James DiEugenio's dreams ...
François Carlier
As usual, David Von Pein writes articles or messages to straighten things
out, after James DiEugenio distorts the truth on Black Op radio.
James DiEugenio cannot help making a fool of himself every week, by stating
falsehoods. And Dave Von Pein corrects him immediately afterwerd.
But I have this to say to Dave Von Pein :
You talk sense, and you give sound arguments. You provide us with logic,
facts and reason. Thank you. You are 100% right.
In front of you is Mister DiEugenio, who, on the contrary, provides us with
bad faith, disinformation, errors, mistakes, falsehoods and lies. He is 100%
wrong.
But, I must tell you one thing that I deem very important. I have learned
that much. It might not please you, but I shall write it all the same : you
are wasting your time.
Indeed, sadly enough, James DiEugenio lives in a dream world. So whatever
you say does not even reach his brain. So it's no use. You could shout the
truth for centuries on end, it would not change a thing, with regards to
James DiEugenio (or Len Osanic, for that matter).
James DiEugenio is convinced that the earth is flat, the sun is cold, water
is dry, 4 is an odd number, and Oswald was a patsy...
What can you do ?
What a sad state of affairs ! Really !
/Fran�ois Carlier/
Fra-C...@orange.fr
Ben Holmes
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Carlier?= says...
Most obviously, of course, is that you're a coward who refuses to debate the
evidence.
And apparently this doesn't embarrass you.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
François Carlier
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:h7gjj...@drn.newsguy.com...
Don't make me laugh !
I would debate anybody.
All you have is old stuff already debunked a thousand times.
The evidence points to Oswald. Simple as that.
What you have is not evidence, it is crap made-up by yourself ...
/Fran�ois Carlier/
aeffects
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> a écrit dans le message denews:h7gjj...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <4a9bc1be$0$12652$ba4ac...@news.orange.fr>,
> >>Fra-Carl...@orange.fr
>
> > Most obviously, of course, is that you're a coward who refuses to debate
> > the
> > evidence.
>
> > And apparently this doesn't embarrass you.
>
> Don't make me laugh !
>
> I would debate anybody.
>
> All you have is old stuff already debunked a thousand times.
>
> The evidence points to Oswald. Simple as that.
>
> What you have is not evidence, it is crap made-up by yourself ...
what? one who speaks english as a second (or third) language debate an
American? ROTFLMFAO, listen shithead you need to grow some nads, get
the shit out of your bytes, bone up (my definition: read the WCR) and
show up.
Of course, you'll have to tell us who you are, why you think you're
qualified to debate ANY CT that posts to this board.... ya see
Francois-twit, till you prove your worth, you're like soiled toilet
paper, deserve only a flusheroo....
TA shithead!
> /François Carlier/
David Von Pein
Thank you, Francois.
I'll repeat the following comments that I made earlier today, because
they seem to fit in nicely with this thread started by Francois. Most
conspiracists will undoubtedly look upon these comments as a "cop-
out", but I suppose that type of reaction is to be expected from
CTers. .....
========================================
One thing that tells me that Jim DiEugenio is completely wrong when it
comes to his anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that he can
seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr.
Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and
omissions and lies, etc.
And seeing this kind of absurd "VB Overload" on DiEugenio's part, I
have to ask myself this question (which is the same question that all
reasonable people should be asking who know anything about the
internal character and moral fiber of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) -- How
could it be physically possible to ACCURATELY berate and verbally
smear a book written by Vincent Bugliosi in such extreme and non-stop
fashion as Jim DiEugenio is doing in his multi-part book review?
And after pondering the above inquiry, the only logical answer I can
arrive at is this answer -- It's not possible.
Which means, in the final analysis, that James DiEugenio cannot
possibly be correct in ALL NINE PARTS of his anti-VB book review.
It is simply not POSSIBLE for Mr. Bugliosi to be incorrect, as James
DiEugenio believes he is, concerning all of the various sub-topics
(dozens? hundreds?) relating to the assassination of President Kennedy
that appear within Bugliosi's massively-complete 2007 book,
"Reclaiming History".
In other words -- Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy SUBJECTIVISM must
certainly be the prime motivation and the driving force behind his
interminably lengthy anti-Bugliosi critique. Any other explanation for
such wildly overblown and overdone criticism of such a scholarly,
well-documented, and well-sourced book like "Reclaiming History"
defies all belief.
========================================
DEBUNKING JAMES DiEUGENIO (PARTS 17, 18, AND 19):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2d15330a312bea02
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f45cd7f74b10f4d3
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/276116f6ceb31422
========================================
aeffects
> Thank you, Francois.
>
> I'll repeat the following comments that I made earlier today, because
> they seem to fit in nicely with this thread started by Francois.
Imagine that.... Francois started a thread that JUST happened to
dovetail nicely with a David Von Puke earlier post..... ROTFLMFAO --
no listen shithead, what YOU need to do is debate Jim Di.... nothing
short of that will suffice, gird thos tender Indian loins of yours,
grow some balls, show us you have it troll....
Most
> conspiracists will undoubtedly look upon these comments as a "cop-
> out", but I suppose that type of reaction is to be expected from
> CTers. .....
shithead, we won't look upon those comments, we KNOW your full of
shit!
<snip the nutter-troll diatribe>
Ben Holmes
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Carlier?= says...
And yet, you refuse and run away.
>All you have is old stuff already debunked a thousand times.
Then it should be easy! Merely cut & paste, right? So what's stopping you,
coward?
>The evidence points to Oswald. Simple as that.
You're a coward who refuses to debate people who know the evidence, simple as
that.
>What you have is not evidence, it is crap made-up by yourself ...
I can cite, can you?
David Von Pein
>>> "Imagine that.... Francois started a thread that JUST happened to dovetail nicely with a David Von [Pein] earlier post." <<<
Yeah, imagine the incredible coinky of that happening, Mr. Crackpipe!
It's almost as incredible as the sun rising in the east each morning!
>>> "what YOU need to do is debate Jim Di.... nothing short of that will suffice." <<<
Why?
>>> "gird thos tender Indian loins of yours, grow some balls, show us you have it troll. [...] shithead, we won't look upon those comments, we KNOW your full of shit!" <<<
Get some new writers (and a dictionary), Healy. Your current "gird
'em" and "nad up" act is very stale.
Try Don Rickles. Maybe he can help you. After all, Don is usually very
obnoxious. He'd probably write you some new one-liners to augment your
closet-full of "nad up" zingers.
David Von Pein
RELATED TOPIC:
www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1093.msg15024.html#msg15024
JOHN BECKHAM SAID:
>>> DVP! Anyone who has not read this definitive book by Vince ["Reclaiming History"], should shut up! There is NOTHING closer to the truth about this assassination written EVER! Those who defy it must not have read it. .... You, Rietzes [sic], [and] Bill [Brown] are a shining light of facts. Everyone else seems lost in speculation, seems purposely, to keep that conspiracy alive." <<<
DVP SAID:
Thank you, John. I appreciate your words of support.
You're a rarity, John -- a former CTer who came to realize that the
conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's death are nothing but, to quote
my favorite author named Vince, "pure moonshine".
www.Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com
JOHN BECKHAM SAID:
>>> "I drank that moonshine till I thought on my own. DVP, you are like a hero to me. Call them kooks if you like. I think you call them as you see them. I have NO problem with that. I think it was great that you and Reitzes are accused of being one another. I love it!!!" <<<
DVP SAID:
Believe me, John, I love it too. Nothing makes me smile more broadly
than when some conspiracy theorist posts something about me being
another person (or "persona"). I hope they never stop thinking that,
because it just creates more reasons for me to know they are DEAD
WRONG about something they seem to firmly believe in.
BTW, as for Jim DiEugenio apparently accepting (as true) the rumor
that Mr. Reitzes and I were the same person (although I'm not sure if
Jim believes that as of this moment), that whole thing probably began
with our Internet friend/retard named David Healy.
The reason I say that is because, as far as I'm aware, Healy is the
ONLY person who ever said he thought I was Reitzes on the Internet
(prior to Osanic & DiEugenio parroting that belief on Black Op Radio
in late 2008).
What probably happened is this --- Either Healy himself e-mailed Len
Osanic to tell him the blockbuster bulletin--"Von Pein Is Really
Reitzes!"--or another Healy-like conspiracy kook could have seen
Healy's "DVP Is Reitzes" posts on the Internet and the other kook
mailed Osanic....with Osanic then repeating the rumor on Black Op
(without bothering to confirm it, naturally).
Then, incredibly, DiEugenio decided he was going to join in and start
believing that I was Reitzes too. (Although Jim used a bit softer
language; he said that he thought the rumor might be true.)
And the reason for DiEugenio thinking the DVP/Reitzes rumor might be
true is merely because--get this--my JFK Blog is linked on Dave
Reitzes' and John McAdams' websites (in the "JFK Links" areas of both
sites).
Due to that kind of "linkage" between our sites, DiEugenio thinks it's
possible that Dave R. and myself are possibly one entity.
Of course, just exactly WHY either Mr. Reitzes or myself would want to
play such a silly shell game with our names and our websites is
anyone's guess. If I was really Reitzes, why wouldn't I just post ALL
of my JFK material under my real name of "David A. Reitzes", instead
of utilizing two different names to say basically the EXACT SAME
THING?
What possible useful purpose would be served be posing as two
different people? (Just to increase the number of online "LNers" by
ONE?! Is that perhaps the reason for it, per the CT nuts? Come now.)
A recent quote from John Beckham is worth a replay here (and I firmly
agree with John on this point):
"[Jim DiEugenio] lacks logic at a very basic level." -- John B.
Beckham; 08/28/09