McAdams censorship for the benefit of the abusers

[pamela]

McAdams has not read the post. I have put Reitzes in a time-out
because of his senseless trolls. He has not answered my question as
to whether or not McAdams pays for his site. McAdams has made it
clear that censorship is simply to enable the abuse of posters by the
mods and their buddies;. Reitzes has made it clear that he is simply
a shill for McAdams and his agendas.

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 1:23 PM, John McAdams <aa...@panix.com> wrote:

You can't imply that Reitzes is somehow being punished.

Further, he has told you that I don't fund his website.
Continuing to ask that is unacceptable.

.John

On Sat, 1 May 2010, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

Dave Reitzes apparently does not like being outed; his
repeated
trolling with posts with my name in the header adds support to
the
questions he refuses to ask about whether McAdams pays for his
apologist website and whether he has posting privileges.

As a result of the trolling, he can wait until the cows come
home (or
later) for me to respond to anything he posts...

[jfk297x]

In case this one gets rejected too:
My post stating this was rejected by McAdams on the feeble basis that
I am not allowed to say that Reitzes is being 'punished'. LOL.

A timeout is something real teachers use on a regular basis.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/f4eaaecc60d9c644#

In addition, McAdams tries to speak for Reitzes; claiming he has
answered my question as to who pays for his website, when he has
simply dodged the question and put up more trolls with my name in the
header.

[David Von Pein]

In case anyone has had any doubt up to this point, "Pamela" is a bona
fide kook. And her continual anti-McAdams campaign nicely illustrates
and illuminates her "kook" status once more.

[jfk297x]

"DVP" is showing his true colors. He is a total jerk. I have defined
aaj for the benefit of any CT who wants to know why they can't make a
point without being libeled there. "DVP" is a WC apologist, so he is
protected on aaj. Of course what happens to everyone else dosen't
matter to him.

[David Von Pein]

"Pam" doesn't care about the way JFK died in 1963. She's a member of a
silly little fraternity called "conspiracy kooks".

If "Pam" really cared about the truth as it relates to 11/22/63, she
wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist at all. Because she would have
followed the evidence where it led her--to Lee Oswald, and only
Oswald.

Instead, "Pam" chooses to place her faith in fantasies concerning
JFK's demise.

To each his/her own.

[David Von Pein]

>>> ""DVP" is a WC apologist, so he is protected on aaj." <<<

More bullshit from the e-lips of a kook named "Pam".

I've had many posts rejected by McAdams.

Go fly a kite, "Pamela". Because JFK investigation (of any kind) isn't
your strong suit.

[David Von Pein]

Now I realize who the silly "1-Star" kook is at aaj. It's "Pam".

Thanks for advertising that fact in this thread, "Pam". I was never
sure which kook to blame for that silly "All LN Posts Get 1 Star" game
you always play at aaj. Now I know. Much obliged.

[jfk297x]

Poor WC apologist "DVP". What does he have left except bullying and
ad homs? He certainly doesn't have the truth, or he wouldn't have to
sink to the level of fallacy of logic. But his boring rants do little
else.

[aeffects]

you're embarrassed shithead..... completely understandable....
defending the WCR has become your fulltime job, how pathetic you lone
nut KOOKS are..... save some for those KFC grease pits! You should be
ashamed!