much anyone else in the world.
That's simply a fact.
>Is there something wrong with what you just stated; because if I thought
>like you I would not even associate in this venue.
Nah... there's clearly something wrong with your understanding of this
newsgroup, however.
>Your logic is that of a kook!
Nope. Kooks don't *accept* the opinion of knowledgeable people. Such as
Matthys Levy.
>>>Just two professionals sharing ideas and noting perspectives about each
>>>others government; which made me look into what he had stated about the
>>>moon
>>>movie. Sold to the world as truth.
>>
>> Note: you didn't have anything to say about the most telling point of all.
>> Russia had a *huge* public relations coup in the making, all they had to
>> do is
>> reveal to the world that the U.S. had lied. They didn't do it. Do you
>> suppose
>> that there's a chapter of Skull & Bones in Moscow?
No response? Cat got your tongue, Don?
>>>Intelligent people do those things in a professional enviroment.
>>>
>>>What do soldiers do? See how many beers than can drink and carry on Deja
>>>vu
>>>type conversations?
>>
>>
>> I get the distinct impression that you wouldn't know.
>>
>
>That coming from a drop-out; who could not handle the free-thinking world
>and chose to go to a structured world that required no thought; just take
>orders.
Yep... that confirms it... you've never served your country in any military
branch... how sad...
>I get an impression that you are a washed up military man who is a very
>lonely old kook in need of some psychological help.
>
>
>>
>>>>>> Why, Ben do you use the flat-earth society in 'retaliation' when one
>>>>>> can go to JFK sites with just as many hits and find all sorts of truth
>>>>>> and mistruths?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the origin of the word kook?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well if Ben is good at anything it is attempting distort words,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don's specialty is snipping
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>Don
>>
>> Coward, aren't you, Don?
>
>Is that supposed to trigger something with me?
Nope... merely pointing out the truth.
It *is* cowardly to snip posts without answering them.
McFly
wriiten in *1994*
>>You went as far as to have claimed to have read a book by Matthys Levy
>>just
>>one day after calling him a kook.
>
> Based on falsified evidence. You lied about what he said. When I found
> out the
> truth, I changed my opinion.
So you can change your mind when you think you found some substance to
reinforce your view, but after 7 years
Matthys Levy is denied that right of mind change after what he witnessed on
911.
After 911 he made the following statement.
"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they
cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly
what it looked like and that's what happened" - Matthys Levy, co author Why
buildings Fall Down
He just changed his mind like you just admitted to doing.
>
> Interestingly, *I've* provided a quote that can be checked by anyone - you
> haven't.
*1994*
>>That was very anomalous. You prefer to
>>dwindle in conspiracy newsgroups; yet you just stated "I prefer people who
>>know what they're talking about."
>
> There are people on this newsgroup that are more knowledgeable in their
> narrow
> specialty than pretty much anyone else in the world.
>
> That's simply a fact.
*agreed*
>>Is there something wrong with what you just stated; because if I thought
>>like you I would not even associate in this venue.
>
> Nah... there's clearly something wrong with your understanding of this
> newsgroup, however.
>
Yes I just force kooks like you to admit they are kooks and that bothers
you.
>>Your logic is that of a kook!
>
>
> Nope. Kooks don't *accept* the opinion of knowledgeable people. Such as
> Matthys Levy.
>
ROFLOL
How does that crow taste?
>>>>Just two professionals sharing ideas and noting perspectives about each
>>>>others government; which made me look into what he had stated about the
>>>>moon
>>>>movie. Sold to the world as truth.
>>>
>>> Note: you didn't have anything to say about the most telling point of
>>> all.
>>> Russia had a *huge* public relations coup in the making, all they had to
>>> do is
>>> reveal to the world that the U.S. had lied. They didn't do it. Do you
>>> suppose
>>> that there's a chapter of Skull & Bones in Moscow?
>
>
> No response? Cat got your tongue, Don?
I have already answered that, it is old news that you clearly could and
would not understand.
DON
SNIP
Ted Gittinger
any longer? Sam need not answer.
I'll watch for one go-around, and then sign off. It's been fun. Sort of.
ted
"Sam" <jfk...@sammcclung.com> wrote in message
news:11jm7vi...@corp.supernews.com...
>> On Skull and Bones: I think more has to be presented that they are a
>> secret society to maintain control of a secret government that controls
>> in general United States policy and it's political process.
>
> not to be curt (heh heh), or redundant, but robbins' book is probably the
> most authoratative, she infiltrated skull & bones as she was (probably not
> any longer, they won't even talk to her anymore apparently) in scroll and
> key, the other major secret organzation at yale
>
> here's some stuff from robins:
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
>
>
>> I am aware
>> of the financing of Hitler through some of its membership. I know the
>> Bushes have been dealing with Arabs for a long time, with oil
>> interests.
>
> supposedly, saudi oil supply will run out, caspian sea is next area of
> exploitation lined up, to get th eoil from caspian sea area down to indian
> ocean deep water port = have to go through afghanistan (sound familiar?)
> and pakistan = deep water port of gawadar being developed on indian ocean
> in pakistan...nopting chinese are building nuclear power plants in
> pakistan and will supposedly wind up being major competitors for caspian
> sea oil, with advent of widespread automobile use in china for first time
> in history
>
>
>> Bush was circumvented a Martha Stewart type conviction for
>> alleged HEC stock manipulation in a Arab/oil company venture. There
>> has been talk of the Bush's relationship with the Bin Laden family, and
>> after 9/11, the Bin Laden relatives were allowed to leave the country.
>> The more meaningful attempt to link skull and bones and the Al-Qaeda
>> to somehow be in cahoots to allow American involvement in Iraq, say for
>> oil interests would be something that I would like to see proved.
>>
>> Why would there be a demolition of Building 7? Were the explosives
>> already in place, and they had to get rid of the evidence? What
>> possibly could allow that building to fall on it's own?
>>
>> On the Twin Towers, how could they have had all those explosives for
>> what was it was said?, three months, and not have had them been
>> discovered?
>>
>> On the building that collapsed in Germany, what was the cause of it's
>> collapse, and how could that particular building be compared to the
>> WTC? Why didn't they let more people out before they detonated it?
>> Wouldn't the people on the ground near the WTC's heard a massive
>> explosion from the explosives?
>
> inside the building on ground floor or near it supposedly was evidence of
> a large explosion
>
> wasn't wtc bombed back in 1990s unsuccessfully? bombing of uss cole?
> practice makes perfect?
>
>> Why possibly could there be a moon hoax? Would they go to all the
>> trouble to have a tv launch, and not have it go to the moon? Where did
>> the rocket go? What motivation could they have had to have such an
>> elaborate technical hoax?
>
> didn't some "private citizens" watch some of the lunar landing activity
> through telescopes?
>
>
> <rest snipped>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Is there anyone with a shred of intelligence who advocates watching this NG
> any longer? Sam need not answer.
>
> I'll watch for one go-around, and then sign off. It's been fun. Sort of.
>
[troll exits stage left]
Bud
Ted Gittinger wrote:
> Is there anyone with a shred of intelligence who advocates watching this NG
> any longer? Sam need not answer.
>
> I'll watch for one go-around, and then sign off. It's been fun. Sort of.
Stick around, ted. If you go, I`ll be the most sensible poster here,
and that is just too scary to contemplate.
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Ted Gittinger wrote:
>
> > Is there anyone with a shred of intelligence who advocates watching this NG
> > any longer? Sam need not answer.
> >
> > I'll watch for one go-around, and then sign off. It's been fun. Sort of.
> >
>
> [troll exits stage left]
Watching a monkey attempt sexual relations with a football is only
entertaining to most people for a limited amount of time. Me, I can`t
get enough of it.
McFly
> "luv-old-tv" <ol...@hvacdetailer.com> wrote in message
> news:M6Kdne0OR68...@giganews.com...
>>> "luv-old-tv" wrote in part
>>>> Every 100 years we get 150 Bonesmen and with that number we got (2)
>>>> Bush vs. Kerry to prove the above mentioned fact
>>>
>>> looks like you meant to say every 10 years @ 15 members per year = 150
>>> members every 10 years
>>>
>>> some calculate +/- 800 living members at any given time, given average
>>> life expectancies
>>>
>>> where were the +/- 800 bonesmen 11-22-63?
>>> how many were in dallas?
>>> d.c.?
>>>
>>> perhaps bonespersons is a more accurate term now than bonesmen, as women
>>> have been admitted since threat of a lawsuit in the early 1990s, though
>>> william f. buckley tried using a court order to block women's admittance
>>
>> Sam; I stand corrected it was 10 and not 100. On the other I am not now
>> nor will I ever be politically correct on gender or races. Look what
>> happen to evolution, invented to make owing slaves *politically correct*
>> now it is a full blown religion! Go figure what new thing with things we
>> try to make politically correct today.
>>
>>
>>
>> day of Treason in 1962.
>
> got a governorship when the plane mel carnahan was on crashed...
>
> <open quote>
> In January 2001, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd used Skull and
> Bones
> in a simile: "When W. met the press with his choice for attorney general,
> John Ashcroft, before Christmas, he vividly showed how important it is to
> him that his White House be as leak-proof as the Skull and Bones 'tomb.' "
> <end quote>*
> robbins', secrets of the tomb, page 10
>
>
>> We only know that some major lies came from it.
>>
In 1963 Buckley was a member of Yale's "Skull and Bones" Society, the
Council on Foreign Relations, an officer in the Central Intelligence Agency
and later, one of Cardinal Spellman's Knights of Malta. After President
Kennedy's assassination, this traitor played a key role in the Great Jesuit
Cover-up, constantly affirming that Oswald was the lone assassin protecting
his friend E. Howard Hunt from being exposed. Later, Buckley would be named
as the "godfather" of one of Hunt's children. A close friend of fellow
"Bonesman" and Knight of Malta Henry R. Luce, who controlled the national
media from Rockefeller Center across the street from Francis Cardinal
Spellman's St. Patrick's Cathedral, Buckley reached fifteen states through
his T.V. program, Firing Line, and his periodical, National Review, had a
worldwide readership. He was a close personal friend of the head of the
American Branch of the Knights of Malta, J. Peter Grace, who in turn oversaw
the Nazi "Operation Paperclip" and President Ronald Reagan's Grace
Commission. As of this date (2003) Buckley still lives and continues to
maintain the Great Jesuit Cover-up on behalf of the wicked Archbishop Edward
Cardinal Egan of New York, the Black Pope's Society of Jesus, and the Papal
Caesar in Rome.
Look Magazine, "Pat Buckley: Oasis for a caustic Conservative," March 7,
1967
Thought you might like it. Sort of leads to the Jesuit Connection.
Don
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhjh1...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <e_WdnXPoSZa...@giganews.com>, McFly says...
>>>
>Big SNIP anything stated above is no longer relevent sing the book was
>wriiten in *1994*
Yep... Levys was using his psychic abilities to predict the future.
His reference to the planes hitting the towers, and Pentagon, were seen in his
crystal ball seven years earlier.
>>>You went as far as to have claimed to have read a book by Matthys Levy
>>>just one day after calling him a kook.
>>
>> Based on falsified evidence. You lied about what he said. When I found
>> out the truth, I changed my opinion.
>
>So you can change your mind when you think you found some substance to
>reinforce your view, but after 7 years
>
>Matthys Levy is denied that right of mind change after what he witnessed on
>911.
No, not at all. Feel free to *CITE* his words.
>After 911 he made the following statement.
>
>"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
>building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they
>cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly
>what it looked like and that's what happened" - Matthys Levy, co author Why
>buildings Fall Down
Not in the book, he didn't. Nor are you willing to provide the citation.
Coward, aren't you?
>He just changed his mind like you just admitted to doing.
Nope. It's apparent that you're lying about what he said.
>> Interestingly, *I've* provided a quote that can be checked by anyone - you
>> haven't.
>
>*1994*
Yep... probably *was* originally published that date.
>>>That was very anomalous. You prefer to
>>>dwindle in conspiracy newsgroups; yet you just stated "I prefer people who
>>>know what they're talking about."
>>
>> There are people on this newsgroup that are more knowledgeable in their
>> narrow specialty than pretty much anyone else in the world.
>>
>> That's simply a fact.
>
>*agreed*
>
>>>Is there something wrong with what you just stated; because if I thought
>>>like you I would not even associate in this venue.
>>
>> Nah... there's clearly something wrong with your understanding of this
>> newsgroup, however.
>>
>Yes I just force kooks like you to admit they are kooks and that bothers
>you.
Tell us about Matthys Levy's psychic abilities... when did he first realize that
he could predict disasters seven years in the future? With such specific
detail?
>>>Your logic is that of a kook!
>>
>>
>> Nope. Kooks don't *accept* the opinion of knowledgeable people. Such as
>> Matthys Levy.
>>
>
>ROFLOL
>How does that crow taste?
I wouldn't know... it's *you* that's chewing on it.
>>>>>Just two professionals sharing ideas and noting perspectives about each
>>>>>others government; which made me look into what he had stated about the
>>>>>moon
>>>>>movie. Sold to the world as truth.
>>>>
>>>> Note: you didn't have anything to say about the most telling point of
>>>> all.
>>>> Russia had a *huge* public relations coup in the making, all they had to
>>>> do is
>>>> reveal to the world that the U.S. had lied. They didn't do it. Do you
>>>> suppose
>>>> that there's a chapter of Skull & Bones in Moscow?
>>
>>
>> No response? Cat got your tongue, Don?
>
>I have already answered that, it is old news that you clearly could and
>would not understand.
No, liar, you *HAVEN'T* answered it. Anyone can *look* above, and note that
there's no response by you.
Why didn't Russia blab?
>DON
>
>SNIP
Coward, as usual...
Anthony Marsh
No, I never said that a dictionary is not helpful.
>
>
>>>>>This isn't rocket science, Tony. An "encyclopedia" is *NOT* a dictionary,
>>>>>or do you understand the difference? "Conspiracy Theory" is *NOT* the
>>>>>word "conspiracy", or do you undestand the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dictionaries often define terms using more than one word. Such as
>>>>"fouling shot." Not every dictionary will define each possible expression.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This is really simple, Tony... we aren't talking about a "fouling shot".
>>>Words have meanings, and both Don and myself were quite specific in the
>>>beginning. The word, not phrase, but *word*, was "conspiracy". The
>>>authoritative reference that I stated I would accept is what 99.9% of
>>>people would accept for the definition of a word, a dictionary.
>>>
>>
>>Words have meaning in context. The meaning can change depending on the
>>context. Also jargon.
>
>
>
> Conspiracy is the word, Tony. Find ANY dictionary that defines it as you're
> attempting to support.
>
False charge (what's new about that?). I am not attempting to support
any particular definition of the word "conspiracy."
>
>
>
>>>Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>>>
>>
>>Why it is so difficult for you to understand English?
>
>
>
> It's not. I'm the only one using the Dictionary terms. Don is not, and you're
> defending *his* inaccurate reference.
>
Misusing.
I don't give a fig about what Don said. I am only talking about your
illogic.
>
>
>>Is that a foreign
>>language to you? Lack of education? What?
>
>
>
> *YOU'RE* the one attempting to defend the use of an encyclopedia to define a
> word.
>
Never. I said that an encyclopedia may give you more information about a
term than your high school dictionary.
> Dishonest, aren't you?
>
Lied again, didn't you?
>
>
>>>>>>If a word is not in the
>>>>>>American Dictionary, but is in the Oxford dictionary, YOU get to decide
>>>>>>if the word really exists based on your bias?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Creating strawmen is fun, isn't it, Tony?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My point remains who are you to be in charge?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Because I was *asked* to provide a definition. Do you have a problem\
>>>with me answering a question?
>>>
>>
>>No. Just don't declare that your word is law.
>
>
>
> I didn't. You, on the other hand, are refusing to acknowledge normally accepted
> conventions.
>
You know what you can do with your normally accepted conventions.
> *Dictionaries* are the preferred source for the meaning of a word.
>
Not YOUR high school dictionary. Go out and buy a real dictionary.
>
> And nothing you can do can change that.
>
>
>
>
>>>Did someone ask *you* the definition of "conspiracy"???
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, it strikes me why you've jumped in... you've had a distaste
>>>for dictionaries, haven't you? Ever since you were unable to provide
>>>any definition of "racist" that forbid Blacks from being racist.
>>>
>>
>>I already did.
>
>
>
> No, you didn't. And I pointed it out at the time. Websites have a wide range
> of believability and worth.
>
>
>>Racist is by definition discrimination by whites against non-whites.
>
>
>
> Nope. You cannot find a dictionary that so states.
>
I didn't say you'd find the definition in your high school dictionary.
Try looking in a LAW dictionary, or even better yet looking in the US Code.
> (I was right!! You *do* have a distaste for dictionaries!!)
>
>
I have several dictionaries.
>
>>>>>>Wikipedia is not exactly a dictionary,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, Tony, it's *NOT* a dictionary. It's just *that* simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>more like an encyclopedia, a
>>>>>>people's encyclopedia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep... that what Wikipedia itself claims. So you *can* read!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not every lurker has bothered reading that on the Web site.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not even you, evidently... with your comment that it's not "exactly" a
>>>dictionary.
>>>
>>
>>Encyclopediae also often include dictionary definitions of words.
>
>
>
> And horses often eat grass... they are a very poor source of beef, however.
>
>
>
>
>>>Shades of grey, right, Tony?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Sometimes an encyclopedia will give you more
>>>>>>information about the source of usage of a word than a high school
>>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Which, of course, is *NOT* the definition of the word.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And who the Hell are you to determine for the rest of us what the
>>>>definition of the word is?
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't. I merely point out that there is *NO* dictionary that gives
>>>any such definition. You'll have to take it up with the dictionary
>>>people...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There are many dictionaries out there. So, maybe your high school
>>dictionary does not have the word, but a college dictionary might.
>
>
>
> No, it doesn't work that way, Tony...
>
> Supply the cite, or shut up. It's that simple.
>
>
Cite what? You are creating a false argument and then demand that I
prove it?
>
>
>
>>>>Your dictionary may list only one definition
>>>>of a word while others may list many.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry, Tony, I *SPECIFIED* that I'd accept any dictionary. Can't read???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the definition can change
>>>>according to usage, jargon, context.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why bother, Tony? Just provide the name of the dictionary, publish date,
>>>and quote the definition that comes close to the silly one that Don offered.
>>>
>>
>>I am not here to defend Don. He is entitled to his opinion.
>
>
>
> Ah! But this is *EXACTLY* what you are doing.
>
No, never. Caught you in another lie.
>
>
>
>>>But I really won't hold my breath for you to offer a cite.
>>
>>
>>I have no interest in citing anything for you concerning someone else's
>>issue.
>
>
>
> Nor any issue that *YOU* raise either. Coward.
>
>
That seems to be the only way you can argue. When you lose, just call
the other person a coward. You really are pitiful.
>
>
>>>>>Why are you so obtuse, Tony? Just for the fun of it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just to point out your absurdness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You're looking stupid, Tony. You should take your time, and re-read what
>>>you post.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's standard for your intelligence that you accept by implication that
>>>>>"the dictionary defines consparicy as "not accepting the official record
>>>>>of an event"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, that is not how the word "consparicy" is defined.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bravo! So you agree with me. This *is* all I've been stating for some time
>>>now...
>>>
>>
>>Maybe you have a different dictionary. I could not find the word
>>"consparicy" in mine.
>
>
>
> I'm a tad more literate than you are, then. Unless poor spelling has a definite
> point to make, I don't bother with it.
>
In other words, you don't care if you misspell words and you can't be
bothered with spellchecking your messages?
>
>
>
>>>>And some people may use words in a different context.
>>>
>>>
>>>People can use "racist" in any context they desire... but when they
>>>refuse to use it in reference to a Black racist, they aren't revealing
>>>their knowledge of the English language, but their political and cultural
>>>beliefs.
>>
>>Yes, people can misused words. They do all the time. So what?
>>Using the term Black racist is itself a form of racism. Just like
>>"reverse discrimination."
>
>
>
> To point out that a particular Black is a racist is, in itself, racist???
>
Point out? As if it's a fact? It can't be a fact. It's nonsense. What
you mean is "to claim." And it's a false claim.
> Not according to the dictionary, it isn't.
>
Show me any dictionary that defines a black person as being a racist.
McFly
> In article <kaGdndbOn4C...@giganews.com>, McFly says...
>>
>>
>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>news:dhjh1...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <e_WdnXPoSZa...@giganews.com>, McFly says...
>>>>
>>Big SNIP anything stated above is no longer relevent sing the book was
>>wriiten in *1994*
>
>
> Yep... Levys was using his psychic abilities to predict the future.
>
> His reference to the planes hitting the towers, and Pentagon, were seen in
> his
> crystal ball seven years earlier.
>
Are you for real?
>>>>You went as far as to have claimed to have read a book by Matthys Levy
>>>>just one day after calling him a kook.
>>>
>>> Based on falsified evidence. You lied about what he said. When I found
>>> out the truth, I changed my opinion.
>>
>>So you can change your mind when you think you found some substance to
>>reinforce your view, but after 7 years
>>
>>Matthys Levy is denied that right of mind change after what he witnessed
>>on
>>911.
>
>
> No, not at all. Feel free to *CITE* his words.
>
As I have done and offered you a site that validates my claims.
>
>>After 911 he made the following statement.
>>
>>"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
>>building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they
>>cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly
>>what it looked like and that's what happened" - Matthys Levy, co author
>>Why
>>buildings Fall Down
>
> Not in the book, he didn't. Nor are you willing to provide the citation.
> Coward, aren't you?
Hello Mcfly!
Remember the video?
>
>>He just changed his mind like you just admitted to doing.
>
>
> Nope. It's apparent that you're lying about what he said.
What is this Burger King or what?
Have it your way or no way. You cannot be this simple minded Ben.
>
>>> Interestingly, *I've* provided a quote that can be checked by anyone -
>>> you
>>> haven't.
>>
>>*1994*
>
>
> Yep... probably *was* originally published that date.
>
Agreed
>
>>>>That was very anomalous. You prefer to
>>>>dwindle in conspiracy newsgroups; yet you just stated "I prefer people
>>>>who
>>>>know what they're talking about."
>>>
>>> There are people on this newsgroup that are more knowledgeable in their
>>> narrow specialty than pretty much anyone else in the world.
>>>
>>> That's simply a fact.
>>
>>*agreed*
>>
>>>>Is there something wrong with what you just stated; because if I thought
>>>>like you I would not even associate in this venue.
>>>
>>> Nah... there's clearly something wrong with your understanding of this
>>> newsgroup, however.
>>>
>>Yes I just force kooks like you to admit they are kooks and that bothers
>>you.
>
>
> Tell us about Matthys Levy's psychic abilities... when did he first
> realize that
> he could predict disasters seven years in the future? With such specific
> detail?
Not this again. It is so juvenile for you to attempt this course with me.
You are far more intelligent than that; are you not?
>
>>>>Your logic is that of a kook!
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Kooks don't *accept* the opinion of knowledgeable people. Such
>>> as
>>> Matthys Levy.
>>>
>>
>>ROFLOL
>>How does that crow taste?
>
> I wouldn't know... it's *you* that's chewing on it.
Well it tastes pretty damn good; because I need not defend your vague
attempts to pass your lack of knowledge off on others. Lets just face it
you cited a book that was seven years older than the event. I gave you a
quote and offered to let you see him on a PBS video proclaiming what I
quoted him as saying. But somehow in your intellect, I need to defend your
seven year old foundation of reference. What gives here Ben?
Because you are being so juvenile about this *mistake* of yours I am not
even going to call you names anymore. You need help dude! You need some
positive reinforcement of sorts. Who taught you to act so damn crazy when
you are wrong? It is ok been to be wrong from time to time. You cannot win
them all, Ben. Sorry
Don
SNIP
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:dhki4...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <kaGdndbOn4C...@giganews.com>, McFly says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>>news:dhjh1...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> In article <e_WdnXPoSZa...@giganews.com>, McFly says...
>>>>>
>>>Big SNIP anything stated above is no longer relevent sing the book was
>>>wriiten in *1994*
>>
>>
>> Yep... Levys was using his psychic abilities to predict the future.
>>
>> His reference to the planes hitting the towers, and Pentagon, were seen in
>> his crystal ball seven years earlier.
>>
>
>
> Are you for real?
Why can't you answer the question, Don?
You "agree" that the book is published in 1994 - yet Levys gives a rather
precise description of what happened seven years later.
How do you explain it?
I know you think I'm not giving you an accurate quote - but it is *exactly*
accurate.
Until you can explain Levy's psychic ability, you're stuck...