How Big a Conspiracy ? :
cdddraftsman
Con-spiracists seem to like big con-spiracies. Such conspiracies allow
the theorist to explain away all the evidence against Lee Oswald.
After all, all the witnesses and investigators who produced such
evidence can be branded liars. And big con-spiracies are satisfying
because they can include all the groups one happens to dislike. But do
these theories pass muster as sound historical logic ?
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour !
--
Count Baldoni
aeffects
can you imagine this -- Baldoni doesn't exist here or anywhere else
his unknown person has well over a 1000000 rating though.....LMFAO!
C'mon Lower_y, oh do you know what the below means:
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
tsk-tsk
Ben Holmes
says...
How silly! Tell us, is the Earth flat, as well?
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Churchill needed America brought into the war. Joe Kennedy was helping
none. Figure the rest out if you will...
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
says...
You're a raving lunatic to assert that "Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour."
As a point of interest, while stationed there - I viewed the remains of a Zero
fighter that crashed near the Pali Lookout. Rather solid evidence of what I
read about in the history books, I'd say...
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
I saw one just off the Solomon Islands myself.
Great Britain orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbour, they let Japan
fire the bullets.
As Churchill once said "that was just a grouse shoot compared to "The
Blitz".
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben Holmes formulated on Wednesday :
>> In article <mn.b5157d784...@googlemail.co>, Baldoni <baldoniXXV
>> says...
>>>
>>> It happens that Ben Holmes formulated :
>>>> In article <mn.a3c57d78c...@googlemail.co>, Baldoni <baldoniXXV
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> cdddraftsman submitted this idea :
>>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic4.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Con-spiracists seem to like big con-spiracies. Such conspiracies allow
>>>>>> the theorist to explain away all the evidence against Lee Oswald.
>>>>>> After all, all the witnesses and investigators who produced such
>>>>>> evidence can be branded liars. And big con-spiracies are satisfying
>>>>>> because they can include all the groups one happens to dislike. But do
>>>>>> these theories pass muster as sound historical logic ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour !
>>>>
>>>> How silly! Tell us, is the Earth flat, as well?
>>>
>>> Churchill needed America brought into the war. Joe Kennedy was helping
>>> none. Figure the rest out if you will...
>>
>>
>> You're a raving lunatic to assert that "Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour."
>>
>> As a point of interest, while stationed there - I viewed the remains of a
>> Zero fighter that crashed near the Pali Lookout. Rather solid evidence of
>> what I read about in the history books, I'd say...
>
>I saw one just off the Solomon Islands myself.
You didn't try claiming that Japan never attacked the Solomon Islands.
>Great Britain orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbour, they let Japan
>fire the bullets.
Then you admit that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor... Lied, didn't you?
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
I never lie and deal only in hard facts.
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <mn.b80a7d78196c2d97.74...@googlemail.co>, Baldoni <baldoniXXV
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ben Holmes wrote on 22/08/2007 :
> >> says...
>
> >>> Ben Holmes formulated on Wednesday :
> >>>> says...
>
> >>>>> It happens that Ben Holmes formulated :
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes is just dying to be able to call someone else a liar....people
who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones dwarf. When it comes
to liars you're right up there at the top of the list.
BTW hows you buddy John Welsh Hodges doing???
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Yes they did on account of information received from the British. The
British leaked this information and Japan took the bait.
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
aeffects
> On Aug 22, 6:26 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <mn.b80a7d78196c2d97.74...@googlemail.co>, Baldoni <baldoniXXV
> > says...
>
> > >Ben Holmes wrote on 22/08/2007 :
> > >> says...
>
> > >>> Ben Holmes formulated on Wednesday :
> > >>>> says...
>
> > >>>>> It happens that Ben Holmes formulated :
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> What's your *proof* Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?
>
> I think Baldoni has a theory every bit as clever as your altered
> Zapruder film theory.
I think Tom Lowr_y (aka cdddraftsman) forgot he was posting under the
nom-de-blumer Chuckie daShoe Schuler from the snow country.... tsk-tsk
This moron no longer provides CT's read good material. What's up,
puss? Only alternative left is the JFK case related assassinated
evidence? That mean the WCR, we know you don't want to go there....
> Why is your theory right and his theory wrong?
>
> What real *proof* do you have to offer that Orson Welles wasn't
> involved in the JFK assassination or that Great Britian didn't attack
> Pearl Harbor?
>
> Can you prove Orson Welles didn't attack Pearl Harbor?
curtjester1
With one conspirator never getting called to testify, and the other
his neighbor of which two were in control all of the evidence at a top
level and had the audacity and power to seal such evidence til the
year 2039, how would one think it had to be EXTREMELY huge?
CJ
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
What on earth are you talking about please.
Japan DID attack Pearl Harbour.
--
Count Baldoni
aeffects
> Ben Holmes has brought this to us :
>
>
>
> > says...
>
> >> Ben Holmes explained :
> >>> In article <mn.b80a7d78196c2d97.74...@googlemail.co>, Baldoni <baldoniXXV
> >>> says...
>
> >>>> Ben Holmes wrote on 22/08/2007 :
> >>>>> says...
>
> >>>>>> Ben Holmes formulated on Wednesday :
> >>>>>>> <baldoniXXV says...
>
> >>>>>>>> It happens that Ben Holmes formulated :
short term memory dosen't appear your suit, eh? another Lone Nut
idiot....
Ben Holmes
That's the question that should be asked of you.
Here again are YOUR EXACT WORDS: "Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour !"
>Japan DID attack Pearl Harbour.
So tell us... did Japan attack Pearl Harbour or not?
Can you offer us a retraction of your previous comment that Japan "NEVER"
attacked Pearl Harbour?
Or are you as illiterate as you are apparently stupid?
Ben Holmes
says...
I care little what their names are... they are *all* killfiled trolls, who cares
what they call themselves?
This troll doesn't care that Baldoni has asserted two contradictory
statements... one of which *MUST* be wrong.
>This moron no longer provides CT's read good material. What's up,
>puss? Only alternative left is the JFK case related assassinated
>evidence? That mean the WCR, we know you don't want to go there....
>
>
>> Why is your theory right and his theory wrong?
>>
>> What real *proof* do you have to offer that Orson Welles wasn't
>> involved in the JFK assassination or that Great Britian didn't attack
>> Pearl Harbor?
>>
>> Can you prove Orson Welles didn't attack Pearl Harbor?
It's nutcases like this that illustrate very well the conspiracy that took JFK's
life.
For to argue *otherwise*, you have to be capable of ignoring history, and be
capable of asserting such silly statements as "Japan never attacked Pearl
Harbour"
You have to turn ordinary proof upside down, and simply ignore everyday common
conventions of evidence.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:05 am, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nil>@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > cdddraftsman submitted this idea :
> >
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic4.htm
> >
> > > Con-spiracists seem to like big con-spiracies. Such conspiracies allow
> > > the theorist to explain away all the evidence against Lee Oswald.
> > > After all, all the witnesses and investigators who produced such
> > > evidence can be branded liars. And big con-spiracies are satisfying
> > > because they can include all the groups one happens to dislike. But do
> > > these theories pass muster as sound historical logic ?
> >
> > Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour !
> >
> > --
> > Count Baldoni
>
> can you imagine this -- Baldoni doesn't exist here or anywhere else
Type in "Count Baldoni" in "Search Groups", and you get all kinds
of hits in all kinds of groups, supersleuth. He seems quite insane, so
it was only a matter of time before he found his way here. I`m glad he
did, he`s a more colorful kind of crackpot than the "smear shit all
over themselves while making airplane noises" kind of kook you and
Tomnln are.
Ben Holmes
I'm quoting *YOUR* words... idiot!
>Japan DID attack Pearl Harbour.
"Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour !"
Which one is correct? You've asserted both - and both are contradictory. Why
is this so difficult for you to understand???
Bud
chuck schuyler wrote:
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> that JBC shot JFK or Robert Harris' theory that someone shot JFK from
> a storm drain or any other number of nUttY theories.
Just as valid, but Baldoni`s tales are more interesting. I`ve
been telling the kooks for years that if they are going to tell
stories, at least make them interesting to read, and that they should
punch up the plot with some ninjas, a treasure map, or perhaps a
talking dog.
aeffects
> aeffects wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 8:05 am, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nil>@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > cdddraftsman submitted this idea :
>
> > > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic4.htm
>
> > > > Con-spiracists seem to like big con-spiracies. Such conspiracies allow
> > > > the theorist to explain away all the evidence against Lee Oswald.
> > > > After all, all the witnesses and investigators who produced such
> > > > evidence can be branded liars. And big con-spiracies are satisfying
> > > > because they can include all the groups one happens to dislike. But do
> > > > these theories pass muster as sound historical logic ?
>
> > > Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour !
>
> > > --
> > > Count Baldoni
>
> > can you imagine this -- Baldoni doesn't exist here or anywhere else
>
> Type in "Count Baldoni" in "Search Groups", and you get all kinds
> of hits in all kinds of groups, supersleuth. He seems quite insane, so
> it was only a matter of time before he found his way here. I`m glad he
> did, he`s a more colorful kind of crackpot than the "smear shit all
> over themselves while making airplane noises" kind of kook you and
> Tomnln are.
dudster can you get 15 words out in cyber-space, without making a
complete fool of yourself? -- c'mon just once, ONE time, for oldtime
Scully Square sake!
Lone
How Big... five to six men??? Blakey said this.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_8UEfBfNRR0&mode=related&search=
>
>> Japan DID attack Pearl Harbour.
>>
>> --
>> Count Baldoni
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
How on earth can you insinuate that the Japanese did not attack Pearl
Harbour ? The idea is utterly preposturous. May I suggest that you
take the time to learn some more about American modern history.
The 7 December 1941 Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was one of the great
defining moments in history. A single carefully-planned and
well-executed stroke removed the United States Navy's battleship force
as a possible threat to the Japanese Empire's southward expansion.
America, unprepared and now considerably weakened, was abruptly brought
into the Second World War as a full combatant.
Eighteen months earlier, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had
transferred the United States Fleet to Pearl Harbor as a presumed
deterrent to Japanese agression. The Japanese military, deeply engaged
in the seemingly endless war it had started against China in mid-1937,
badly needed oil and other raw materials. Commercial access to these
was gradually curtailed as the conquests continued. In July 1941 the
Western powers effectively halted trade with Japan. From then on, as
the desperate Japanese schemed to seize the oil and mineral-rich East
Indies and Southeast Asia, a Pacific war was virtually inevitable.
By late November 1941, with peace negotiations clearly approaching an
end, informed U.S. officials (and they were well-informed, they
believed, through an ability to read Japan's diplomatic codes) fully
expected a Japanese attack into the Indies, Malaya and probably the
Philippines. Completely unanticipated was the prospect that Japan would
attack east, as well.
The U.S. Fleet's Pearl Harbor base was reachable by an aircraft carrier
force, and the Japanese Navy secretly sent one across the Pacific with
greater aerial striking power than had ever been seen on the World's
oceans. Its planes hit just before 8AM on 7 December. Within a short
time five of eight battleships at Pearl Harbor were sunk or sinking,
with the rest damaged. Several other ships and most Hawaii-based combat
planes were also knocked out and over 2400 Americans were dead. Soon
after, Japanese planes eliminated much of the American air force in the
Philippines, and a Japanese Army was ashore in Malaya.
These great Japanese successes, achieved without prior diplomatic
formalities, shocked and enraged the previously divided American people
into a level of purposeful unity hardly seen before or since. For the
next five months, until the Battle of the Coral Sea in early May,
Japan's far-reaching offensives proceeded untroubled by fruitful
opposition. American and Allied morale suffered accordingly. Under
normal political circumstances, an accomodation might have been
considered.
However, the memory of the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor fueled a
determination to fight on. Once the Battle of Midway in early June 1942
had eliminated much of Japan's striking power, that same memory stoked
a relentless war to reverse her conquests and remove her, and her
German and Italian allies, as future threats to World peace.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Do you not understand espionage ? The British fed the Japanese duff
information as regards the fighting capabilities of the United States
forces. It was imperative to the British that the US be brought into
the war by any means possible.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Pay attention at the back. It was Britain who really attacked Pearl
Harbor.
Yes the Japanese sent the carriers and yes it was Japanese pilots in
Japanese planes that attacked, but it was orchestrated by Churchill and
Mountbatten.
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
Is English your second language?
You've already *ADMITTED* that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
>Yes the Japanese sent the carriers and yes it was Japanese pilots in
>Japanese planes that attacked,
Good of you to so admit.
Now why did you assert otherwise?
>but it was orchestrated by Churchill and Mountbatten.
Silly...
Ben Holmes
No answer???
This was a simple question...
>> You've asserted both - and both are contradictory.
>> Why is this so difficult for you to understand???
>
>Do you not understand espionage ?
Non Sequitor...
You've made contradictory statements. Please demonstrate how both can be
correct, or retract the one you believe is incorrect.
>The British fed the Japanese duff
>information as regards the fighting capabilities of the United States
>forces. It was imperative to the British that the US be brought into
>the war by any means possible.
Nonsense... This is really simple: Did Japan attack Pearl Harbor, or did Japan
*NOT* attack Pearl Harbor...
It's a simple question...
Try not to duck and run next time...
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <mn.c8527d78bdca6a57.74...@googlemail.co>, Baldoni <baldoniXXV
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ben Holmes submitted this idea :
> >> says...
>
> >>> Ben Holmes has brought this to us :
> >>>> says...
>
> >>>>> Ben Holmes explained :
> >>>>>> In article <mn.b80a7d78196c2d97.74...@googlemail.co>, Baldoni <baldoniXXV
> >>>>>> says...
>
> >>>>>>> Ben Holmes wrote on 22/08/2007 :
> >>>>>>>> <baldoniXXV says...
>
> >>>>>>>>> Ben Holmes formulated on Wednesday :
> >>>>>>>>>> <baldoniXXV says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It happens that Ben Holmes formulated :
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah...the king of ducking and running speaks again. Holmes? Are you
really an idiot or do you think that by changing the title of every
post accusing someone of running away from you it makes you right and
them wrong??? Did you ever stop and think they aren't running, they
are IGNORING you because you're not worth responding too unless it's
with an insult!!!! Got news for ya dwarf, everything you say is NOT
the truth nor is it gospel....stop trying to act like you're smarter
then everyone else. You want to prove your abilities and knowledge in
this case? Debate YoHarvey in a chat room. You know, the guy you keep
RUNNING away from.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Yes.
>
> You've already *ADMITTED* that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
>
>> Yes the Japanese sent the carriers and yes it was Japanese pilots in
>> Japanese planes that attacked,
>
> Good of you to so admit.
>
> Now why did you assert otherwise?
I did not but you did not understand the post and I was not going to
draw a picture.
>
>
>> but it was orchestrated by Churchill and Mountbatten.
>
> Silly...
Indeed it was but the end result was what counted. Peace in our time.
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
That explains alot...
>> You've already *ADMITTED* that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
>>
>>> Yes the Japanese sent the carriers and yes it was Japanese pilots in
>>> Japanese planes that attacked,
>>
>> Good of you to so admit.
>>
>> Now why did you assert otherwise?
>
>I did not
"Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour"
>but you did not understand the post and I was not going to
>draw a picture.
Words have meanings... you clearly don't understand the English language well
enough to know what you asserted.
>>> but it was orchestrated by Churchill and Mountbatten.
>>
>> Silly...
>
>Indeed it was
Again, a lack of understanding.
It's "silly" that you could put forth the theory you do.
With *ZERO* historical background, citations, historical research, etc.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
lol <alot...> it is not your first language by the look of things.
>
>
>>> You've already *ADMITTED* that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
>>>
>>>> Yes the Japanese sent the carriers and yes it was Japanese pilots in
>>>> Japanese planes that attacked,
>>>
>>> Good of you to so admit.
>>>
>>> Now why did you assert otherwise?
>>
>> I did not
>
>
> "Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour"
Look why do you persist with this. Everyone knows that Japan attacked
Pearl Harbour.
>
>
>> but you did not understand the post and I was not going to
>> draw a picture.
>
> Words have meanings... you clearly don't understand the English language well
> enough to know what you asserted.
>
>
>
>>>> but it was orchestrated by Churchill and Mountbatten.
>>>
>>> Silly...
>>
>> Indeed it was
>
> Again, a lack of understanding.
>
> It's "silly" that you could put forth the theory you do.
>
> With *ZERO* historical background, citations, historical research, etc.
>
>> but the end result was what counted. Peace in our time.
This is not a theory I am trying to teach you something that actually
happened.
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
As an editor of a dictionary puts it:
"The fused spelling "alot" is an interesting case and it shows how the judgment
of dictionary editors comes into sway. There is no linguistic reason to keep
"alot" out of the dictionary. It is a very common spelling (as any composition
teacher will tell you), and there are many similar words already (there's one
right there) in the dictionary, like "awhile." But commercial dictionaries are
mainly concerned with what is conventional in publishing, and "alot" is
certainly not conventional in newspapers, magazines, and other published
sources. So it will be a while (two words) before "alot" gets in."
Quite commmonly used... and a sad commentary that you nitpick spelling when you
assert that Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor.
>>>> You've already *ADMITTED* that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes the Japanese sent the carriers and yes it was Japanese pilots in
>>>>> Japanese planes that attacked,
>>>>
>>>> Good of you to so admit.
>>>>
>>>> Now why did you assert otherwise?
>>>
>>> I did not
>>
>>
>> "Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour"
>
>Look why do you persist with this. Everyone knows that Japan attacked
>Pearl Harbour.
I'm QUOTING your words. Why do you persist in refusing to retract what even
*YOU* clearly don't believe?
>>> but you did not understand the post and I was not going to
>>> draw a picture.
>>
>> Words have meanings... you clearly don't understand the English language well
>> enough to know what you asserted.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> but it was orchestrated by Churchill and Mountbatten.
>>>>
>>>> Silly...
>>>
>>> Indeed it was
>>
>> Again, a lack of understanding.
>>
>> It's "silly" that you could put forth the theory you do.
>>
>> With *ZERO* historical background, citations, historical research, etc.
>>
>>> but the end result was what counted. Peace in our time.
>
>This is not a theory I am trying to teach you something that actually
>happened.
No... it is *indeed* a theory - and one with very little support. Much like
your assertion that "Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour."
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
You started on English being my second language.
It was you that said Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor. Where are you
going with this please ?
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
"Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour" is a direct quote of yours... it can still
be seen above.
So why would you lie about it, Baldoni?
I asked you a simple question - you've asserted BOTH that Japan attacked Pearl
Harbor, and that it did not. Which one is correct? And will you retract your
false statement?
Clearly, the answer is that you refuse to even *admit* that you said it!!!
ROTFLMAO!!
Ben Holmes
I can't... I don't. YOU DO!
Here again are YOUR EXACT WORDS: "Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour !"
>The idea is utterly preposturous. May I suggest that you
>take the time to learn some more about American modern history.
How silly to pretend that *I* said it!
What a liar you are!!! Amazing!!
Yet strangely, you asserted that: "Japan never attacked Pearl Harbour !"
>These great Japanese successes, achieved without prior diplomatic
>formalities, shocked and enraged the previously divided American people
>into a level of purposeful unity hardly seen before or since. For the
>next five months, until the Battle of the Coral Sea in early May,
>Japan's far-reaching offensives proceeded untroubled by fruitful
>opposition. American and Allied morale suffered accordingly. Under
>normal political circumstances, an accomodation might have been
>considered.
>
>However, the memory of the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor fueled a
>determination to fight on. Once the Battle of Midway in early June 1942
>had eliminated much of Japan's striking power, that same memory stoked
>a relentless war to reverse her conquests and remove her, and her
>German and Italian allies, as future threats to World peace.
During my time in the Marine Corps, I did quite a bit of historical research on
various battles in the Pacific... with an emphasis on our fight for Iwo Jima.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.
What you keep *REFUSING* to tell me is why you asserted that "Japan never
attacked Pearl Harbour !"
Ever plan to do so?
aeffects
> Ben Holmes wrote on 25/08/2007 :
>
>
>
> > says...
>
> >> Ben Holmes submitted this idea :
> >>> says...
>
> >>>> Ben Holmes submitted this idea :
> >>>>> says...
>
> >>>>>> Ben Holmes wrote on 23/08/2007 :
the ghost Baldoni...... no posting history, who are ya, hon?
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
Because I never said it you did. You jumped in and drew conclusions
when I tried to explain that the British were behind the bombing of
Pearl Harbor by misleading the Japanese.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
I am just a regular sort of guy !
--
Count Baldoni
aeffects
Google profile: unknown person ***** (1953849888 ratings) -- Now what
kinda regular sort of guy is that, hon?
> --
> Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
And you're a liar. I can *CITE* the original post... here it is:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/96f1e137f805ed8a
>You jumped in and drew conclusions
>when I tried to explain that the British were behind the bombing of
>Pearl Harbor by misleading the Japanese.
Untrue. You're a liar, Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
I remind you that I am a Count.
It has been taken out of context as well you know. I stated that Japan
did not attack Pearl Harbor but I was leading to my point that it was
the British who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor.
If you care to Google once more you will find that I indicated this
many posts ago.
--
Count Baldoni
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
What does rating mean please ?
I never pay much notice.
--
Count Baldoni
Ben Holmes
says...
As everyone can see, you DID say it, didn't you?
>>> You jumped in and drew conclusions
>>> when I tried to explain that the British were behind the bombing of
>>> Pearl Harbor by misleading the Japanese.
>>
>> Untrue. You're a liar, Baldoni
>
>I remind you that I am a Count.
You're a buffoon...
You will address me as "King" Holmes. I like my court jesters to keep their
place.
>It has been taken out of context as well you know.
The cite provides the ENTIRE context.
You lied. It's that simple.
>I stated that Japan
>did not attack Pearl Harbor
Yep... and you've DENIED MAKING THAT STATEMENT - immediately above... ascribing
it instead to me.
You lied, didn't you?
>but I was leading to my point that it was
>the British who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor.
>
>If you care to Google once more you will find that I indicated this
>many posts ago.
Yet you STILL refuse to admit to your lies... nor retract them.
You asserted that *I* had made that statement - when you now admit that it was
your statement ...
Anytime you care to offer a retraction of your lie, feel free...
Sam Brown
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:fauje...@drn.newsguy.com...
Healey? Better go and help the tubby dwarf to his feet. You know he can't
get up alone!
>
Sam Brown
Funny, I get more of a "princess" vibe from you.