DVP, tell me it's not so...
John Canal
>John McAdams has said that Google users cannot see "attachments",
>because of the "binaries" involved (or something like that). So maybe
>that's why I cannot see the thread. ~shrug~
You're telling me that we've been arguing for the past several months, if not a
year, and you've not looked at/read any of the dozens of graphics that I've
posted and/or the accompanying text?
Cripes, no wonder you just don't get it. Here's a question for you: Considering
that you bad mouth just about everyone here, besides the other hard-line LNers
like McAdams and Fiorentino, don't you feel that you have at least some moral
obligation to invest in a news reader that allows you to see the graphics (and
read the text accompanying those graphics) that are posted by those whose
arguments you condem?
It's like I've been arguing with a deaf person who keeps telling me my arguments
are wrong--when he's only heard part of the arguments.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "You're telling me that we've been arguing for the past several months, if not a year, and you've not looked at/read any of the dozens of graphics that I've posted and/or the accompanying text?" <<<
That's correct. I didn't even have the slightest idea (until this
minute) that you've ever included any "graphics" in any of your posts,
ever.
And you haven't once ever alluded to any graphics in any of your posts
(that I'm aware of).
IOW -- I don't recall you ever having said this in a post of yours --
"Be sure to check out the attached graphic/photo".
That seems odd to me that I wouldn't have seen that kind of
instruction by you in at least a FEW of your posts; but I never have.
Care to link that invisible thread here, btw?
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
I don't think you understand what I just said. Apparently, Google doesn't let
you see the entire post if it includes a graphic. IOW, even if I wrote in the
text, as I always try to do, "regarding the attached graphic", it wouldn't do me
any good, because you wouldn't see those words or any other part of the text.
Is this getting through?
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Have you ever debated someone face to face on a stage..with judges and/or
moderators?
If so, when your opponent made a point, did you request the moderators to delete
all of the parts of your opponent's point from the record, except for the part
you felt you could respond to?
Your cut & paste technique is despicable.
Besides you having the gall to condem the arguments of individuals whose
arguments you don't even entirely see (because you're too cheap to subscribe to
a good newsreader), when you do have that opportunity, you cut away most of what
they've said anyway.
DVP, in my 10 years, I don't recall anyone who is more unethical, as far as
debating, as you. But I'm sure you enjoy being number one at something,
though--congratulations.
Your sick style fits the soundness of you arguments.
David Von Pein
You can, however, provide a LINK to the thread that you say exists,
but that I can't see.
>>> "IOW, even if I wrote in the text, as I always try to do, "regarding the attached graphic", it wouldn't do me any good, because you wouldn't see those words or any other part of the text." <<<
Huh?
Why wouldn't I be able to see those typed words? The TYPED WORDS don't
equal the ATTACHED GRAPHIC.
Are you telling me that a bunch of your previous posts HAVE included
these words within your posts -- "REGARDING THE ATTACHED GRAPHIC" --
but I haven't been able to see those printed words, even though I can
see the entire rest of your typed posts?
Weird.
David Von Pein
How the hell was I supposed to know you have been including "graphics"
in your posts, John?! How?
You've never ONCE asked me this question -- "Did you take a look at
the graphics I've been providing, David?"
Not once!
Incredible.
David Von Pein
>>> "You cut away most of what they've said anyway." <<<
Oh, you mean like when you insisted I hadn't responded to any of the
"Canal 29" and then, later, the 10 questions you asked? All of which I
did respond to, here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
And here:
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
Furthermore, it's beyond me why you conspiracy theorists think that
your make-believe tripe deserves more than merely a cursory glance
from anyone that is subjected to it.
You're fortunate I've responded to ANY of your imaginary "BOH"
nonsense, John. Because if I wasn't responding to your silliness for
the last few weeks, you wouldn't have anybody to talk to at all,
because nobody else seems to give a damn.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>How the hell was I supposed to know you have been including "graphics"
>in your posts, John?! How?
Because or your legendary cut & paste method, I assumed you didn't care to
respond to my graphics and just cut them away.
How in the Hell do I know if you've even read everything I've written in a post,
when your reply usually only includes small parts of my original post?
And I'm not sure you can even see any of the text in a post if that post
includes a graphic. IOW, I suspect Google doesn't even accept a post if it has a
graphic attached---none of it.
David Von Pein
>>> "And I'm not sure you can even see any of the text in a post if that post includes a graphic. IOW, I suspect Google doesn't even accept a post if it has a graphic attached---none of it." <<<
I don't think that's true. As I explained in a previous post that I'm
sure you read, John Fiorentino started a thread that had "attachments"
in it (that's the same way you're attaching your graphics, I assume,
right?) -- and I was able to see that whole thread and his text. But
the attachments weren't there, though.
BTW, any chance you'll post the link to that elusive "scalp" thread?
Or should I stop asking you for it, since you no doubt don't want to
show it to me because you actually have NO FIRM EVIDENCE for your
imaginary claim that the RIGHT-REAR SCALP of JFK was damaged at all on
11/22/63? (I suspect that's the main reason you're hesitating to
provide that link.)
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Do you cut portions of posts before you even read those portions?
I'm sure I informed you that I posted a link to that post you didn't see (I
believe you didn't see it because Google didn't allow it), but, when I tested
the link, it asked me for my Newsguy user name and password. If I gave them yo
you as well as the link, you'd be able to see it...I think..unless Google has
some restrictions there too. Bd idea anyway.
As far as reposting it, that wouldn't be worth all the trouble...I'd have to
look up the four different graphics that I attached and post them to the
original text.....only to have you ignore what my points are anyway--no thanks.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Addendum: Today two new posts, both with graphics, have made it on the
board--one here and the other on aaj. Have you seen either of them?
I'll bet not.
Why don't you show a little class for a change and suscribe to Newsguy,
especially if you're going to continue to post as often as you do now (second to
tomlin and Marsh, I suppose). It only costs about 25 cents/day.
David Von Pein
>>> "Today two new posts, both with graphics, have made it on the board--one here and the other on aaj. Have you seen either of them?" <<<
What are the thread titles? Without knowing that, how the heck can I
know if I've seen them or not, since attachments are invisible to me?
>>> "Why don't you...su[b]scribe to Newsguy. .... It only costs about 25 cents/day. " <<<
No thanks. I've been getting along just fine with Google as my
"reader". And I'm certainly not going to spend any of my hard-earned
"CIA Disinfo" salary on a device to see what a bunch of silly
conspiracy theorists have to say about their make-believe theories.
Google does just fine in that regard (and for free). ;)
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gvkl9...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
Just "for the record" (because I don't like mistakes in my posts):
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "And I'm not sure you can even see any of the text in a post if that post includes a graphic. IOW, I suspect Google doesn't even accept a post if it has a graphic attached---none of it." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
>>> "I don't think that's true. As I explained in a previous post that I'm sure you read, John Fiorentino started a thread that had "attachments" in it (that's the same way you're attaching your graphics, I assume, right?) -- and I was able to see that whole thread and his text. But the attachments weren't there, though." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS (FOR CLARIFICATION, ALTHOUGH I OBVIOUSLY REALIZE NOBODY
GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THESE MEANINGLESS TRIVIALITIES EXCEPT ME):
John Canal was 100% correct when he said this earlier: "I suspect
Google doesn't even accept a post if it has a graphic attached---none
of it."
I had thought that a prior post by John Fiorentino (with graphics
attached) was visible to me via "Google", but I was in error.
I stand (officially and humbly) corrected.
D.V.P.