I may be a new poster but
taral...@mailinator.com
Firstly, I have seen virtually no postings on evidence in here. I
thought I was joining a conspiracy forum where the case would be
discussed. However, the totality of the postings from the conspiracy
side are simply rude, crude often indulgent attacks on other members.
Why? What purpose does this serve? I joined to hear arguments
about evidence. Mr. Jesus seems to have a need to do checks on ones
location. Mr. Holmes has demonstrated the characteristics of all
those your mother warned you about and who this aeffects character is,
I don't have a clue.
Secondly, I do not understand the lack of civility. Might somebody
please explain the thought process here. One of the wonderful aspects
of the internet is one can seek and search for information on any
subject. However, this forum demonstrates its drawback. Normally
rational people (I believe) become science fiction characters
demonstrating the manners and behavior of those currently under a
doctors care. People? Grow up.
tomnln
<taral...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:597447de-b72a-4648...@s12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Hi Tara;
You can find discussion on evidence/testimony from both sides HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
More official records are HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
May I ask how much yhou've read on the subject?
Thanks in advance;
tomnln
ps;
On the subject of the lack of civility;
Speaking for myself ONLY;
It's limited to "Retaliation".
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rogue.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aeffects
> Some observations are in order:
>
> Firstly, I have seen virtually no postings on evidence in here.
wake up moron.... how about 45 questions you dipshits continually run
from
I
> thought I was joining a conspiracy forum where the case would be
> discussed. However, the totality of the postings from the conspiracy
> side are simply rude, crude often indulgent attacks on other members.
> Why? What purpose does this serve? I joined to hear arguments
> about evidence. Mr. Jesus seems to have a need to do checks on ones
> location. Mr. Holmes has demonstrated the characteristics of all
> those your mother warned you about and who this aeffects character is,
> I don't have a clue.
>
why do you post through a proxy server?
Facts being what they are, you're irrelevant... Have a nice life --
you're dismissed!
Ben Holmes
taral...@mailinator.com says...
>
>Some observations are in order:
You refuse to discuss the evidence, and the rare time that you did, you were
nailed on a number of examples of ignorance.
>Firstly, I have seen virtually no postings on evidence in here.
I addressed a rather lengthy one to you, that dealt almost totally on the
evidence in this case.
You ran from it.
I've frequently mentioned evidence in my posts, you refuse to debate or discuss
it.
No-one is being fooled, coward.
>I thought I was joining a conspiracy forum where the case would be
>discussed.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a fool debate or discuss the
evidence in this case.
>However, the totality of the postings from the conspiracy
>side are simply rude, crude often indulgent attacks on other members.
Just how stupid do you think lurkers are?
>Why? What purpose does this serve? I joined to hear arguments
>about evidence.
No you didn't. Indeed, you're certainly simply one of our regular trolls under
a new fraudulent name.
>Mr. Jesus seems to have a need to do checks on ones
>location. Mr. Holmes has demonstrated the characteristics of all
>those your mother warned you about and who this aeffects character is,
>I don't have a clue.
>
>Secondly, I do not understand the lack of civility.
Dishonest cowards rarely do.
>Might somebody
>please explain the thought process here.
No.
>One of the wonderful aspects
>of the internet is one can seek and search for information on any
>subject. However, this forum demonstrates its drawback. Normally
>rational people (I believe) become science fiction characters
>demonstrating the manners and behavior of those currently under a
>doctors care. People? Grow up.
Troll, go peddle your foolishness in the censored forum. Your lies and
cowardice won't be pointed out there...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
taral...@mailinator.com
> <taralac...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
Mr. Tomnln, thank you for the civilized response. I have read a few
books pro and con and am currently reading the Warren Report. I am by
no means knowledgeable about the subject matter and it stretches my
imagination to believe I will learn anything on this forum.
taral...@mailinator.com
why do you post through a proxy server?
Mr. aeffects, perhaps you are unaware of recommendations by internet
security experts. Surfing the net in todays environment can be
dangerous. Identify thefts, lunatics such as yourself, there are many
reasons. Suffice to say, one can easily be assaulted by rude, crude,
offensive human beings. I believe Mr. aeffects you know what I mean.
aeffects
LMFAO chickenshit, dipshit..... we'll drive your sorry ass off this
board soon enough
Surfing the net in todays environment can be
> dangerous.
one should not partake if your a gutless wonder, hon.
Identify thefts, lunatics such as yourself, there are many
> reasons.
LMFAO, then why put yourself in the position, shithead?
Suffice to say, one can easily be assaulted by rude, crude,
> offensive human beings.
hon, I love it when you talk like that, you remind me of Justme1952
Rob Spencer St. John Fisher College (upper state NY). In its pre
'change' days
>I believe Mr. aeffects you know what I mean.
I suspect shithead, YOU know what I mean..... ROTFLMFAO!
tomnln
Tara wrote;
Mr. Tomnln, thank you for the civilized response. I have read a few
books pro and con and am currently reading the Warren Report. I am by
no means knowledgeable about the subject matter and it stretches my
imagination to believe I will learn anything on this forum.
INVITATION
I have a Live Audio Chat Room.
Download & use for FREE
Once logged on, select
1 Social Issues & Politics
2 Government & Politics
3 Scroll down to room called
Who Killed Kennedy.
We start every night between 8:00 p m – 9:00 p m e.s.t.
I offer a Forum to WCR supporters to convince us that Oswald was a Lone Assassin.
Paltalk allows us to transfer files to one another instantly.
Any Exhibit of evidence, any specific testimony from:
Warren Report’s 26 Volumes
Church Committee 14 Volumes
HSCA’s 12 Volumes.
Now we can even show Videos.
Look forward to seeing you there.
aeffects
> In article <597447de-b72a-4648-a6fc-95402cd08...@s12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> taralac...@mailinator.com says...
>
>
>
> >Some observations are in order:
>
> You refuse to discuss the evidence, and the rare time that you did, you were
> nailed on a number of examples of ignorance.
>
> >Firstly, I have seen virtually no postings on evidence in here.
>
> I addressed a rather lengthy one to you, that dealt almost totally on the
> evidence in this case.
the best .john has..... this is getting lone nut ridiculous....
> You ran from it.
>
> I've frequently mentioned evidence in my posts, you refuse to debate or discuss
> it.
>
> No-one is being fooled, coward.
just another aliasED shithead.... lurkers are up to speed -- but... I
interrupt you de-balling of sweet tarlac.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice to see you're back barking for the master junkie. What time's the
AA meeting tonight? Is the old lady going to let you sit in the back
of the room drooling or is she going to slam the door shut in your
face again? Which one is it dickhead?
You'll never amout to anything more then Human waste and even that is
giving you too much credit.
Steve
wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nice to see you're back barking for the master junkie. What time's the
> AA meeting tonight? Is the old lady going to let you sit in the back
> of the room drooling or is she going to slam the door shut in your
> face again? Which one is it dickhead?
> You'll never amout to anything more then Human waste and even that is
>
> - Show quoted text -
taralac....don't pay any attention to aeffects, no one does. In fact
whenever any of us take the time to compose a thoughtful post
challenging the conspiracy of the month it is always disappointing
when the first response is from aeffects since he NEVEr contributes
anything worth the effort to read. When I scroll down the posts and
responses I ALWAYS pass over any from aeffects since they are always
off-topic, ridiculous, useless, and a waste of time. Don't let him
get to you, he insults everyone and no one cares.
John McAdams
wrote:
Check:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/news.htm
Not that there is no silliness on alt.assassination.jfk, but it's a
lot milder than here on the Nuthouse.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
Hi Tara,
I've enjoyed your refreshing posts here at "The Asylum" thus far.
Welcome aboard.
In addition to John McAdams' earlier suggestion about checking out the
moderated alt.assassination.jfk forum/newsgroup, perhaps you'd like to
have a look at my JFK Blog (plug, plug) and my extensive "JFK Channel"
at YouTube:
In addition, be sure to check out Professor McAdams' own website, plus
the very good site that Dave Reitzes runs too:
justm...@gmail.com
<-----Clearing a path for the crackhead to come in barking and foaming
at the mouth ROFLMAO
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:2l5125dpaiqt0gmta...@4ax.com...
THEN, check out McAdams' knowledge (or, lack thereof) on the subject in a
debate with me>>>
David Von Pein
>>> "THEN, check out McAdams' knowledge (or, lack thereof) on the subject in a debate with me [a mega-kook named Thomas Rossley]." <<<
And then.....
For verification of just exactly how big a "mega-kook" Mr. Rossley
truly is, you can check out this article:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8576bff5a6682062
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:04537309-6998-419c...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
I just Love Retaliating to David's childish insults ! ! !
The KOOK-SUCKER david neglected to tell you that he (David) Chickened Out of
that debate.
HERE's WHY ! ! !>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
Notice who gave Citations.
Notice who did NOT give Citations.
David Von Pein
>>> "I just Love Retaliating to David's childish insults!" <<<
Says the kook named Rossley who thinks John Connally was shot in the
chest FROM THE FRONT.
No kidding, Tara....Rossley actually believes that. He has magically
changed every ENTRY wound into an EXIT; and he's changed every EXIT
wound into an ENTRY.
IOW -- Rossley's main motto is --- "FUCK THE REAL EVIDENCE! I GET TO
DECIDE WHAT THE REAL EVIDENCE IS!"
tomnln
NOT familiar with the Original Reports
NOR, the "Official" evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eb7afc83-4711-43de...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Just for the record (if anyone cares)......
Rossley (tomnln) wants people to believe that I "ran" from the April
5, 2009, WHPR-Radio debate because I knew that I would debating the
great Thomas Rossley.
Such is not the case, however, and Rossley The Great knows this fact
full well.
I had no knowledge whatsoever as to the identity of the "CTer" who
would be participating in that radio debate until AFTER the debate was
already completed (i.e., when John McAdams posted a thread about it on
the night of April 5, 2009, at the aaj forum).
But Rossley wants people to think I "ran" from HIM specifically.
Then, too, what should we expect from a mega-kook who thinks that
Connally was shot from the front...and that Ruby was "forced" to
silence Oswald because of something Dan Rather said on 11/23/63...and
that Oswald was "Doorway Man"?
Rossley is an embarrassment to humankind. He'll believe ANY
theory....as long as Lee Harvey isn't mentioned as a potential killer.
aeffects
fuck off shithead..... btw, Justme1952 just informed me he wants to
take his prostate cleaning business to your establishment, evidently
he heard you have, ah, delicate problems.....
balds...@gmail.com
What a shithead this poster, aeffects, is.
signed Bald Snooper
aeffects
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nice to see you're back barking for the master junkie. What time's the
> AA meeting tonight? Is the old lady going to let you sit in the back
> of the room drooling or is she going to slam the door shut in your
> face again? Which one is it dickhead?
> You'll never amout to anything more then Human waste and even that is
> giving you too much credit.
hey Mr. Cunt.... (aka Rob Spencer St. John Fisher College NY) rumor
has it your old wifey poo hasn't seen your dick in years. What's the
problem shithead? You can speak up, I won't tell a soul....
What a complete, nutter-utter dipshit....
aeffects
who squeezed that pimple on your shoulders, shithead? so...... sitdown
and grapple your snapple, dipshit!
Gil Jesus
tomnln
I SHOULD have said...."David is TOO Chickenshit to debate ANY Ct.r".
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:938120e8-a8a7-4f99...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Maggsy
> Some observations are in order:
>
> Firstly, I have seen virtually no postings on evidence in here. I
> thought I was joining a conspiracy forum where the case would be
> discussed. However, the totality of the postings from the conspiracy
> side are simply rude, crude often indulgent attacks on other members.
> Why? What purpose does this serve? I joined to hear arguments
> about evidence. Mr. Jesus seems to have a need to do checks on ones
> location. Mr. Holmes has demonstrated the characteristics of all
> I don't have a clue.
>
> Secondly, I do not understand the lack of civility. Might somebody
> please explain the thought process here. One of the wonderful aspects
> of the internet is one can seek and search for information on any
> subject. However, this forum demonstrates its drawback. Normally
> rational people (I believe) become science fiction characters
> demonstrating the manners and behavior of those currently under a
> doctors care. People? Grow up.
If you think this group is bad you should try the Atheism newsgroups.
They make this group look positively civil and grown up.The other JFK
forum is a bit better than this one. imo.
Ben Holmes
Maggsy says...>> Firstly, I have seen virtually no postings on evidence in here. =A0I
>> thought I was joining a conspiracy forum where the case would be
>> side are simply rude, crude often indulgent attacks on other members.
>> about evidence. =A0Mr. Jesus seems to have a need to do checks on ones
>> location. =A0Mr. Holmes has demonstrated the characteristics of all
>> those your mother warned you about and who this affects character is,
>> I don't have a clue.
>>
>> please explain the thought process here. =A0One of the wonderful aspects
>> of the internet is one can seek and search for information on any
>> rational people (I believe) become science fiction characters
>> demonstrating the manners and behavior of those currently under a
>
>If you think this group is bad you should try the Atheism newsgroups.
>They make this group look positively civil and grown up.The other JFK
>forum is a bit better than this one. imo.
The "other" JFK forum is censored. Real debate isn't possible - you cannot
simply point out that a poster is lying. Even as they frequently do.
Those who aren't interested in the truth will flock to the censored forum, since
the truth is censored away.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On May 29, 12:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <597447de-b72a-4648-a6fc-95402cd08...@s12g2000yqi.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> taralac...@mailinator.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Some observations are in order:
>>
>> You refuse to discuss the evidence, and the rare time that you did, you were
>> nailed on a number of examples of ignorance.
>>
>> >Firstly, I have seen virtually no postings on evidence in here.
>>
>> I addressed a rather lengthy one to you, that dealt almost totally on the
>> evidence in this case.
>
>the best .john has..... this is getting lone nut ridiculous....
Indeed, John can't stand the heat over here either. He foolishly tried on the
topic of the 6.5mm virtually round object, and ran screaming back to his
protected turf.
>> You ran from it.
>>
>> I've frequently mentioned evidence in my posts, you refuse to debate or
>> discuss it.
>>
>> No-one is being fooled, coward.
>
>
>just another aliasED shithead.... lurkers are up to speed -- but... I
>interrupt you de-balling of sweet tarlac.
I would willingly bet that "Tara" is simply another name for someone who's
posted here in the past.
It's amusing that the LNT'ers (or rather, trolls... sometimes difficult to tell
apart) are forced to change names frequently...
>> >I thought I was joining a conspiracy forum where the case would be
>> >discussed.
>>
>> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a fool debate or discuss
>> the evidence in this case.
>>
>> >However, the totality of the postings from the conspiracy
>> >side are simply rude, crude often indulgent attacks on other members.
>>
>> Just how stupid do you think lurkers are?
>>
>> >Why? =A0What purpose does this serve? =A0I joined =A0to =A0hear argument=
>s
>> >about evidence.
>>
>> No you didn't. Indeed, you're certainly simply one of our regular trolls
>> under a new fraudulent name.
>>
>> >Mr. Jesus seems to have a need to do checks on ones
>> >location. Mr. Holmes has demonstrated the characteristics of all
>> >those your mother warned you about and who this aeffects character is,
>> >I don't have a clue.
>>
>> >Secondly, I do not understand the lack of civility.
>>
>> Dishonest cowards rarely do.
>>
>> >Might somebody
>> >please explain the thought process here.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> >One of the wonderful aspects
>> >of the internet is one can seek and search for information on any
>> >subject. =A0However, this forum demonstrates its drawback. =A0Normally
>> >rational people (I believe) become science fiction characters
>> >demonstrating the manners and behavior of those currently under a
>> >doctors care. =A0 People? =A0Grow up.
>>
>> Troll, go peddle your foolishness in the censored forum. =A0Your lies and
Ben Holmes
Of course... censorship has it's uses, right?
aeffects
> In article <2l5125dpaiqt0gmtafed2ke5dog16ah...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT), taralac...@mailinator.com
> >wrote:
>
> >>Some observations are in order:
>
> >>Firstly, I have seen virtually no postings on evidence in here. I
> >>thought I was joining a conspiracy forum where the case would be
> >>discussed. However, the totality of the postings from the conspiracy
> >>side are simply rude, crude often indulgent attacks on other members.
> >>Why? What purpose does this serve? I joined to hear arguments
> >>about evidence. Mr. Jesus seems to have a need to do checks on ones
> >>location. Mr. Holmes has demonstrated the characteristics of all
> >>those your mother warned you about and who this aeffects character is,
> >>I don't have a clue.
>
> >>Secondly, I do not understand the lack of civility. Might somebody
> >>please explain the thought process here. One of the wonderful aspects
> >>of the internet is one can seek and search for information on any
> >>subject. However, this forum demonstrates its drawback. Normally
> >>rational people (I believe) become science fiction characters
> >>demonstrating the manners and behavior of those currently under a
> >>doctors care. People? Grow up.
>
> >Check:
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/news.htm
>
> >Not that there is no silliness on alt.assassination.jfk, but it's a
> >lot milder than here on the Nuthouse.
> >.John
>
> Of course... censorship has it's uses, right?
let's see, ,john finds his way over here (acj) to post on an 'alleged'
newbies thread.... yeah right, ROTFLMFAO. His favorite trolls (sic)
are getting their collective asses kicked here, their MO's and
multiple aliases now clear..... I say .john is trying to practice his
brand of censorship here, by intimidation no less...
Wasn't it .john that ran from this board board in 1998? Why-oh-why did
that happen?
John McAdams
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Just for the record (if anyone cares)......
>
>Rossley (tomnln) wants people to believe that I "ran" from the April
>5, 2009, WHPR-Radio debate because I knew that I would debating the
>great Thomas Rossley.
>
>Such is not the case, however, and Rossley The Great knows this fact
>full well.
>
>I had no knowledge whatsoever as to the identity of the "CTer" who
>would be participating in that radio debate until AFTER the debate was
>already completed (i.e., when John McAdams posted a thread about it on
>the night of April 5, 2009, at the aaj forum).
>
I had no idea whom I was going to be debating, since the didn't tell
me.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
aeffects
son, a coward is a coward, is a COWARD. Can't run!
tomnln
When Anton Batey asked me to debate a Lone Nutter, I immediately said "YES".
It didn't matter to me WHO the Lone Nutter was.
I've never met one in 45 years who was Intelligent enough to address
official evidence/testimony.
ALL they ever wanna address are the "charges" against Oswald. (by Liars)
ps;
That radio debate is on my website>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
It looks like McAdams Nor,ANY of his associates has it on their websites.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------