Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo is a LIAR
hoaxb...@earthlink.net
Barnes a "crackpot" is simply a LIE. In short, Lomenzo is a LIAR.
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
NAZI Gassings Never Happened--Niemand wurde vergast!
Friedrich Paul Berg
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Dr.[??] Anthony J. Lomenzo's repeated claim that I called Harry Elmer
> Barnes a "crackpot" is simply a LIE. In short, Lomenzo is a LIAR.
>
> Learn everything
> NAZI Gassings Never Happened--Niemand wurde vergast!
>
> Friedrich Paul Berg
>
I don't think changing headers and beginning new threads [shades of
Chris Carpenter!] is going to help you, Freddy. The damage to you is
already done .... what you have to do now is attempt recovery although I
would suggest a good psychiatrist --and-- a copy of the Koran to perhaps
calm down ultra revisionist Rashid Ali!
Good luck, Freddy, you're going to need it. Now you've got the
revisionists you called "crackpots' upset [including Barnes in
Valhalla], all revisionist Christians and the "Radio Islam" brethren to
boot! Beware the FATWA, Freddy!
Doc Tony
;-)
Vangel: "Ummmmm, Uncle Freddy, is, like, that anything to do with, like,
it ain't over until the FATWA sings?"
Freddy: "SHUT UP, SCHLEP-BOI!"
Morghus: "Mu--mu-- Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!"
Emil Müller: "Freddy WHO?"
;-)
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote
in message
<1121874785.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>Dr.[??] Anthony J. Lomenzo's repeated claim that I called Harry Elmer
>Barnes a "crackpot" is simply a LIE. In short, Lomenzo is a LIAR.
Guess it takes one to know one, since you'd lied about ME and have
been running from that lie ever since.
Why did you think such a lie would advance your case, rather than
making you look even more a sad little hater with nothing rational to
add?
hoaxb...@earthlink.net
As to Lomenzo, he continues to expose himself. Why doesn't Lomenzo
simply admit he made a mistake? Sure, he made that
same blunder at least half-a-dozen times over the last week. And now
he has been exposed as a LIAR for everyone to see. Lomenzo is having
another bad
day--and it is still so early..
To err is human. Even I have made a mistake or two. If our hearts
are pure, we persevere and move on to a fuller grasp of all that is
True and Good in the world that lies before us. But, to repeat the same
"mistake" agan and again and again, even after the undeniable Truth has
been presented by the target of Lomenzo's madness--namely me--is
inexcusable. That is "LYING." Lomenzo calls himself a "Dr." Surely,
that must be his wharped sense of humour exposing him again as a
third-rate wind-bag..
Another bit of advice for Lomenzo. Learn to walk--before you try to
run!
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
NAZI Gassings Never Happened!
Friedrich Paul Berg
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>NAZI Gassings Never Happened!
>
>
> Friedrich Paul Berg
>
Freddy... do you know what told me you went down the tubes and went down
for the count? Three tip-offs: Repetition as in above literally word for
word from your previous posts; the taking out of my remarks in toto to
make them "go away" ; and finally, the classic of classics, the header
modification changes. That generally 'says' it and indicates that the
opposition, in this case yourself, has had it save for the routines such
opposition, again yourself, know the best. I know you'll not understand
that [nor some others for that matter who themselves partake of the same
routines] ... but then, that's part of your [and certain others]
problem, yes?! The drones will miss it of course but the neuron endowed
will have been in fact .... looking for it.
Doc Tony
;-)
The question you have to ask yourself, Freddy, is whether the
revisionists still back you and can accept you as their representative
after such exposure. That, alas, has nothing to do with me and is
generally the cogent piece which is wholly forgotten ... by the
opposition. Think about it!
hoaxb...@earthlink.net
1968, has never been mentioned even once in any of my essays on my
website or anywhere else. Lomenzo is far too depraved to do the
simple, decent thing and admit that he was completely wrong when he
insisted, repeatedly, that I had called Barnes a "crackpot." Lomenzo
is simply a LIAR--and a stupid LIAR as well!
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Lomenzo is indeed a liar -- and it's interesting to note that people on
BOTH sides of the revisionist/anti-revisionist divide have noted this
(just do a google groups search on +Lomenzo and +liar). What I object
to is the general intellectual dishonesty of the man -- you can show
him where his arguments fail and instead of either admitting defeat or
developing further argument he just ignores what you've said, tries to
change the subject and then repeats his original argument all over
again a few weeks later, covering his tracks when called on it by
hurling as much personal abuse as possible. Add to that his total
hypocrisy on the subject of bombing and his general unpleasantness
(Lomenzo is a person who once advised a poster who he knows suffers
from a depressive disorder to kill himself) and I'm afraid you're left
with an all-round nasty little sh*t.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>The TRUTH is well worth repeating. Harry Elmer Barnes, deceased in
>>1968, has never been mentioned even once in any of my essays on my
>>website or anywhere else. Lomenzo is far too depraved to do the
>>simple, decent thing and admit that he was completely wrong when he
>>insisted, repeatedly, that I had called Barnes a "crackpot." Lomenzo
>>is simply a LIAR--and a stupid LIAR as well!
>>
>>Learn everything
>>NAZI Gassings Never Happened--Niemand wurde vergast!
>>
>>Friedrich Paul Berg
>
>
> Lomenzo is indeed a liar -- and it's interesting to note that people on
> BOTH sides of the revisionist/anti-revisionist divide have noted this
> (just do a google groups search on +Lomenzo and +liar). What I object
> to is the general intellectual dishonesty of the man -- you can show
> him where his arguments fail and instead of either admitting defeat or
> developing further argument he just ignores what you've said, tries to
> change the subject and then repeats his original argument all over
> again a few weeks later, covering his tracks when called on it by
> hurling as much personal abuse as possible. Add to that his total
> hypocrisy on the subject of bombing and his general unpleasantness
> (Lomenzo is a person who once advised a poster who he knows suffers
> from a depressive disorder to kill himself) and I'm afraid you're left
> with an all-round nasty little sh*t.
>
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
What a catch! DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ" . Meanwhile, with
both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
made instantly synonymous with DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ"
and, 'why' you ask? Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
the both of you, ahhhhhhh, both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
immediate image of that which has been created! PsychoŽ and CrackpotŽ!
DEM and Berg!
David, if you would only promise that you would stay in there 'with'
Berg and any, let's say, 4 or 5 others of your choice, permanently I
mean and every day, my decade would absolutely be made!
How about it? I'd be willing to wait a week for you and Berg to get any
5 or 5 or 10 if you wish that you choose we go at it every single day
and I guarantee you'll all come off the losers. I guarantee it! Want to
try? Now how can you pass that up? My only concern would be time ... to
reach all the players .... but it could be done.
Doc Tony
;-)
Joe Bruno
Doc Tony might get imaginative at times, but, compared to you, he's the
epitome of honesty, dinglebrain.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Joe Bruno wrote:
>
> hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>Dr.[??] Anthony J. Lomenzo's repeated claim that I called Harry Elmer
>>Barnes a "crackpot" is simply a LIE. In short, Lomenzo is a LIAR.
>>
>>Learn everything
>>NAZI Gassings Never Happened--Niemand wurde vergast!
>>
>>Friedrich Paul Berg
>
>
> Doc Tony might get imaginative at times, but, compared to you, he's the
> epitome of honesty, dinglebrain.
>
Joe, stay tuned to what is to come! I've told Psycho® and Crackpot® [no
need for names at this point] to get even more reinforcements and we'll
go at it but there is of course a reason for that. It's the ultimate
opportunity to make point using multi-mode methods.
For example, take Crackpot® Berg, now he literally insults Irving ET AL
mind you [no problem to me but stay with me here] calling the guy a
'crackpot' [sic] , a 'coward' [sic] , showing "inexcusable neglience",
[sic], "failed to do their homework" [sic] and deserving of the "highest
condemnation" [sic] -- all of which I quoted BTW from the website-- and
then Berg says "the historianS ... " in the preface to that
froth...historians as in plural, yes? Sooooo, down below in the website
is the Berg indicated "crackpot" websites and, lo and behold, what does
the reader see but David Irving and 'The Barnes Review" , named after
Harry Elmer Barnes himself by Willis Carto [which I also quoted] and who
is the publisher of the Barnes website and magazine! Then Beg makes
with the 'where did I say that?' thing!
Not to mention the blunders of the 'hot air" picture gaffe of the
website bulletin board and, lo and behold, Freddy is one of the posters!
Or, of course, the need for the 'revolt and revolution' against all
Jews, Christianity and Islam .. a moronic statement and ironic too as
Freddy de facto writes off the Volk and Kameraden in the process! A
veritable feast for a satirist! Freddy and his website! And his warped
wares.
Then DEM and his Osama and Limonov belchings and quotes with public
wishes of death and MORE death for terrorist victims [save his own of
course] and public comments of 'a wonderful day', 'beautiful thing' ,
'not nice, but fair', 'out those corpses aside for a moment' for the
NSDAP salute as it were and this is just dealing with the families and
loved ones of others much less DEM's fawning rhetoric for Osama and
Limonov and the "isolated community" thing [read: farce] which he does
not have the guts to initiate! I mean even the BNP keeps its distance
from the the guy...his telling 'blow off' letter to them a gem in itself
of DEM philosophy and rhetoric, to wit, "We should be marching shoulder
to shoulder with our Islamic brothers!" [sic] !
Psycho® DEM and Crackpot® Berg. What a pair! But ask them the 'why' or
the 'specifics' of their belched wares .... and they run!
It should be fun!
Doc Tony
;-)
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> What a catch! DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®" .
OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
>Meanwhile, with
> both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
> made instantly synonymous with DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®"
> and, 'why' you ask?
No. I ask 'who cares?'
> Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
> for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
> and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
> your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
> wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
> the both of you,
Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
sheep.
> ahhhhhhh,
Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
orgasms.
>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
> immediate image of that which has been created! Psycho® and Crackpot®!
> DEM and Berg!
>
> David, if you would only promise that you would stay in there 'with'
> Berg and any, let's say, 4 or 5 others of your choice, permanently I
> mean and every day, my decade would absolutely be made!
Mr L, how can I promise you this when I haven't the slightest idea what
you're trying to say?
> How about it?
Well put the proposition in plain English.
Alternatively, you could try answering my point about bombing.
>I'd be willing to wait a week for you and Berg to get any
> 5 or 5 or 10 if you wish that you choose we go at it every single day
> and I guarantee you'll all come off the losers. I guarantee it!
Of course we will, Mr L. You have an unbeatable technique for winning
arguments. Just ignore everything your opponent says and proclaim
yourself the winner.
> Want to > try? Now how can you pass that up? My only concern would be time ... to
> reach all the players .... but it could be done.
Whatever.
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>What a catch! DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ" .
>
>
> OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
>
>
>>Meanwhile, with
>>both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
>>made instantly synonymous with DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ"
>>and, 'why' you ask?
>
>
> No. I ask 'who cares?'
>
>
>>Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
>>for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
>> and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
>>your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
>>wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
>>the both of you,
>
>
> Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
> and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
> other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
> that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
> showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
> sheep.
>
>
>>ahhhhhhh,
>
>
> Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
> orgasms.
>
>
>>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
>>immediate image of that which has been created! PsychoŽ and CrackpotŽ!
>>DEM and Berg!
>>
>>David, if you would only promise that you would stay in there 'with'
>>Berg and any, let's say, 4 or 5 others of your choice, permanently I
>>mean and every day, my decade would absolutely be made!
>
>
> Mr L, how can I promise you this when I haven't the slightest idea what
> you're trying to say?
>
>
>>How about it?
>
>
> Well put the proposition in plain English.
>
> Alternatively, you could try answering my point about bombing.
>
>
>>I'd be willing to wait a week for you and Berg to get any
>>5 or 5 or 10 if you wish that you choose we go at it every single day
>>and I guarantee you'll all come off the losers. I guarantee it!
>
>
> Of course we will, Mr L. You have an unbeatable technique for winning
> arguments. Just ignore everything your opponent says and proclaim
> yourself the winner.
>
>
>>Want to > try? Now how can you pass that up? My only concern would be time ... to
>>reach all the players .... but it could be done.
>
>
> Whatever.
>
Done! Let's see here .... first ..... do you 'now' care to answer what
your remarks would have been for both 9-11 and the recent London terror
attack if "YOUR" family had been the victims ==or== do I again get you
running to dredge up the N/H gambit that happened 60 years ago and of
which no-one in this newsgroup on any philosophical side had any input
into whatsoever!
However, YOU 'did' have input into both the 9-11 --and-- London terror
attacks and made that input known publicly how 'wonderful' it all was
and, as a matter of fact, you 'did' get your public wish for "many more
days like it" [sic] just recently when your own nation suffered a
terrorist attack where your public comment was [to Steve Wolk], "it's
not nice, but fair" [sic] soooooo I then asked you in the here and now
era suppose those London victims had been 'your' family and loved ones,
then what ... and you run and refuse to respond. WHY ?
Doc Tony
Joe Bruno
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
Not to worry. The US Navy has a procedure for most everything that can
go wrong.
If DEM or Crackpot ever get too close to your abode, your ship or your
aircraft, you simply call out over the 1MC(ship's intercom from the
bridge to the rest of the ship)
Now, repel boarders, starboard side!(or port side, if appropriate)
The crew will assemble in a line abreast to meet the threat. They use
high pressure firehoses, pistols, rifle butts or .50 Cal machine guns
to keep the unwanted guests at bay. It works.
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>What a catch! DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®" .
> >
> >
> > OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
> >
> >
> >>Meanwhile, with
> >>both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
> >>made instantly synonymous with DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®"
> >>and, 'why' you ask?
> >
> >
> > No. I ask 'who cares?'
> >
> >
> >>Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
> >>for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
> >> and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
> >>your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
> >>wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
> >>the both of you,
> >
> >
> > Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
> > and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
> > other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
> > that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
> > showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
> > sheep.
> >
> >
> >>ahhhhhhh,
> >
> >
> > Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
> > orgasms.
> >
> >
> >>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
> >>immediate image of that which has been created! Psycho® and Crackpot®!
Refuse to respond? Oh look, Tony Lomenzo is lying again. Here is the
response I give every time:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.revisionism/msg/630bdd2788102cf5?dmode=source&hl=en
Same reply as always whenever you repeat this point. You bleat about
some bombing in America or Britain. I then point out that you have
publicly supported the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima,
cities full of civilians, by America. You claim that it led to a
Japanese surrender without the same massive loss of life that would
(supposedly) have been entailed had a land invasion occurred. I point
out that the Americans' own Strategic Bombing Survey indicated that the
Japanese would probably have surrendered anyway without EITHER nuclear
bombs OR a land invasion (Tokyo bombed to pieces, Japan surrounded).
You respond by quoting the emperor making a speech AFTER the bombing
(presumably agreed with the Americans, who were calling the shots by
then) saying that the bombs were responsible for ending the war. I then
point out that according to American communications intercepts,
Truman's own writings and statements of various senior American
officials, the Japanese emperor had been trying to surrender BEFORE the
bombs were dropped, the Americans had known about it and the Americans
had been steadfastly ignoring him. At that point you either disappear
or try to change the subject.
There are two interesting things about this much repeated encounter
between us.
1. Why do you insist on us repeating precisely the same argument every
time I post anything at all in alt.revisionism, knowing full well that
you haven't got an answer to the end bit and that this gets exposed
each time we repeat the ritual?
2. Given that your personal morality enables you to take the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians so lightly, does it not
show your supposed indignation about the deaths of bombing victims in
America and Britain to be both insincere and hypocritical each time we
repeat the ritual?
<cue rapid change of subject and the usual personal abuse>
David
http://www.nationalanarchist.c om
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote
in message
>What is Roger crying about? Can anyone explain?
No crying, just pointing out that you continue to run from the lies
you posted about me -- why do you think these *advance* your cause?
Ben Cramer
"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1121914408....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Taking that to its logical conclusion - Yids, and shabbos goys "get
imaginative". Denyers (just hate that "deniers" sh'ite) tell porkies.
How terribly convenient.
>
Ben Cramer
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> >
> > hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> >>Dr.[??] Anthony J. Lomenzo's repeated claim that I called Harry Elmer
> >>Barnes a "crackpot" is simply a LIE. In short, Lomenzo is a LIAR.
> >>
> >>Learn everything
>
> >>NAZI Gassings Never Happened--Niemand wurde vergast!
> >>
> >>Friedrich Paul Berg
> >
> >
> > Doc Tony might get imaginative at times, but, compared to you, he's the
> > epitome of honesty, dinglebrain.
> >
>
>
> Joe, stay tuned to what is to come! I've told PsychoŽ and CrackpotŽ [no
> need for names at this point] to get even more reinforcements and we'll
> go at it but there is of course a reason for that. It's the ultimate
> opportunity to make point using multi-mode methods.
>
> For example, take CrackpotŽ Berg, now he literally insults Irving ET AL
> PsychoŽ DEM and CrackpotŽ Berg. What a pair! But ask them the 'why' or
> the 'specifics' of their belched wares .... and they run!
>
> It should be fun!
>
> Doc Tony
Not to worry. The US Navy has a procedure for most everything that can
go wrong.
If DEM or Crackpot ever get too close to your abode, your ship or your
aircraft, you simply call out over the 1MC(ship's intercom from the
bridge to the rest of the ship)
Now, repel boarders, starboard side!(or port side, if appropriate)
The crew will assemble in a line abreast to meet the threat. They use
high pressure firehoses, pistols, rifle butts or .50 Cal machine guns
to keep the unwanted guests at bay. It works.
PROOF??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>>>What a catch! DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ" .
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Meanwhile, with
>>>>both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
>>>>made instantly synonymous with DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ"
>>>>and, 'why' you ask?
>>>
>>>
>>>No. I ask 'who cares?'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
>>>>for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
>>>> and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
>>>>your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
>>>>wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
>>>>the both of you,
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
>>>and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
>>>other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
>>>that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
>>>showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
>>>sheep.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ahhhhhhh,
>>>
>>>
>>>Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
>>>orgasms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
>>>>immediate image of that which has been created! PsychoŽ and CrackpotŽ!
Where is the rapid change of subject? You make a here and now public
statement about how 'wonderful' it is to see victims get killed and you
publicly hope for "more days like it" and I call you on those comments
and all you ever do is run and go back to 1945! What does your public
comments rendered in this forum 'now' and whether those victims on 9-11
and in London had been 'your' family have to do with what happened in
1945? This is why I peg you the psychoŽ and coward. You will make
statements in Usenet and when called on them, you take the coward
approach and say nothing other than to drag out the N/H gambit from 60
years ago!
No fewer than 6 posters responded to you on the N/H gambit and you
simply refuse to accept their POV although you did tell John Morris that
2 possible 'solutions' were to "just stop fighting" and "bomb an open
field" but you keep running back to that every time you go on the ropes
for your 'current' era comments! I don't understand how you can embrace
terrorist attacks and 'other' folks family and loved ones as just so
much fodder and begin quoting Osama bin Laden and 'publicly' hoping for
more of the same terrorist attacks and victims but when you're asked
what if those victims were 'yours' , well, then you run. Why?
Like Berg, when you're challenged and called on your specific public
remarks, you run like a coward but that's because you are a coward and a
psycho! Perhaps I can force an answer out of you or at least shake you
of your cowardice: You mentioned a 3 year old, I assume your child, if
that child had been one of the victims of the recent London attacks
would you 'still' consider it, as you do for 'other' victims, "not nice,
but fair?" [sic] ... would you? Have the guts to at least defend your
own public rhetoric and stop being the running coward for once in your
life! It's sickening! You make spiel after spiel in AR and haven't the
friggin' guts to either defend your wares nor initiate anything even of
your own tripe! You borrow philosophies of people like Osama bin Laden
and Ed Limonov and spout their wares and words yet you yourself remain a
coward to do anything about what you perceive to be world' degeneracy
and decay' --- even the "isolated community" farce sees you once again
in the coward's role. You're useless save for pinched and then belched
rhetoric of others! No wonder you say and admit you're not interested in
any leadership role ... you couldn't handle any leadership role. You
even make a lousy follower unable to do anything personally except for
the parroted belch. This is fact!
The only time you seem to get riled is when your own public rhetoric is
thrown back on you and you're called on it ... and then you run! Answer
the question! You make public statements in AR.... fine .... now defend
them! Suppose the victim is that child, YOUR child this time, is it
still "not nice, but fair" ? Or does that psychotic rhetoric of yours
'ONLY' apply to 'other' folks families and loved ones and not yours. Well?
Doc Tony
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.c om
>
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>>>What a catch! DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®" .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Meanwhile, with
> >>>>both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
> >>>>made instantly synonymous with DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®"
> >>>>and, 'why' you ask?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No. I ask 'who cares?'
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
> >>>>for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
> >>>> and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
> >>>>your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
> >>>>wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
> >>>>the both of you,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
> >>>and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
> >>>other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
> >>>that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
> >>>showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
> >>>sheep.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>ahhhhhhh,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
> >>>orgasms.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
> >>>>immediate image of that which has been created! Psycho® and Crackpot®!
> 1945? This is why I peg you the psycho® and coward. You will make
> statements in Usenet and when called on them, you take the coward
> approach and say nothing other than to drag out the N/H gambit from 60
> years ago!
Ah! The 'time makes it OK' gambit. Just think of the implications of
THAT one, O great Hypocrite.
(a) In 60 years time the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon will, by your
standards, be OK. So don't worry about it.
(b) Everything that Hitler did was a long time ago so, by your
standards, it's OK now.
(c) We can do anything we like, nuke as many cities as we want, kill as
many civilians as we want because, by your standards, in 60 years it
will be OK.
Something wrong with that argument, Mr L?
Look, either bombing civilians is wrong or it isn't. You're saying
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were OK. Who the f*** are you, then, to condemn
whoever flew those airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon?
> No fewer than 6 posters responded to you on the N/H gambit and you
> simply refuse to accept their POV
OK, so you're just trolling now because you know that I didn't 'simply'
do anything of the sort but I responded in full to their comments. Wake
me up when you want a serious discussion.
<snip>
> Like Berg, when you're challenged and called on your specific public
> remarks, you run like a coward but that's because you are a coward and a
> psycho! Perhaps I can force an answer out of you or at least shake you
> of your cowardice: You mentioned a 3 year old, I assume your child, if
> that child had been one of the victims of the recent London attacks
> would you 'still' consider it, as you do for 'other' victims, "not nice,
> but fair?" [sic] ... would you?
I'd probably feel the same way as you'd feel if your close family had
been on the receiving end of one of the nuclear bombs that you
support.
Obvious point: the correctness or otherwise of a military decision
cannot be judged by how we'd feel if one of our own relatives died as a
result of it. Why not? Because that way nobody would ever take any
military decisions at all.
>Have the guts to at least defend your
> own public rhetoric and stop being the running coward for once in your
> life! It's sickening!
No, what's sickening is your inability to defend your support for the
atomic bombing of entire cities full of civilians.
> You make spiel after spiel in AR and haven't the
> friggin' guts to either defend your wares nor initiate anything even of
> your own tripe!
See above for refutation of the latest lie from Lying Lomenzo.
> You borrow philosophies of people like Osama bin Laden
Where? More lies?
> and Ed Limonov
Quoting him and agreeing with some of his points is hardly borrowing
his philosophy!
>and spout their wares and words
So we're not allowed to quote people? Why not?
>yet you yourself remain a coward
You're the one who ends up talking about hamsters every time I use the
atomic bombing argument against you.
> to do anything about what you perceive to be world' degeneracy
> and decay' --- even the "isolated community" farce sees you once again
> in the coward's role. You're useless save for pinched and then belched
> rhetoric of others! No wonder you say and admit you're not interested in
> any leadership role ... you couldn't handle any leadership role. You
> even make a lousy follower unable to do anything personally except for
> the parroted belch. This is fact!
>
> The only time you seem to get riled is when your own public rhetoric is
> thrown back on you and you're called on it ... and then you run! Answer
> the question! You make public statements in AR.... fine .... now defend
> them! Suppose the victim is that child, YOUR child this time, is it
> still "not nice, but fair" ? Or does that psychotic rhetoric of yours
> 'ONLY' apply to 'other' folks families and loved ones and not yours. Well?
Answered above.
Now here's something for YOU to run away from, chicken:
You bleat about some bombing in America or Britain. I then point out
that you have
publicly supported the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima,cities full of civilians, by America. You claim that it led
David
http://www.nationalanarchist.c om
Joe Bruno
Ben Cramer wrote:
> "Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
> news:1121917197....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> > Joe Bruno wrote:
> > >
> > > hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > >
> > >>Dr.[??] Anthony J. Lomenzo's repeated claim that I called Harry Elmer
> > >>Barnes a "crackpot" is simply a LIE. In short, Lomenzo is a LIAR.
> > >>
> > >>Learn everything
> >
> > >>NAZI Gassings Never Happened--Niemand wurde vergast!
> > >>
> > >>Friedrich Paul Berg
> > >
> > >
> > > Doc Tony might get imaginative at times, but, compared to you, he's the
> > > epitome of honesty, dinglebrain.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Joe, stay tuned to what is to come! I've told Psycho® and Crackpot® [no
> > need for names at this point] to get even more reinforcements and we'll
> > go at it but there is of course a reason for that. It's the ultimate
> > opportunity to make point using multi-mode methods.
> >
> > For example, take Crackpot® Berg, now he literally insults Irving ET AL
> > Psycho® DEM and Crackpot® Berg. What a pair! But ask them the 'why' or
> > the 'specifics' of their belched wares .... and they run!
> >
> > It should be fun!
> >
> > Doc Tony
>
>
>
> Not to worry. The US Navy has a procedure for most everything that can
> go wrong.
>
> If DEM or Crackpot ever get too close to your abode, your ship or your
> aircraft, you simply call out over the 1MC(ship's intercom from the
> bridge to the rest of the ship)
>
> Now, repel boarders, starboard side!(or port side, if appropriate)
>
> The crew will assemble in a line abreast to meet the threat. They use
> high pressure firehoses, pistols, rifle butts or .50 Cal machine guns
> to keep the unwanted guests at bay. It works.
>
>
> PROOF??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sail-tactics4.htm
hoaxb...@earthlink.net
"crackpot" is quite insane. H. E. Barnes died long before personal
computers were even heard of by most people. If I criticize a high
school that happens to be called "George Washington High School" for
being substandard--that is hardly a criticism of George Washington.
Sorry folks, but Lomenzo just might be able understand if he can slow
down to take those baby steps--one-ana-two-ana-...
Lomenzo is not only a LIAR but a hopeless cookoo as well. As best I
can make out from some of his scribblings, he may actually have a
doctorate in "Public Administration." Lomenzo is living proof of how
worthless so many advanced degrees truly are and how the system has
been "dumbed down."
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
Friedrich Paul Berg
hoaxb...@earthlink.net
worthwhile--and discover someone worth listening to. David Michael was
totally unknown to me--but now, thanks to Lomenzo, Michael's website
will get my attention. The correct address seems to be:
www.nationalanarchist.com
Some of my thoughts about America in WW2 were spelled out in my essay:
"Poison Gas Ueber Alles" (on my website) as follows:
"Even if the Holocaust story were true and even if we revisionists were
completely wrong, the crimes by the Allies in World War 2, especially
the United States are still far worse. The United States murdered well
over a million totally innocent civilians, mostly women and children,
by deliberately roasting them to death. If the 'Nazis' had ever
committed mass murder of millions of innocent people in gas
chambers-as horrific and criminal as that would truly be, it would
still have been relatively humane, and painless and even civilized
compared to the mass murder by incineration that the US inflicted
deliberately upon well over a million civilians. That the numbers of
innocent people murdered in America's incendiary and nuclear attacks is
less than the mythical six million attributed to the 'Nazis' was
certainly not for lack of trying on the part of Americans nor from any
lack of popular support-even to this day. Those crimes were as
cowardly as they were evil. They actually grew in ferocity as the war
approached its inevitable end and long after there was any danger to
the United States."
Lomenzo is clearly a moron, and probably innocent of America's crimes
in WW2--but Lomenzo displays that same sadistic, self-righteous
stupidity and barbarism which filled so many Americans during the
war--and led them to commit the worst atrocities in the entire history
of the world. Such idiots should be forced to looks at themselves in
the mirror. In the same way that Eisenhower forced German civilians to
look at the dead at Bergen-Belsen, Americans should be forced to look
at the dead from Dresden and Hiroshima and a thousand other
cities--Baghdad and Fallujah can be added to the list. The worst
"terrorists" were, and still are, the Americans--aided and abetted, of
course, by the British.
Joe Bruno
hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote:
> One of the benefits of AR is that we do occasionally learn something
> worthwhile--and discover someone worth listening to. David Michael was
> totally unknown to me--but now, thanks to Lomenzo, Michael's website
> will get my attention. The correct address seems to be:
> www.nationalanarchist.com
>
> Some of my thoughts about America in WW2 were spelled out in my essay:
> "Poison Gas Ueber Alles" (on my website) as follows:
> "Even if the Holocaust story were true and even if we revisionists were
> completely wrong, the crimes by the Allies in World War 2, especially
> the United States are still far worse. The United States murdered well
> over a million totally innocent civilians, mostly women and children,
> by deliberately roasting them to death.
Let's see some proof of your numbers.
The Nazis,In bombing Britain, Holland, the USSR, and Poland, killed
many innocent civilians which are not included in the six million
figure.They killed many more in shelling Leningrad and Stalingrad.Many
thousands died of starvation when the German army cut off Stalingrad
from outise supplies. The figure for the civilian war dead in the USSR
alone is estimated at 10 million.
If the 'Nazis' had ever
> committed mass murder of millions of innocent people in gas
> chambers-as horrific and criminal as that would truly be, it would
> still have been relatively humane, and painless and even civilized
> compared to the mass murder by incineration that the US inflicted
> deliberately upon well over a million civilians.
Collateral deaths of civilans in war is hardly morally comparable to
deliberate arrest and extermination. You are the moron.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be hoaxb...@earthlink.net wrote
in message
>One of the benefits of AR is that we do occasionally learn something
>worthwhile
Like why you feel it is a valid discussion tactic to post lies about
your correspondents?
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>>>>>What a catch! DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ" .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Meanwhile, with
>>>>>>both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
>>>>>>made instantly synonymous with DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ"
>>>>>>and, 'why' you ask?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No. I ask 'who cares?'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
>>>>>>for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
>>>>>>and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
>>>>>>your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
>>>>>>wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
>>>>>>the both of you,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
>>>>>and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
>>>>>other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
>>>>>that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
>>>>>showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
>>>>>sheep.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ahhhhhhh,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
>>>>>orgasms.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
>>>>>>immediate image of that which has been created! PsychoŽ and CrackpotŽ!
>>1945? This is why I peg you the psychoŽ and coward. You will make
I rest my case! And note in particular DEM using his own child as fodder
["the correctness or otherwise of a military [!?] decision cannot be
judged"] --- Ironic, isn't it, that DEM does just that with the N/H
gambit, yes?, and his 20-20 hindsight vision! But then, with DEM , the
Osama bin Laden quotes belcher , well, his rhetoric which after all, in
DEM's mind, takes precedence over everything, must come first, yes?!
In the meantime, however. the DEM publicly wished for "many more days
like it", hey, the families and loved ones of the reader will due, per
DEM, quite nicely thank you. PsychoŽ DEM ! And a demonstrated
do-nothing DEM parrot and coward with huge track shoes remaining even
prior to 9-11 much less the London terrorist attack DEM's AR stock and
trade .... and knee-jerk N/H gambit dredge notwithstanding! And yet it's
DEM who says of America, "you people are filth" [sic] and then proceeds
to write off the rest of the world ...save for the "clear way forward'
of course as voiced .... by DEM recitations of both Osama bin Laden and
Ed Limonov! Reader, want to join in with DEM and his multi-philosophy
'dreams' ? What's that? Heyyyy, "put those corpses aside for a
moment.... ." [sic]
Doc Tony
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
> Friedrich Paul Berg
>
Doc Tony: "And THAT, my Lord, is the case for the prosecution!"
Freddy Berg at his unhinged [read: stupid] best!
Doc Tony
;-)
Note to Freddy: I would put your efforts into damage control, Freddy,
beginning with the website and then your cockeyed theories, the Berg
barfed 'Christianity has to go' thing among the priorities. Then the
writing off of other revisionists which 'you', that's 'you' deign to
refer to as "crackpots" --- this alone is worth the visit to your
website to see your blunders and failures! The Führer and Rudy Heß as ad
hoc website glad-handers notwithstanding. A satiric feast! Literally!
Freddy... his website... his blunders...his moronic melt-downs. And all
free to view and watch 'in situ' as Freddy adds even more chuckles to
that which has already been exposed about Freddy! But hey, WHERE is the
Berg protégé Emil Müller .... could it be that even Emil is not willing
to be sacrificed and pegged the, shall we say, 'deputy crackpot' to
Crackpot® Berg?
;-)
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
> Learn everything .
> Friedrich Paul Berg
>
Psssst Freddy! Wait until DEM sees your website and notes your totally
different twist on the N/H gambit as the post '45 "salvation" of the
world! That should be interesting. And your nasty knock at the British
will no doubt clear with DEM but what of those you hope to recruit
Freddy... now the list is growing in re your 'revolt and revolution' so
that I'm not sure anyone will be left for your great plans! Freddy, have
you ever considered the "isolated community" thing. Perhaps where DEM
lacks the guts to do it, hey, you're crackpot enough to perhaps give it
a shot with certain Mit Uns volunteers ... no religious types tho' or
any US/UK "terrorists" need apply, yes?
Doc Tony
Ya' gotta' love it -- The CrackpotŽ Berg feeding off Psycho DEM! And
both going down the tubes together!
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Well, Roger, now that Crackpot® Berg has, indeed, and rather fondly to
boot, 'found' Psycho® DEM and the national-anarchist website and
announces same with the same gusto as he did the 'Jews, Christianity and
Islam' folks must go thing and the latest British "terrorists" usw. ,
this should be quite a match!
I personally believe Psycho® DEM will rue the new found love and heavy
syrup [Look what happened to Emil Müller!] Crackpot® Berg has for him
and DEM's wares although the, shall we say. 'match made in Valhalla' is
particularly telling to 'all' readers no matter the philosophical aisle!
Doc Tony
;-)
hoaxb...@earthlink.net
called Harry Elmer Barnes a "crackpot." Is there some reason to hope
for Lowmenzo? Who knows? Who cares?
As to the German bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, Stalingrad and many
other cities--those were instances where German ground troops were
directly engaged and the cities were well within range of German ground
artillery. In those instances, aerial bombardment was far more precise
and far less likely to cause civilian casualties. The German
bombardment of London was a response to prior British bombing over
several months of German civilian targets--and the bombing of Berlin in
August 1940.
The distinctions between the different kinds of aerial bombardment had
all been spelled out by international lawyers long before the war in
"Hague Rules of Aerial Warfare" [32 A.J.I.L. (supp.) 12 (1938)]. The
British had refused to sign, but the Germans had been eager to agree
and generally abided by the rules even though they were not legally
bound to do so. The relevant articles are 22, 23 and 24.
ARTICLE 24. (1) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at
a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the
destruction or injury would constitue a distinct military advantage to
the belligerent.
(2) Such bombardmnent is legitmate only when directed exclusively at
the following objectives: military forces, military works, military
establishments or depots; factories constituting important and
well-known centers engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or
distintively miliatry supplies, lines of communication or
transportation used for military purposes.
(3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings
not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is
prohibited....
The only person generally regarded as a "revisionist" whom I regard as
a "crackpot" is David Irving.
Learn more about everything at www.nazigassings.com
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>>>>>What a catch! DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®" .
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Meanwhile, with
> >>>>>>both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
> >>>>>>made instantly synonymous with DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®"
> >>>>>>and, 'why' you ask?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No. I ask 'who cares?'
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
> >>>>>>for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
> >>>>>>and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
> >>>>>>your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
> >>>>>>wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
> >>>>>>the both of you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
> >>>>>and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
> >>>>>other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
> >>>>>that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
> >>>>>showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
> >>>>>sheep.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>ahhhhhhh,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
> >>>>>orgasms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
> >>>>>>immediate image of that which has been created! Psycho® and Crackpot®!
> >>1945? This is why I peg you the psycho® and coward. You will make
Now that is Lomenzo at his most revolting. Read what I wrote again to
observe the sheer dishonesty of this man!
Anyway, Lomenzo, I thought you didn't approve of dragging people's
families into AR discussions?
> ["the correctness or otherwise of a military [!?] decision cannot be
> judged"] --- Ironic, isn't it, that DEM does just that with the N/H
> gambit, yes?
No. The N/H gambit exposes your double standards. Essentially your
position is that it's OK to murder non-American civilians but psychotic
to murder American civilians. By contrasting your views on 9/11 with
your views on Nagasaki/Hiroshima I simply draw attention to what I
believe is now termed 'American exceptionalism', which you exemplify:
one set of standards for Americans, a different set of standards for
everyone else.
>, and his 20-20 hindsight vision!
No, because -- and this is the point you can't address -- the Americans
knew that the Japanese wanted to surrender before they dropped the
atomic bombs. No hindsight required -- just a policy decision to begin
surrender negotiations rather than bombing two cities full of
civilians.
> But then, with DEM , the
> Osama bin Laden quotes belcher , well, his rhetoric which after all, in
> DEM's mind, takes precedence over everything, must come first, yes?!
No, in this case I'm merely demonstrating the hypocrisy and dishonesty
of a fairly typical pro-Establishment American.
> In the meantime, however. the DEM publicly wished for "many more days
> like it", hey, the families and loved ones of the reader will due, per
> DEM, quite nicely thank you. Psycho® DEM ! And a demonstrated
> do-nothing DEM parrot and coward with huge track shoes remaining even
> prior to 9-11 much less the London terrorist attack DEM's AR stock and
> trade .... and knee-jerk N/H gambit dredge notwithstanding! And yet it's
> DEM who says of America, "you people are filth" [sic] and then proceeds
> to write off the rest of the world ...save for the "clear way forward'
> of course as voiced .... by DEM recitations of both Osama bin Laden and
> Ed Limonov! Reader, want to join in with DEM and his multi-philosophy
> 'dreams' ? What's that? Heyyyy, "put those corpses aside for a
> moment.... ." [sic]
I've no idea what you're trying to express there. However, my aim was
to demonstrate your dishonesty and I think your comments about my child
make the point vividly, as well as showing you to be a fairly scummy
little man.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>>>>>>>What a catch! DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ" .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Meanwhile, with
>>>>>>>>both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
>>>>>>>>made instantly synonymous with DEM as PsychoŽ and Berg as "CrackpotŽ"
>>>>>>>>and, 'why' you ask?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No. I ask 'who cares?'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
>>>>>>>>for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
>>>>>>>>and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
>>>>>>>>your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
>>>>>>>>wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
>>>>>>>>the both of you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
>>>>>>>and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
>>>>>>>other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
>>>>>>>that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
>>>>>>>showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
>>>>>>>sheep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ahhhhhhh,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
>>>>>>>orgasms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
>>>>>>>>immediate image of that which has been created! PsychoŽ and CrackpotŽ!
>>>>1945? This is why I peg you the psychoŽ and coward. You will make
>>DEM, quite nicely thank you. PsychoŽ DEM ! And a demonstrated
>>do-nothing DEM parrot and coward with huge track shoes remaining even
>>prior to 9-11 much less the London terrorist attack DEM's AR stock and
>>trade .... and knee-jerk N/H gambit dredge notwithstanding! And yet it's
>>DEM who says of America, "you people are filth" [sic] and then proceeds
>>to write off the rest of the world ...save for the "clear way forward'
>>of course as voiced .... by DEM recitations of both Osama bin Laden and
>>Ed Limonov! Reader, want to join in with DEM and his multi-philosophy
>>'dreams' ? What's that? Heyyyy, "put those corpses aside for a
>>moment.... ." [sic]
>
>
> I've no idea what you're trying to express there. However, my aim was
> to demonstrate your dishonesty and I think your comments about my child
> make the point vividly, as well as showing you to be a fairly scummy
> little man.
>
David, it's immaterial what you think at this point although your
cowardly wares and psychotic demeanor are well known. It's what the
others are shown, documented and illustrated by me of you that matters.
BTW, I see CrackpotŽ Freddy has shown a 'great' interest in you and said
so publicly! Did you catch that one and the same syrup he used on the
now missing Emil Müller? What a match! The PsychoŽ DEM and the CrackpotŽ
Berg! Both exposed, both failures in their own right, both parrots of
the belched dreck of others. And I'll keep demonstrating that!
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>>>>>>>What a catch! DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®" .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>OK, so you can hurl abuse. So can my 3 year old.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Meanwhile, with
> >>>>>>>>both of you I've assured that when you show up, you're very names are
> >>>>>>>>made instantly synonymous with DEM as Psycho® and Berg as "Crackpot®"
> >>>>>>>>and, 'why' you ask?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No. I ask 'who cares?'
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Well, I'll tell you: because you both have fallen
> >>>>>>>>for the transference of repetition [DEM with the N/H gambit [see above]
> >>>>>>>>and Berg with essentially the same thing] while neglecting to defend
> >>>>>>>>your wares in the process and thus while 'that' builds [the proffered
> >>>>>>>>wares] and goes unanswered in favor of known and anticipated routines by
> >>>>>>>>the both of you,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ah, so you mean that by repeating the same point over and over again
> >>>>>>>and ignoring the answer you are preventing me from putting forward
> >>>>>>>other arguments? It's all a cunning plan? Silly me! How could I miss
> >>>>>>>that one! There was little me thinking that the entire routine was
> >>>>>>>showing the up the hypocrisy of the average American pro-government
> >>>>>>>sheep.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>ahhhhhhh,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Now don't get too carried away -- alt.revisionism is not the place for
> >>>>>>>orgasms.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>both names [DEM and Berg] conjure the
> >>>>>>>>immediate image of that which has been created! Psycho® and Crackpot®!
> >>>>1945? This is why I peg you the psycho® and coward. You will make
> >>DEM, quite nicely thank you. Psycho® DEM ! And a demonstrated
> >>do-nothing DEM parrot and coward with huge track shoes remaining even
> >>prior to 9-11 much less the London terrorist attack DEM's AR stock and
> >>trade .... and knee-jerk N/H gambit dredge notwithstanding! And yet it's
> >>DEM who says of America, "you people are filth" [sic] and then proceeds
> >>to write off the rest of the world ...save for the "clear way forward'
> >>of course as voiced .... by DEM recitations of both Osama bin Laden and
> >>Ed Limonov! Reader, want to join in with DEM and his multi-philosophy
> >>'dreams' ? What's that? Heyyyy, "put those corpses aside for a
> >>moment.... ." [sic]
> >
> >
> > I've no idea what you're trying to express there. However, my aim was
> > to demonstrate your dishonesty and I think your comments about my child
> > make the point vividly, as well as showing you to be a fairly scummy
> > little man.
> >
>
>
> David, it's immaterial what you think at this point although your
> cowardly wares and psychotic demeanor are well known. It's what the
> others are shown, documented and illustrated by me of you that matters.
> BTW, I see Crackpot® Freddy has shown a 'great' interest in you and said
> so publicly! Did you catch that one and the same syrup he used on the
> now missing Emil Müller? What a match! The Psycho® DEM and the Crackpot®
> Berg! Both exposed, both failures in their own right, both parrots of
> the belched dreck of others. And I'll keep demonstrating that!
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
>
> > David
> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
You demonstrate principally that you have no answer to the charges of
dishonesty and hypocrisy that you have made against you. You don't even
have the balls to try to answer. Instead you sit there typing
accusations that you know to be false and using three-year-old children
to further your disgusting agenda. Pure slime.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Won't fly, Psycho®! I'll tell you why: for years you've given spiel
after spiel how 'wonderful' [sic] it is to see your hero Osama bin Laden
and other terrorists kill victims which you thought was just grand. And
your additional public wish for "many more days like it" sooooooooo I
take your psychotic dreck and plaster it all over your face and shove it
in your wazoo where it originated in calling you on your rhetoric and
hence asking you what if 'YOUR' family became the victims and that
apparently upsets you because that's not in your canned Osama drool.
OTHER folks family and loved ones, well, no problem there along with the
'chickens coming home to roost thing' and 'beautiful day' and 'not nice,
but fair' for the most recent attack in your nation however but not you
or yours. No-no. Others, yes, and embraced but not yours. So when your
psychotic statements are called and indeed thrown in your face, you tilt
like a pinball machine and whine like a stuffed pig crying 'foul'
because now the mention of victims are brought to YOUR door if only
figuratively but which obviously is a much different story when your
loved ones enter the equation yet you remain over the years so cavalier
about 'others' and 'their' loved ones.
You're a coward and I've demonstrated that, inter alia, many times over.
The other cardinal error you make is that you figure the readership in
general, any side mind you, simply will forget your psychotic rhetoric
or they will not grasp the excuses you throw out as now and the "three
year old children" gambit [or the classic N/H gambit when you again find
yourself on the ropes by 'any' poster as a matter of fact] and, I'll
add, the very "three year olds" and OTHER children plural, and men and
women YOU so cowardly and despicably discard while you literally sing
the praises [and quote the quotes] of Osama bin Ladin and your public
call for 'more' of the same death ... for 'OTHERS' tho' ... and you and
yours be mercifully spared of course. No, it doesn't work that way and I
intend to bury you using your own spouted, parroted, rotten and
demonstratively psychotic rhetoric.
So do me a favor, keep up your known routines and that will give me
addition material in which to bulldoze you over and under ... using your
own degenerate and psychotic words in the process! Don't like it, well,
you may not think "it's not nice" because you're receiving your own
drool back at you in spades but then, I think, well, perhaps it's 'not
nice' to keep reminding you of your own wares and call you on your
multi-year dreck and instant dreck to boot .... 'but it's fair' ."
Doc Tony
More? I truly hope so. But then, David, one one speaks of victims as you
have, both 'others' and now the potential for your own, well ...
"Obvious point: the correctness or otherwise of a military decision
cannot be judged by how'd we feel if one of our own relatives died as a
result of it." [--- sic, David E. Michael, July 21, 2005.] You were
talking about .... '3 year old children', David?
That's a promise, David, I'll bury you in your own rotten rhetoric. And
further demonstrate the utterly rank coward and psychotic you are!
BTW, have you seen Freddy Berg?
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> > You demonstrate principally that you have no answer to the charges of
> > dishonesty and hypocrisy that you have made against you. You don't even
> > have the balls to try to answer. Instead you sit there typing
> > accusations that you know to be false and using three-year-old children
> > to further your disgusting agenda. Pure slime.
> >
> > David
> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
> >
>
> Won't fly, Psycho®! I'll tell you why: for years you've given spiel
> after spiel how 'wonderful' [sic] it is to see your hero Osama bin Laden
> and other terrorists kill victims which you thought was just grand. And
> your additional public wish for "many more days like it" sooooooooo I
> take your psychotic dreck and plaster it all over your face and shove it
> in your wazoo where it originated in calling you on your rhetoric and
> hence asking you what if 'YOUR' family became the victims and that
> apparently upsets you because that's not in your canned Osama drool.
<snip>
Heard it all before. You're like a record stuck in a groove.
Here is the response I give every time:
http://groups.google.co.uk/gro up/alt.revisionism/msg/630bdd2
788102cf5...
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>You demonstrate principally that you have no answer to the charges of
>>>dishonesty and hypocrisy that you have made against you. You don't even
>>>have the balls to try to answer. Instead you sit there typing
>>>accusations that you know to be false and using three-year-old children
>>>to further your disgusting agenda. Pure slime.
>>>
>>>David
>>>http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>>>
>>
>>Won't fly, PsychoŽ! I'll tell you why: for years you've given spiel
No you have 'not' heard it all before and that's why you snipped it. But
others saw it and can refer back to it. Point made however: your total
underestimation [and hence overt insult] of the AR readership, either
side of the aisle, to not see the ploy. And again, a verbatim recitation
when you're on the proverbial ropes of .... [interrupted!]
A Reader in Milwaukee: "THE N/H GAMBIT!"
Bingo!
Doc Tony
;-)
More?
Ben Cramer
>
> Collateral deaths of civilans in war is hardly morally comparable to
> deliberate arrest and extermination.
Do you mind terribly, if I quote this in my next communication with the IDF.
They seem unaware of any of this. They just carry on blithely, taking out an
entire apartment building, and its inhabitants, to get one little man.
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <bencr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
"Poofters should be fucked and burned." -- the neo-Nazi "Ben Cramer"
inciting mass murder. Source: Message-ID
<42942e83$0$247$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>
RJ.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Per Ben, and in re the F&B thing, 'an everyday and common colloquial
expression' in Australia. And hence the bit of PM John Howard using said
F&B expression to a group of Aussie religious leaders.
Doc Tony
;-)
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Ben---since Crackpot® Freddy Berg is nowhere to be found and I note your
exchanges with Joe Bruno generally extend well into weeks and beyond,
well, I've taken the liberty at least in this thread of correcting the
header to a more appropriate Bruno vs Cramer and using the alphabet as
to surname placement and indication therein.
BTW Ben, have you ever been to NZ? I have my reasons for asking. Nothing
sinister, mind you!
Doc Tony
;-)
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>You demonstrate principally that you have no answer to the charges of
> >>>dishonesty and hypocrisy that you have made against you. You don't even
> >>>have the balls to try to answer. Instead you sit there typing
> >>>accusations that you know to be false and using three-year-old children
> >>>to further your disgusting agenda. Pure slime.
> >>>
> >>>David
> >>>http://www.nationalanarchist.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>Won't fly, Psycho®! I'll tell you why: for years you've given spiel
Sure. Do you accept that the Americans knew that the Japanese emperor
wanted to initiate surrender negotiations prior to dropping the atomic
bombs on two cities full of civilians? Yes or no?
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>
>>david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>You demonstrate principally that you have no answer to the charges of
>>>>>dishonesty and hypocrisy that you have made against you. You don't even
>>>>>have the balls to try to answer. Instead you sit there typing
>>>>>accusations that you know to be false and using three-year-old children
>>>>>to further your disgusting agenda. Pure slime.
>>>>>
>>>>>David
>>>>>http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Won't fly, PsychoŽ! I'll tell you why: for years you've given spiel
No.
Your turn, David. Hey, if it keeps you coming back perhaps the N/H
gambit can be put to max utility! Readers can then compare the stuff in
the archives as a sort of on-going check on the stuff as told to you
umpteen times previously by myself and others albeit rejected by you in
toto as the excuse for your Osama belchings and your wish for "more days
like it" which you in fact got in the London terror attack and then you
said a la 9-11 that the London attack was "not nice, but fair." I see
you've abondonned the 'three year old' gambit, yes. That was a stretch
at the get-go! Better you stick to what you do best and I'll take care
of the rest ... at your expense of course ... but taken care of
nevertheless.
Although, for readers, the archives give my previous responses to these
same dredged up DEM questions plus a very minumum of 6 other posters
addressing DEM on this very there but, hey, who else will even listen to
the guy, yes?
Doc Tony
;-)
In the meantime tho' ....
"Obvious point: the correctness or otherwise of a military decision
cannot be judged by how'd [sic] we feel if one of our own relatives died
as a result of it." [--- DEM, 7-21-05]
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
Ben Cramer
"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:42E1157E...@localnet.com...
>
>
> Ben Cramer wrote:
>> "Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121969563.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Collateral deaths of civilans in war is hardly morally comparable to
>>>deliberate arrest and extermination.
>>
>>
>> Do you mind terribly, if I quote this in my next communication with the
>> IDF.
>>
>> They seem unaware of any of this. They just carry on blithely, taking out
>> an entire apartment building, and its inhabitants, to get one little man.
>
> well, I've taken the liberty at least in this thread of correcting the
> header to a more appropriate Bruno vs Cramer and using the alphabet as to
> surname placement and indication therein.
>
> BTW Ben, have you ever been to NZ? I have my reasons for asking. Nothing
> sinister, mind you!
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
Indeed I have. Anything I can help you with?
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Ben Cramer wrote:
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:42E1157E...@localnet.com...
>
>>
>>Ben Cramer wrote:
>>
>>>"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1121969563.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Collateral deaths of civilans in war is hardly morally comparable to
>>>>deliberate arrest and extermination.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you mind terribly, if I quote this in my next communication with the
>>>IDF.
>>>
>>>They seem unaware of any of this. They just carry on blithely, taking out
>>>an entire apartment building, and its inhabitants, to get one little man.
>>
>>Ben---since Crackpot® Freddy Berg is nowhere to be found and I note your
>>exchanges with Joe Bruno generally extend well into weeks and beyond,
>>well, I've taken the liberty at least in this thread of correcting the
>>header to a more appropriate Bruno vs Cramer and using the alphabet as to
>>surname placement and indication therein.
>>
>>BTW Ben, have you ever been to NZ? I have my reasons for asking. Nothing
>>sinister, mind you!
>>
>>Doc Tony
>>;-)
>
>
>
> Indeed I have. Anything I can help you with?
>
>
>
What's the fare [if you could convert same to USD it would help much]
from Oz Land to NZ ... by air or by water ... just roughly. The goal is
Christchurch, NZ from Sydney or Melbourne. One other thing ... amateur
radio contacts in Hobart in "Tas Land" ... hassle getting from Oz to
Tas' or is this an easy thing over the Bass Straight?
Doc Tony
Ben Cramer
I've only used Qantas for my travels to NZ, and their return fares,
Melbourne, Christchurch, Melbourne, vary from about US$550 to US$3000,
depending on flexibility of fare, economy class or business class. They
often have quite good "ready deals" available, which carry on flexibility,
but are significantly cheaper.
Have attached a link to the Qantas website FYI.
http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/home/qualifier-region-au
Melbourne to Tasmania is a doddle. One can either fly, or drive, departing
Sydney or Melbourne, with destination in Tasmania via ferry, at the port of
Devonport. The drive is via a ferry 'Spirit of Tasmania', and, in itself,
quite a pleasant experience, weather dependant. I seem to remember talk of
another ferry service commencing the same run recently, but have no details
to offer you on that.
It's been 4 years since I travelled to the Apple Isles. They have a very
well respected Maritime College in Launceston, where I spend some time
occasionally.
If you can wangle an invitation to the college, you'd absolutely love the
marine simulator. They have models for every port in Australia, with every
variable one could throw into the model. Weather, tide, disabled ship's
engines, tug failure - the works. The simulator is full size, and when
standing on the "bridge", one would think one was at sea.
Have attached a link to holidays in Tasmania here:
http://www.spiritoftasmania.com.au/brochures/brochure.htm
And the Discover Tasmania homepage link, here:
http://www.discovertasmania.com.au/home/index.cfm?SiteID=565
If you find yourself in Sydney between 28th and 30th August, give me a heads
up. I'm attending a security conference on those dates. Bit of a junket,
actually, so no difficulty cutting out.
Hope that helps somewhat.
Cramer the cunt. (I have a reputation to maintain)
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> >
> >>david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>>>You demonstrate principally that you have no answer to the charges of
> >>>>>dishonesty and hypocrisy that you have made against you. You don't even
> >>>>>have the balls to try to answer. Instead you sit there typing
> >>>>>accusations that you know to be false and using three-year-old children
> >>>>>to further your disgusting agenda. Pure slime.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>David
> >>>>>http://www.nationalanarchist.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Won't fly, Psycho®! I'll tell you why: for years you've given spiel
Certainly. Here is a refutation of your position:
http://www.greenwych.ca/hiro2bmb.htm
I draw your particular attention to the words:
'That there really were surrender overtures by the Japanese was
confirmed by a man who ought to know, CIA chief Allen Dulles. In an
interview with Clifford Evans (1/19/63 (NY) WOR-TV), Dulles said: "I
had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to
surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in
Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July
20, 1945...."
[Just weeks later, August 6 and August 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
bombed.]'
Any comments on that?
<snip>
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
'Ready to surrender' is NOT surrendering! Even after the first bomb, the
Emperor did NOT surrender. After the second bomb, he surrendered. He
then stated that the "enemies most cruel new weapon" [I quoted you the
entire speech] was so devastating that to save further lives, he would
now comply with the Potsdam Declaration and surrender unconditionally.
That saved a land invasion against a people that were willing to
literally die for him making the Kamikaze actions look like a minor side
show in comparison plus the matter of Japanese code of Bushido which you
seem to dismiss as apparently 'exaggerated'.
Now, WHAT does this in 1945 in time of war have to do with YOU in 2001
and now 2005 claiming that terrorist attacks are "wonderful" and
constitute a "beautiful day" and your public wish for "many more days
like it" --- and when you get that wish when your own nation suffers a
terrorist attack just recently and even more victims are killed, you
comment that it's "not nice, but fair."
I then ask you about your 'own' family being the victims even in some
future terrorist attack and you say to me and this forum: "Obvious
point: the correctness or otherwise of a military decision cannot be
judged by how'd we feel if one of our own relatives died as a result of
it." [sic] So much for your family at this DEM barfed 'mitigation.'
HOW does what Truman ordered in 1945 which in fact did force the
Japanese surrender mitigate 'your' public comments and welcoming of
victims being killed by terrorists and publicly wishing for "many more
days like it." [sic] What is the alleged mitigation 'connection'? And
now here you even are willing to sacrifice your own child and family for
the 'cause' if that be necessary and per your words above. That, to me,
and viewed with your public glee at seeing such death and quoting Osama
bin Laden while terming terrorist actions 'today' as 'military
decisions' and/or 'military targets' and hence 'fair' as victims are
killed through such terror, well, I believe such remarks are the words
of a psychotic. When this is additionally viewed with your belching of
Osama and Limonov and rhetoric of 'Death to the New World Order ---
Victory to national anarchism" [sic] and assorted spiels you've made
along the way, I view you to additionally be a coward. And when called
on your public remarks, you see a mitigation of your wish for 'more'
terrorist attacks using 1945 as your excuse for such rhetoric.
I don't see the connection but exposing you like this is worth the
repeat of your N/H gambit. You see, it's a question of perspective. My
perspective is YOU and demonstrating your cowardice and lust for terror
while your perspective is apparently a chronic re-hash of events that
happened 60 years ago and of which no-one in this newsgroup had any
input nor guilt. But when you comment on instant happening terror and
literally wallow in its DEM spouted glory and loss of life terming same
"wonderful" and wanting even 'more' of the same, that signals the
psychotic.
Doc Tony
More? For me it's an exposé of yourself and hence carrying documented
proof of your cowardice and psychotic behavior. For you, well, I don't
think you're going to convince anyone that there exists any connection
and hence 'mitigation' in your public wares in this forum especially
since your 9-11 remarks ... and now the London terror attack remarks.
Your total underestimation [and hence insult] of the AR readership,
'both' sides, to allegedly 'not' see through your crap and twisted
rhetoric is staggering! Perhaps this is why the only thing you're known
for is whooping up and quoting Osama and Liminov .... and the N/H gambit
ad infinitum as the alleged 'get out of jail' card. That's also
staggering that you actually believe this!
Doc Tony
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
I see that ... you're 'succeeding' in often living up to that duly
mention c-word 'reputation' but the question becomes whether it is in
your general interest to do so! ;-)
Switching: Thank you for the info ... I'm hoping for an Oz Land visit in
2006. In some ways when you're not doing your routines, you remind me of
a relatively close neighbor who was originally from Oz Land but settled
here permanently after making his fortune in import/export and cashing
in on the literal swell of 'Down Under' interest after Paul Hogan did
his thing [Sidebar: As the street thug says to our Croc' cobber, "Give
it up, cracker, cause' I got me a mo-fo knife here" whereupon Croc' man
Dundee does his scripted [but effective] Aussie coolness thing a la
"Nah, mate, [pulls out his 'friend'], now 'THIS' is a knife!" --
although the comment to the Black cabbie in front of the 'Big Apple'
Manhattan hotel when the C-Man says in the flick sequel [in an apparent
PC allowable guffaw ... ], "G'Day, mate! So what 'tribe' are you from?"]
Anyway--- picture Hogan sans the knife and croc-teeth hat and you have
my neighbor. Good wit tho' as in "Wha' 'accent' is that, mate?" Thanks
to Quantas and their ad thing , the importation of bean bag Koala
[versus 'Teddy'] bears that 'spoke' the Down Under lingo bought him part
of his home ... and Mercedes!
The Hogan hat as well with plastic croc teeth and, wisely, posters
showing the C-man in the first flick with that rather stunning 'Ami',
Linda Kozlowski [playing the character Sue Charlton in the '86 flick
"Crocodile Dundee"]. Fess up, Ben, when she was bending over down at the
river edge with the binocs around her neck in the thong suit and just
before the giant rubber crock did its thing, you were doing a Carter and
'lusting in your heart', yes? As was Hogan of course! I plead nolo
contendere here.
suddenly ......]
From Afar: "Wellllllllllllll! Yet another mention of a blonde hair and
blue eyed very 'Nordic' looking woman ... how very 'telling' that Doc
Tony seems enamored by these 'NA magazine' Nordic female types ..... ."
Hey, I'd have the same positive remarks about Tara Fitzgerald in
"Brassed Off" [1996] too! Brown eyed!
So, that all said, thanks for the info!
Doc Tony
;-)
BTW Ben, have you seen Crackpot® Freddy Berg anywhere? ;-)
Vangel: [shocked!] "Like, that crocodile was not really real?"
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>>Sure. Do you accept that the Americans knew that the Japanese emperor
> >>>wanted to initiate surrender negotiations prior to dropping the atomic
> >>>bombs on two cities full of civilians? Yes or no?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>Your turn, David.
> >
> >
> > Certainly. Here is a refutation of your position:
> >
> > http://www.greenwych.ca/hiro2bmb.htm
> >
> > I draw your particular attention to the words:
> >
> > 'That there really were surrender overtures by the Japanese was
> > confirmed by a man who ought to know, CIA chief Allen Dulles. In an
> > interview with Clifford Evans (1/19/63 (NY) WOR-TV), Dulles said: "I
> > had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to
> > surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in
> > Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July
> > 20, 1945...."
> > [Just weeks later, August 6 and August 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
> > bombed.]'
> >
> > Any comments on that?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
>
>
> 'Ready to surrender' is NOT surrendering!
(a) I asked you: 'do you accept that the Americans knew that the
Japanese emperor wanted to initiate surrender negotiations prior to
dropping the atomic bombs on two cities full of civilians? Yes or no?'
You replied 'no'. You were incorrect.
(b) It seems to me that you are saying that the slaughter of 170,000
civilians was justified to convert a readiness to surrender (i.e. a
surrender that could have been brought about with a few discussions)
into an actual surrender. What does that tell us about you and about
the sort of Western morality that you represent? What does it tell us
about the hypocrisy of your condemnations of the 9/11 attacks and the
London bombings?
>Even after the first bomb, the Emperor did NOT surrender. After the second bomb, he surrendered. He then stated that the "enemies most cruel new weapon" [I quoted you the
> entire speech] was so devastating that to save further lives, he would
> now comply with the Potsdam Declaration and surrender unconditionally.
> That saved a land invasion against a people that were willing to
> literally die for him making the Kamikaze actions look like a minor side
> show in comparison plus the matter of Japanese code of Bushido which you
> seem to dismiss as apparently 'exaggerated'.
Dealt with already. He'd been attempting to surrender. He'd made it
clear that he wanted to enter into surrender negotiations. He'd tried
to get the Russians to mediate. The Americans had rebuffed his every
attempt. One can only speculate but I imagine the thought processes at
the time were: 'we've indicated that we want to surrender -- they KNOW
we want to surrender -- so why the hell are they bombing us? What more
must we do?'
The American Strategic Bombing Survey indicated that the surrender
would have taken place without a land invasion. Japan was surrounded
and Tokyo had been bombed to pieces.
And yet you try to defend the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of
innocent civilians on the grounds that ''Ready to surrender' is NOT
surrendering!' All of those wives and children and families slaughtered
horribly to convert a 'surrender that would have happened anyway' into
a surrender. That is what you are defending.
And you expect your pontifications about modern-day terrorist attacks
IN RESPONSE, please note, to American aggression against civilians, to
carry any weight at all after that?
> Now, WHAT does this in 1945 in time of war have to do with YOU in 2001
> and now 2005 claiming that terrorist attacks are "wonderful" and
> constitute a "beautiful day" and your public wish for "many more days
> like it" --- and when you get that wish when your own nation suffers a
> terrorist attack just recently and even more victims are killed, you
> comment that it's "not nice, but fair."
It tells me that the West is full of rampaging hypocrites like yourself
who posture and preach about the evil of so-called terrorist attacks
when you actively support mass murder on a far larger scale if it is
carried out on innocent civilians by YOUR side.
> I then ask you about your 'own' family being the victims even in some
> future terrorist attack and you say to me and this forum: "Obvious
> point: the correctness or otherwise of a military decision cannot be
> judged by how'd we feel if one of our own relatives died as a result of
> it." [sic] So much for your family at this DEM barfed 'mitigation.'
Again, sheer hypocrisy. You tell us that you don't believe in bringing
people's families into AR discussions and then you bring mine into it.
<snip much repeated boring stuff>
> I don't see the connection but exposing you like this is worth the
> repeat of your N/H gambit.
Please expose me more, Mr Lomenzo. Your exposing suits me fine.
> You see, it's a question of perspective. My
> perspective is YOU and demonstrating your cowardice and lust for terror
> while your perspective is apparently a chronic re-hash of events that
> happened 60 years ago and of which no-one in this newsgroup had any
> input nor guilt.
No my point is much less complex than that. I'm not much interested in
you. I don't care whether you are a coward or have a lust for terror
(in fact I think that you don't much care about terror, except perhaps
unless it affects you personally). I'm not the slightest bit interested
in your mental health. I am an enemy of the philosophy expounded by
your country's ruling clique and my aim is to expose it as dirty and
hypocritical. In this newsgroup you have elected yourself to represent
'the system' -- you voice its official disgust at certain acts and its
official lack of disgust at certain acts. By exposing your position as
dirty and hypocritical I am exposing what you represent as dirty and
hypocritical. Which is the whole point of my participation in this
newsgroup.
> But when you comment on instant happening terror and
> literally wallow in its DEM spouted glory and loss of life terming same
> "wonderful" and wanting even 'more' of the same, that signals the
> psychotic.
So you devote hours and hours typing pages of much repeated evasions
merely to 'demonstrate' that someone you've never met is 'psychotic'?
Why should it matter to you whether I am 'psychotic' or not?
How embarrassing it must be for you to be shown to have morals that are
considerably worse than those of a man whom you consider to be
'psychotic!' It is you, not I, who has to argue in favour of the
nuclear bombing to death of hundreds of thousands of innocent
civilians. It is you, not I, who must defend the indefensible. And you
must now do it over and over again.
> More?
'Bring it on!'
> For me it's an exposé of yourself and hence carrying documented
> proof of your cowardice and psychotic behavior.
I think not. For you it is an attempt to save face -- 'it's all a game,
folks; don't take me seriously'.
But they will because they know that the thinking behind it is very
serious.
> For you, well, I don't think you're going to convince anyone that there exists any connection
> and hence 'mitigation' in your public wares in this forum
How would you know? There are many in the Muslim world who share my
assessment. There are more than a few white nationalists who do too.
They are very likely to be swayed by our discussions. What I hope is
that there will be some on your side too who, observing your inability
to defend the indefensible, observing your revolting squirming and
subject changing, your disgusting lying, your transparent hypocrisy,
will begin to develop a disgust at the hypocrisy of your system and
will then begin to turn against it.
<snip>
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Sure ... the telling 'side' ["Your side won, Mr. Mock!" ---DEM] and
'your system' thing noticed once again along with your Osama and Limonov
belchings while singing their praises and barfing up their philosophies
and quotes. Again, a duplicitous swinging and parroting well after the
bell with the same crap you've been saying for years to various posters.
I'll leave it to the readers to decide, David. Good luck, Psycho®, as
you'll decidedly need it! Most psychotics like yourself eventually come
to the attention of the authorities as the rhetoric very possibly
transfers itself further to the perceived 'cause' and those you bray for
themselves find utility in your willingness to spout their wares and do
their bidding.
I believe I've proven you the psychotic and the patent coward although I
can only hope, for 'your' sake, that such international terror and death
you defend, welcome and embrace never strikes either you or yours even
though you have no problem whatsoever sacrificing the loved ones and
families of others or, most recently, your own if the cause demands same
and as you pointed out on 7-21-05, "Obvious point" the correctness or
otherwise of a military decision cannot be judged by how'd we feel if
one of our own relatives died as a result of it." Have you shared that
'sentiment' with your family? That statement alone spoke volumes for
your psychotic demeanor. Fate can be unceasingly fickle in such matters,
David. Let's hope it doesn't ever become selective.
Ben Cramer
>
>
> Ben Cramer wrote:
>> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:42E172F1...@localnet.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Ben Cramer wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:42E1157E...@localnet.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ben Cramer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1121969563.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Collateral deaths of civilans in war is hardly morally comparable to
>>>>>>>deliberate arrest and extermination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you mind terribly, if I quote this in my next communication with
>>>>>>the IDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They seem unaware of any of this. They just carry on blithely, taking
>>>>>>out an entire apartment building, and its inhabitants, to get one
>>>>>>little man.
>>>>>
Indeed it is. Nothing quite like a little light relief.
> BTW Ben, have you seen CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg anywhere? ;-)
He is unknown to me on a personally, and apart from his postings here, I
have no communication with him. I don't see him as any greater a crackpot
than a significant number of the regular posters here. I am entirely
convinced the ole Joe B'runo takes the cake as the most cracked of the
regular crackpots, as my frequent posts, indulging in a little "pisser
pulling", evidences.
Take care.
Ben
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
What crap? You're the one who has been trying in one thread both to
condemn and to justify the killing of civilians.
> I'll leave it to the readers to decide, David. Good luck, Psycho®, as
> you'll decidedly need it!
Psycho? You're the one who sits at your computer, day after day, typing
out your attempts to justify the nuclear bombing to death of hundreds
of thousands of civilians at a time when their government was trying to
surrender. You're the one who has espoused the interesting thesis that
it is justifiable to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians to
accelerate a surrender that even the Americans eventually conceded
would have happened anyway, without atom bombs or land invasions.
You're the one who has been criticized at length from people on BOTH
sides in alt.revisionism for your insincerity and dishonesty. You're
the one who told a man whom you knew was suffering from a severe
depressive illness to go and kill himself. I put it to you, Mr Lomenzo,
that your tendency to impute mental illness to your political opponents
has more to do with classical Freudian projection of your own
shortcomings than anything else.
> Most psychotics like yourself eventually come
> to the attention of the authorities as the rhetoric very possibly
> transfers itself further to the perceived 'cause' and those you bray for
> themselves find utility in your willingness to spout their wares and do
> their bidding.
My bidding is for people to build intentional communities.
> I believe I've proven you the psychotic
Mr Lomenzo, nobody gives a f***. So what if I were psychotic? That
wouldn't lessen the obviousness of your failures in your attempt to
justify one of the most horrific massacres of all time simply to save
face after you erred repeatedly on a matter of history. It wouldn't
lessen the contrast between your much repeated pompous moral bleatings
about 9/11 and the London bombings on the one hand and your
justification of nuclear bombings of entire cities on the other.
> and the patent coward although I
> can only hope, for 'your' sake, that such international terror and death
> you defend, welcome and embrace never strikes either you or yours even
> though you have no problem whatsoever sacrificing the loved ones and
> families of others or, most recently, your own if the cause demands same
> and as you pointed out on 7-21-05, "Obvious point" the correctness or
> otherwise of a military decision cannot be judged by how'd we feel if
> one of our own relatives died as a result of it." Have you shared that
> 'sentiment' with your family? That statement alone spoke volumes for
> your psychotic demeanor. Fate can be unceasingly fickle in such matters,
> David. Let's hope it doesn't ever become selective.
Once again, the man who says he disapproves of bringing families into
AR dishonestly drags mine into it. But then this merely emphasizes the
point that Mr Lomenzo is a complete hypocrite and a liar.
> Doc Tony
Now what's wrong, Mr Lomenzo? You forgot to type 'more?' Come on -- I
want some more . . . Or are you too yellow?
sm...@nizkor.org
> Psycho? You're the one who sits at your computer, day after day, typing
> out your attempts to justify the nuclear bombing to death of hundreds
> of thousands of civilians at a time when their government was trying to
> surrender.
What twaddle. First of all, Dr. Michael, he doesn't go out of his way
to do this "day after day", as though he's the sort of person who would
spontaneously ejaculate that that the bombing of Nagasaki was a
"glorious day" or even that it was "not nice, but fair". He only even
discusses the matter at all when you bring it up, usually as a
shameless distraction from a point you can't address.
Secondly, that "their government was trying to surrender" is your take
on history, not his. He doesn't think they were. Thus your
characterisation of him as someone who justifies this action even
though they were is a shameless misrepresentation.
Your apparent inablility to reconcile your own warped values with those
of the society around you has really caused you to lose touch with
reality, Dr. Michael. You need to take a deep breath.
Steven Mock
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
If you insist! Well of course the first comment you make that sticks out
like the proverbial red flag is "So what if I were psychotic" [sic] and
this suggests that the diagnosis is hardly new to your ears although it
would explain, as just one example, your blow-off letter to the BNP when
even that organization had you pegged the psycho! So too your admonition
to them that the BNP leadership were doing it all wrong so to speak and
that according to you , "we should be marching shoulder to shoulder with
our Islamic brothers" [sic]. So you see, and this but one example, your
psychotic behavior is hardly limited to your ravings in AR!
Then too, I was under the impression that you again mounted the box [as
you did when Ken 'Pops'® Lewis did the neutral Africa post some weeks
ago and you saw that as an opportunity to make yet another spiel about
the 'culprits' for such problems in Africa and a general Osama/Limonov
blast at the 'system' --anyway, you began up above piping up for the
'many Muslims' and 'white separatists' and the usual 'side' and 'system'
thing and it appeared to be your usual wind-up post N/H gambit as it were.
Further, I said nothing whatever derogatory about your family although
when 'you' make mention of the families and loved ones of literally the
world population [just yesterday was another terror attack in Egypt] and
how 'wonderful' it is to again see your hero Osama bin Laden and other
terrorists 'score' and do their terrorist thing, why should I not ask
how 'you' would feel if those other victims you relish being killed by
terrorists were your own? Then you answered that by writing them off if
the cause required same! Hence, even further proof of your psychotic
demeanor!
You know, David, you mention the isolated community thing again but
again you lack the guts to initiate same so how about this: go to the
mid-east and perhaps do your combo Salaam and kow-tow to those for whom
you bray and offer to do a sort of UK version of John Walker Lindh! Yes!
Have you perhaps considered being the first Occidental to perhaps
volunteer for the Jihad 'martyr' groups? What a feather in Osama's kufi
if he could get a belching stooge like you of his own wares and methods
to do that! That way, at least you would be doing something versus the
multi-year belch of these folks but taking no personal action yourself!
David, 'assume' the word 'more', OK? Your turn!
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Steve! I see the N/H gambit in your future!
Doc Tony
;-)
"So what if I were psychotic?" [sic! DEM -- 7-24-05]
sm...@nizkor.org
Oh <yawn>! I've dealt with the N/H gambit more times than I can count.
Not as many times as you though, mind you. Frankly I've never
understood why you swallow that bit of troll bait time and time again,
when the best answer to the N/H "tu quoque" of "so why then do you
support the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" is always, "I
do? Where?"
That shuts him up real quick. Or, alternately, launches him into his
spiel, the upshot of which (and before I get the shrieks of "liar,
liar, pants on fire", Dr. M, may I specify that this is *me* offering
*my* 20-second interpretation of our volumnous past exchanges on the
matter) is that anyone who has the unmitigated nerve to disagree with
him and disapprove of his warped values is by binary elimination
therefore a Supporter of the System, ergo personally responsible for
every death on the planet since "his side" lost World War II.
The only way to enjoy arguing with a psycho is to take it as an
opportunity to pick apart his dysfunctional mental processes to see how
they work. Then it becomes a learning experience. Arguing the minutia
of history with a creature like him, on the other hand, is about as
productive as discussing medical ethics with Dr. Mengele.
Steven Mock
david_...@onetel.net.uk
You assert that I take no 'personal action' myself. Do you have any
evidence for this or are you making up stories?
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Well, one instance is the "isolated community" ... where is it? You then
said to me that you were not interested in any leadership role so what
does that leave save for your perpetual Osama/Limonov belching and your
publicly embracing international terrorism and publicly hoping for "many
more days like it" [sic DEM "on" 9-11-01] with regard to terrorist
attacks. What personal actions have you taken or does my idea for you to
become the UK version of John Walker Lindh appeal to you?
I sometimes envision you with your cumulative psychotic dreck atop St.
Paul's holding up pictures of Osama bin Laden and Ed Limonov yelling to
all who would hear you below, "Top of the world, Ma!" .... and then
pulling the pin as you take your final exit and perhaps join Crackpot®
Freddy Berg in Valhalla!
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
But therein the thing, Steve! My designation of DEM as a Psycho® is
neither satire nor the application of any irksome needle, no, the
designation is 'reality' --- he is a true to life Psycho® and I've
proven it! Here is a guy, DEM, who relishes and embraces terrorism
trying to use the N/H gambit as a blanket mitigation for HIS comments in
THIS era and for events happening NOW that he 'does' have input into [as
opposed to what happened 60 years ago], sooooooo, when he does as
recently as the London terror attacks make with the "not nice, but fair"
thing when more victims are killed, well, I call him on those psychotic
statements and the usual result, as you well know, is his reversion to
1945 and the N/H gambit!
Doc Tony
sm...@nizkor.org
you say potato, I say... (aw, hell, doesn't work in print).
Steven Mock
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Steve! The record alone -- now how many posters, including yourself BTW,
have begun exchanges with DEM on his psychotic ravings on virtually
any theme only to eventually get the N/H gambit dragged out? Yes? You,
me, Gord, Steve Wolk, John Morris et al. And recall the gem to Morris as
to DEM's 'solution' for ending the war, to wit, "just stop fighting" and
"drop a bomb in an open field".
I then said, inter alia, that one of the things that came out of that
war time decision in August of 1945 and thus the benefit of post bombing
knowledge first hand just what these kinds of weapons could do, they
were mercifully never used again in any subsequent military engagement.
And when MacArthur made his 'own' personal statement during the Korean
War that 'he' would not rule out using atomic weapons, and other
matters, he was relieved of command. It WAS a horror as ALL wars are
horrors [funny DEM doesn't go into the Axis bombing of civilians
including his own nation during the 'Blitz' not to mention the other
cities that were bombed from the air by the Axis powers] but a horror
that prevented a land invasion although DEM tends to discount the
Japanese Code of "Bushido" as 'exaggerated' and the fact that the
Japanese were willing and eager to die for their Emperor whom they
considered divine.
But again, the lesson was made clear after usage that these weapons
could have catastrophic effects and, again, mercifully they were never
used since. Let's ALL hope it stays that way!
Doc Tony
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Oh come on, Mr Lomenzo. Do you have any evidence to support your view
that I take no personal action myself or not. Don't be shy. Tell us.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
By 'us', you mean Osama and Limonov, yes? Again, where is the 'isolated
community' ? So too, your failure to specify 'any' personal actions
other than psychotic rhetoric on your part is interpreted by me that
you've in fact done nothing. Any comment on yesterday's terror attack in
Egypt, David?
Doc Tony
;-)
BTW David, have you seen Crackpot® Fredy Berg around? I think when he
saw your Osama spiels and the BNP blow-off letter in re your 'we should
be marching shoulder to shoulder with our Islamic brothers' thing , he's
now calling 'you' a crackpot! You know how Crackpot® Freddy feels about
those Islamic types ... and the Jews ... and the Christians.
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
david_...@onetel.net.uk
So you have no better evidence to support your allegation?
>Any comment on yesterday's terror attack in Egypt, David?
None. Any comment on the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic
bombings, which you have supported, Mr Lomenzo?
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
<snip>
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
I got 'you' failing to state or show otherwise 'and' I've got the
missing 'isolated community' thing! Sounds decent to me!
>
>>Any comment on yesterday's terror attack in Egypt, David?
>
>
> None. Any comment on the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic
> bombings, which you have supported, Mr Lomenzo?
>
I think you took enough of a beating on that one already ... as you
usually do and having abandoned further recitations once I additionally
demonstrated that you were even willing to write off your own for the
'cause'. That pretty much sealed it. Hence you wisely moved into another
area and are now dancing around your failure to attempt initiating that
oft cited but never attempted isolated community. I will gladly show
your failures in that area too. I mean when the BNP keeps its distance
from you, hey, things are not good for you but then who wants to be
burdened by the embarrassment of a known psycho like yourself, yes? Can
the BNP be blamed? This is why I suggest your giving some serious
thought of going the John Walker Lindh route and making Osama's day!
Perhaps Col. Blandish can assist you with some basic Arabic, buy a kufi,
make like Gary Lauck albeit with an Arabic accent a la 'Affendi'
utterings and such, grow a beard and voila! BTW, I trust you recognized
Jimmy Cagney, yes? Good flick that but 'Cody' [Cagney] on that gas tower
does conjure you atop St. Paul! Same Cody-like 'problem' so to speak.
Doc Tony
;-)
david_...@onetel.net.uk
So from the fact that I fail to state that I'm doing something you
infer that I am not doing something?
> >>Any comment on yesterday's terror attack in Egypt, David?
> >
> >
> > None. Any comment on the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic
> > bombings, which you have supported, Mr Lomenzo?
> >
>
> I think you took enough of a beating on that one already ...
No, let me remind you off what happened. I gave the same reply as
always whenever you repeat this point. You bleat about some bombing in
America or Britain. I then point out that you have publicly supported
the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, cities full of
civilians, by America. You claim that it led to a Japanese surrender
without the same massive loss of life that would (supposedly) have been
entailed had a land invasion occurred. I point out that the Americans'
own Strategic Bombing Survey indicated that the Japanese would probably
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Square 1 : DEM goes on the ropes, hits the canvas 'again' with a loud
thud this time demonstrating he's done absolutely nothing but engage in
Osama/Limonov psychotic belchings as the latter personalities parroting
poster-boi , and ..... out comes the N/H gambit! Again.
But then, what is the AR summa, of sorts, for one David E. Michael? I'd
suggest the following:
"So what if I were psychotic?" --- DEM [doing an obvious real life deja
vu from the observations of others even external to AR !]
"Obvious point: the correctness or otherwise of a military decision
cannot be judged by how'd we feel if one of our own relatives died as a
result of it." --- DEM [and hence writing off his own family as
requisite fodder, if required, for the sake of the 'cause']
"It's not nice, but it's fair." --- DEM [on the 7-7-05 London terror
attack]
" Beautiful .... Wonderful .... with hopefully many more days like it!"
--- DEM 'on' 9-11-01 as the victim deaths and carnage from the
buildings and airplanes were still burning.
"We should be marching shoulder to shoulder with our Islamic brothers!"
--- DEM resignation [in lieu of being dumped] blow-off letter to the
BNP leadership.
"Put those corpses aside for a moment, Mr. G ... " ---DEM [trying to
show the 'plus side' of Hitler's NSDAP.]
"DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER -- VICTORY TO THE NATIONAL ANARCHISTS!"
--- DEM [on his Ed Limonov website]
"Your side won, Mr. Mock!" --- DEM to Steve Mock commenting on the end
of World War II. [!] [Begs the question, what 'side' was/is DEM?]
Ahhhhhh yes! David E. Michael, the psychotic's psychotic!
Isolated Communities? A farce! DEM's lack of guts 'and' self-confessed
desire as stated publicly to not desire any leadership role.
So, readers, what is left but DEM's psychotic ravings and the desire for
the world itself to literally go under as DEM spouts and supports Osama
bin Laden and Ed Limonov but does nothing else save for the psychotic
drool ..... and the N/H gambit when on the canvas.
Psycho® DEM! As duly proven, demonstrated and illustrated many times
over with the best part being DEM himself as confirming in situ deponent
so to speak.
Doc Tony
;-)
Crackpot® Freddy Berg: "David E. Michael? An Islamic Osama loving
crackpot! As you know, all Islamic types, Jews and Christians will go to
the wall when the 'revolt and revolution' comes! It's all on my website!"
Nick Griffin: [BNP honcho] "Don't look at us, Doc Tony! We dumped the
psycho! Hey, check our BNP website for our view of 'Islamic terrorists'
[sic] ... we don't need nutter Michael quoting bin Laden or other
terrorists or he's get his bloody arse kicked!"
Ian Dell [BNP 'Internal Security and Discipline' honcho]: "David E.
Michael? The Osama bootlick? Didn't they lock that bloody nutter up yet?"
Richard "It Now Comes Back ®" Phillips: [semi-stupor] : "I alone remain
... to tell thee!"
;-)
david_...@onetel.net.uk
<snip old stuff>
But you haven't answered my point. Indeed, you've fled from it.
1. Your claim is that I take no 'personal action' myself.
2. I asked you whether you had any evidence to support that claim.
3. You stated that your evidence was my 'failure to specify' such
actions.
4. I asked you: 'So from the fact that I fail to state that I'm doing
something you infer that I am not doing something?'
5. You fled among a disjointed mixture of epithets and
discontextualized quotations.
Now are you going to address the point or not? Will you concede that
you were making up stories about me? Yes or no?
sm...@nizkor.org
> Now are you going to address the point or not? Will you concede that
> you were making up stories about me? Yes or no?
Seems to me that he was offering an honestly held impression, based on
the facts that is aware of. You don't seem able or willing to offer
additional information that would lead anyone to question that
impression.
Again, your inability to distinguish between having a different
perspective from yours and lying would serve to support Doc Tony's
assessment of your psychotic nature.
Steven Mock
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>
> <snip old stuff>
>
>>>>>>>>>>If you insist! Well of course the first comment you make that sticks out
>>>>>>>>>>like the proverbial red flag is "So what if I were psychotic" [sic] and
>>>>>>>>>>this suggests that the diagnosis is hardly new to your ears although it
>>>>>>>>>>would explain, as just one example, your blow-off letter to the BNP when
>>>>>>>>>>even that organization had you pegged the psycho! So too your admonition
>>>>>>>>>>to them that the BNP leadership were doing it all wrong so to speak and
>>>>>>>>>>that according to you , "we should be marching shoulder to shoulder with
>>>>>>>>>>our Islamic brothers" [sic]. So you see, and this but one example, your
>>>>>>>>>>psychotic behavior is hardly limited to your ravings in AR!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then too, I was under the impression that you again mounted the box [as
>>>>>>>>>>you did when Ken 'Pops'Ž Lewis did the neutral Africa post some weeks
>>>>>>>>pulling the pin as you take your final exit and perhaps join CrackpotŽ
>>PsychoŽ DEM! As duly proven, demonstrated and illustrated many times
>>over with the best part being DEM himself as confirming in situ deponent
>>so to speak.
>>
>>
>>Doc Tony
>>;-)
>>
>>CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg: "David E. Michael? An Islamic Osama loving
>>crackpot! As you know, all Islamic types, Jews and Christians will go to
>>the wall when the 'revolt and revolution' comes! It's all on my website!"
>>
>>Nick Griffin: [BNP honcho] "Don't look at us, Doc Tony! We dumped the
>>psycho! Hey, check our BNP website for our view of 'Islamic terrorists'
>>[sic] ... we don't need nutter Michael quoting bin Laden or other
>>terrorists or he's get his bloody arse kicked!"
>>
>>Ian Dell [BNP 'Internal Security and Discipline' honcho]: "David E.
>>Michael? The Osama bootlick? Didn't they lock that bloody nutter up yet?"
>>
>>Richard "It Now Comes Back Ž" Phillips: [semi-stupor] : "I alone remain
>>... to tell thee!"
>
>
> But you haven't answered my point. Indeed, you've fled from it.
>
> 1. Your claim is that I take no 'personal action' myself.
>
> 2. I asked you whether you had any evidence to support that claim.
>
> 3. You stated that your evidence was my 'failure to specify' such
> actions.
>
> 4. I asked you: 'So from the fact that I fail to state that I'm doing
> something you infer that I am not doing something?'
>
> 5. You fled among a disjointed mixture of epithets and
> discontextualized quotations.
>
> Now are you going to address the point or not? Will you concede that
> you were making up stories about me? Yes or no?
>
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
The quotes buried you, David. Live with it.
Doc Tony
;-)
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> > Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> >
> > <snip old stuff>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>If you insist! Well of course the first comment you make that sticks out
> >>>>>>>>>>like the proverbial red flag is "So what if I were psychotic" [sic] and
> >>>>>>>>>>this suggests that the diagnosis is hardly new to your ears although it
> >>>>>>>>>>would explain, as just one example, your blow-off letter to the BNP when
> >>>>>>>>>>even that organization had you pegged the psycho! So too your admonition
> >>>>>>>>>>to them that the BNP leadership were doing it all wrong so to speak and
> >>>>>>>>>>that according to you , "we should be marching shoulder to shoulder with
> >>>>>>>>>>our Islamic brothers" [sic]. So you see, and this but one example, your
> >>>>>>>>>>psychotic behavior is hardly limited to your ravings in AR!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Then too, I was under the impression that you again mounted the box [as
> >>>>>>>>>>you did when Ken 'Pops'® Lewis did the neutral Africa post some weeks
> >>>>>>>>pulling the pin as you take your final exit and perhaps join Crackpot®
> >>Psycho® DEM! As duly proven, demonstrated and illustrated many times
> >>over with the best part being DEM himself as confirming in situ deponent
> >>so to speak.
> >>
> >>
> >>Doc Tony
> >>;-)
> >>
> >>Crackpot® Freddy Berg: "David E. Michael? An Islamic Osama loving
> >>crackpot! As you know, all Islamic types, Jews and Christians will go to
> >>the wall when the 'revolt and revolution' comes! It's all on my website!"
> >>
> >>Nick Griffin: [BNP honcho] "Don't look at us, Doc Tony! We dumped the
> >>psycho! Hey, check our BNP website for our view of 'Islamic terrorists'
> >>[sic] ... we don't need nutter Michael quoting bin Laden or other
> >>terrorists or he's get his bloody arse kicked!"
> >>
> >>Ian Dell [BNP 'Internal Security and Discipline' honcho]: "David E.
> >>Michael? The Osama bootlick? Didn't they lock that bloody nutter up yet?"
> >>
> >>Richard "It Now Comes Back ®" Phillips: [semi-stupor] : "I alone remain
> >>... to tell thee!"
> >
> >
> > But you haven't answered my point. Indeed, you've fled from it.
> >
> > 1. Your claim is that I take no 'personal action' myself.
> >
> > 2. I asked you whether you had any evidence to support that claim.
> >
> > 3. You stated that your evidence was my 'failure to specify' such
> > actions.
> >
> > 4. I asked you: 'So from the fact that I fail to state that I'm doing
> > something you infer that I am not doing something?'
> >
> > 5. You fled among a disjointed mixture of epithets and
> > discontextualized quotations.
> >
> > Now are you going to address the point or not? Will you concede that
> > you were making up stories about me? Yes or no?
> >
> > David
> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
> >
>
>
> The quotes buried you, David. Live with it.
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
No idea what that means. Perhaps it would help if you were to
communicate in standard English. However, this is the point you're
running from now:
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Let him stew in his own juice, Mock. It might be revolting to watch but
by trying to rescue him you're just emphasizing his inability to deal
with the situation.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>
>>david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>>
>>>Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>>>
>>><snip old stuff>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If you insist! Well of course the first comment you make that sticks out
>>>>>>>>>>>>like the proverbial red flag is "So what if I were psychotic" [sic] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>this suggests that the diagnosis is hardly new to your ears although it
>>>>>>>>>>>>would explain, as just one example, your blow-off letter to the BNP when
>>>>>>>>>>>>even that organization had you pegged the psycho! So too your admonition
>>>>>>>>>>>>to them that the BNP leadership were doing it all wrong so to speak and
>>>>>>>>>>>>that according to you , "we should be marching shoulder to shoulder with
>>>>>>>>>>>>our Islamic brothers" [sic]. So you see, and this but one example, your
>>>>>>>>>>>>psychotic behavior is hardly limited to your ravings in AR!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Then too, I was under the impression that you again mounted the box [as
>>>>>>>>>>>>you did when Ken 'Pops'Ž Lewis did the neutral Africa post some weeks
>>>>>>>>>>pulling the pin as you take your final exit and perhaps join CrackpotŽ
>>>>PsychoŽ DEM! As duly proven, demonstrated and illustrated many times
>>>>over with the best part being DEM himself as confirming in situ deponent
>>>>so to speak.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Doc Tony
>>>>;-)
>>>>
>>>>CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg: "David E. Michael? An Islamic Osama loving
>>>>crackpot! As you know, all Islamic types, Jews and Christians will go to
>>>>the wall when the 'revolt and revolution' comes! It's all on my website!"
>>>>
>>>>Nick Griffin: [BNP honcho] "Don't look at us, Doc Tony! We dumped the
>>>>psycho! Hey, check our BNP website for our view of 'Islamic terrorists'
>>>>[sic] ... we don't need nutter Michael quoting bin Laden or other
>>>>terrorists or he's get his bloody arse kicked!"
>>>>
>>>>Ian Dell [BNP 'Internal Security and Discipline' honcho]: "David E.
>>>>Michael? The Osama bootlick? Didn't they lock that bloody nutter up yet?"
>>>>
>>>>Richard "It Now Comes Back Ž" Phillips: [semi-stupor] : "I alone remain
I don't think this ploy is going to help matters, David! But then you
always make poor choices and avoid that which in fact buries you! Your
own words in this forum bulldozed you under and which, and ironically,
like N/H 60 years ago, had nothing whatever to do with any input from
me! Let me illustrate what's happening now to you ....
"Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses? [then louder....] Are
there no prisons? Are there no work houses? [and louder still ...] Are
there no prisons? Are there no work houses?"
Then apply the analogy ... and all your AR quotes! Viz., "So what if I
were psychotic?" [DEM, 7-21-05] ... then louder ... and louder still.
Doc Tony
;-)
[CAMEO!]
Mike Stein: "Ahhhh! Dickens!"
Doc Tony: "Indeed!"
Stein: "Do you really think DEM will apply the connection?"
Doc Tony: "Doesn't really matter, Mike! The damage has been done by
DEM's own words! Next comes the "Your side won, Mr. Mock!" DEM quote and
perhaps DEM can explain to me what 'side' he represents since I can
state with historical fact that the UK and the UK Commonwealth Nations
were World War II 'Allies' so DEM as a known UK citizen telling Steve
Mock that 'your side won' is just one of many DEM psychotic utterances."
Stein --- [returns to his beloved viola bass cello]
Those 8 haunting notes .... Pachelbel's Canon in D Major! One of my
favorites!
;-)
sm...@nizkor.org
on all levels.
But your delusions of adequacy are unsurprising. Loss of touch with
reality is the very definition of psychosis, is it not?
Steven Mock
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> >
> >>david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>>Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
> >>>
> >>><snip old stuff>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>If you insist! Well of course the first comment you make that sticks out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>like the proverbial red flag is "So what if I were psychotic" [sic] and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>this suggests that the diagnosis is hardly new to your ears although it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>would explain, as just one example, your blow-off letter to the BNP when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>even that organization had you pegged the psycho! So too your admonition
> >>>>>>>>>>>>to them that the BNP leadership were doing it all wrong so to speak and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>that according to you , "we should be marching shoulder to shoulder with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>our Islamic brothers" [sic]. So you see, and this but one example, your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>psychotic behavior is hardly limited to your ravings in AR!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Then too, I was under the impression that you again mounted the box [as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>you did when Ken 'Pops'® Lewis did the neutral Africa post some weeks
> >>>>>>>>>>pulling the pin as you take your final exit and perhaps join Crackpot®
> >>>>Psycho® DEM! As duly proven, demonstrated and illustrated many times
> >>>>over with the best part being DEM himself as confirming in situ deponent
> >>>>so to speak.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Doc Tony
> >>>>;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>Crackpot® Freddy Berg: "David E. Michael? An Islamic Osama loving
> >>>>crackpot! As you know, all Islamic types, Jews and Christians will go to
> >>>>the wall when the 'revolt and revolution' comes! It's all on my website!"
> >>>>
> >>>>Nick Griffin: [BNP honcho] "Don't look at us, Doc Tony! We dumped the
> >>>>psycho! Hey, check our BNP website for our view of 'Islamic terrorists'
> >>>>[sic] ... we don't need nutter Michael quoting bin Laden or other
> >>>>terrorists or he's get his bloody arse kicked!"
> >>>>
> >>>>Ian Dell [BNP 'Internal Security and Discipline' honcho]: "David E.
> >>>>Michael? The Osama bootlick? Didn't they lock that bloody nutter up yet?"
> >>>>
> >>>>Richard "It Now Comes Back ®" Phillips: [semi-stupor] : "I alone remain
Well, I'd much rather you just answer the question. Here it is again:
1. Your claim is that I take no 'personal action' myself.
2. I asked you whether you had any evidence to support that claim.
3. You stated that your evidence was my 'failure to specify' such
actions.
4. I asked you: 'So from the fact that I fail to state that I'm doing
something you infer that I am not doing something?'
5. You fled among a disjointed mixture of epithets and
discontextualized quotations.
Now are you going to address the point or not? Will you concede that
you were making up stories about me? Yes or no?
<snip evasion>
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> Seems to me he's doing a stellar job of illustrating your utter failure
> on all levels.
He's doing a spectacular job of evading straight questions.
> But your delusions of adequacy are unsurprising. Loss of touch with
> reality is the very definition of psychosis, is it not?
Go read Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness. Excellent (if overstated)
discussion of, inter alia, the way in which dissent is medicalized.
> Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > Seems to me he's doing a stellar job of illustrating your utter failure
> > on all levels.
>
> He's doing a spectacular job of evading straight questions.
So what *have* you done over the past, oh, decade or so that qualifies
as a meaningful effort toward your cause?
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
> Go read Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness. Excellent (if overstated)
> discussion of, inter alia, the way in which dissent is medicalized.
Hey, I don't think you're a sociopath because you disagree with me. I
think you're a sociopath because you evidently believe, and express the
belief that killing children amounts to a legitimate form of political
discourse.
Steven Mock
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>
>>david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>>
>>>Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip old stuff>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you insist! Well of course the first comment you make that sticks out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>like the proverbial red flag is "So what if I were psychotic" [sic] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this suggests that the diagnosis is hardly new to your ears although it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would explain, as just one example, your blow-off letter to the BNP when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>even that organization had you pegged the psycho! So too your admonition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to them that the BNP leadership were doing it all wrong so to speak and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that according to you , "we should be marching shoulder to shoulder with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>our Islamic brothers" [sic]. So you see, and this but one example, your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>psychotic behavior is hardly limited to your ravings in AR!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then too, I was under the impression that you again mounted the box [as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you did when Ken 'Pops'Ž Lewis did the neutral Africa post some weeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>pulling the pin as you take your final exit and perhaps join CrackpotŽ
>>>>>>PsychoŽ DEM! As duly proven, demonstrated and illustrated many times
>>>>>>over with the best part being DEM himself as confirming in situ deponent
>>>>>>so to speak.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doc Tony
>>>>>>;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg: "David E. Michael? An Islamic Osama loving
>>>>>>crackpot! As you know, all Islamic types, Jews and Christians will go to
>>>>>>the wall when the 'revolt and revolution' comes! It's all on my website!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nick Griffin: [BNP honcho] "Don't look at us, Doc Tony! We dumped the
>>>>>>psycho! Hey, check our BNP website for our view of 'Islamic terrorists'
>>>>>>[sic] ... we don't need nutter Michael quoting bin Laden or other
>>>>>>terrorists or he's get his bloody arse kicked!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ian Dell [BNP 'Internal Security and Discipline' honcho]: "David E.
>>>>>>Michael? The Osama bootlick? Didn't they lock that bloody nutter up yet?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Richard "It Now Comes Back Ž" Phillips: [semi-stupor] : "I alone remain
David -- this is your now 4th verbatim repetition of the "I won't say
what I've done but you prove that I've done nothing " gambit and I think
you look utterly stupid in pursuing same. You've also avoided all
comment on your 'isolated community' fiasco, essentially due to your own
failings and lack of guts to initiate same and now you're reduced to
simply juvenile repetition akin to the N/G gambit while your own quoted
psychotic words from 9-11-01 onward literally speak volumes and in fact
demonstrate your mental problems and psychotic demeanor. I really think
at this point you should leave it up to the readers to decide your,
shall we say, 'case' and perhaps consider, for 'your' sake, beating feet
as CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
You've taken yet another very serious public beating and yet you're
reduced to literally begging for more and in fact asking me in one of
your posts for even additional exposure. This is a sign that your mental
illness is now taking 'total' control of you and I believe you will do
yourself further psychological harm by demonstrating what is already
painfully and embarrassingly obvious .... your AR quotes notwithstanding.
However, my stated mission was to bury you using your own words and that
has been accomplished in spades although you seem to relish going even
deeper into the ground and so that can in fact be accommodated but I do
think you should leave it to the readers to decide your 'case.' Your call!
In any event, can you explain what you meant by 'your side' when you
told Steve Mock that "Your side won, Mr. Mock" with regard to World War
II because this comment alone is a psychotic one where you attempt to
distance yourself from your own nation and UK citizenship with the
cogent question being 'why' although you're psychotic and this explains
same but your own explanation would help.
david_...@onetel.net.uk
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
<snip old stuff>
> >>>>The quotes buried you, David. Live with it.
No it isn't. It's the fourth repetition of a set of questions that you
won't answer.
> and I think
> you look utterly stupid in pursuing same.
Well Steve Mock evidently doesn't as he clearly deems it necessary to
intervene in the thread in an attempt to rescue you!
> You've also avoided all
> comment on your 'isolated community' fiasco, essentially due to your own
> failings and lack of guts to initiate same and now you're reduced to
> simply juvenile repetition akin to the N/G gambit while your own quoted
> psychotic words from 9-11-01 onward literally speak volumes and in fact
> demonstrate your mental problems and psychotic demeanor. I really think
> at this point you should leave it up to the readers to decide your,
> shall we say, 'case' and perhaps consider, for 'your' sake, beating feet
> as Crackpot® Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
No way, sunshine. I'm going to continue skewering you here for the rest
of your days. I am mindful of the fact that you haven't addressed the
Nagasaki/Hiroshima points fully and I intend to return to that matter
in due course as I dislike hypocrites and I PARTICULARLY dislike
cowardly American hypocrites who don't have the guts to argue their
case in a normal way. However, first I want answers to the questions
I've asked about the stories you've been making up about me.
> You've taken yet another very serious public beating and yet you're
> reduced to literally begging for more and in fact asking me in one of
> your posts for even additional exposure. This is a sign that your mental
> illness is now taking 'total' control of you and I believe you will do
> yourself further psychological harm by demonstrating what is already
> painfully and embarrassingly obvious .... your AR quotes notwithstanding.
Who cares?
> However, my stated mission was to bury you using your own words and that
> has been accomplished in spades although you seem to relish going even
> deeper into the ground and so that can in fact be accommodated but I do
> think you should leave it to the readers to decide your 'case.' Your call!
> In any event, can you explain what you meant by 'your side' when you
> told Steve Mock that "Your side won, Mr. Mock" with regard to World War
> II because this comment alone is a psychotic one where you attempt to
> distance yourself from your own nation and UK citizenship with the
> cogent question being 'why' although you're psychotic and this explains
> same but your own explanation would help.
I'm not explaining anything to you until I get straight answers to
straight questions. Here are the questions you've been avoiding:
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>as CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
5th repetition of the gambit and the 'who cares' so noted as the illness
'speaks' FOR you. If you don't wish to respond to the Steve Mock
comment, will you explain why you are willing to obviously write off
your own kin for the 'cause' and hence view same as requisite fodder
along with the other victims of terror including and since 9-11-01 which
you embrace and relish using wordage such as "wonderful" and "beautiful
day" and the public wish for "many more days like it" and of your 'own'
nation being so involved in a terror attack on 7-7-05 , "not nice, but
fair" !
Then we can move on to the 'why' of your utter failure to attempt an
'isolated community' while barfing up spiel after spiel what ails the
world and its 'decay and degeneracy' while doing absolutely nothing
about it save for the parroted and quite sickening Osama/Limonov belch.
Have you in fact considered going the John Walker Lindh route?
Still think you're doing well, David? Good! That's the plan as the
exposure continues. You wanted it and I can assure you you'll get it.
Question is, is such exposure worth the trade off of simply repeating
yourself for a gambit that makes you look stupid because hey, what have
you done save for the Osama/Limonov parrot and the belching lackey for
same who must simply love stooges like you to do their bidding and even
have them, as a bonus, turn against their own nation. Or kin, if that is
required for the cause.
More still? Your call! You may also wish to respond to Steve Mock who
had some questions for you which I see are being met by you with the
track shoes in full motion therein.
Doc Tony
;-)
Gord McFee
<42E42C2D...@localnet.com>, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
<doc...@localnet.com> wrote:
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > I think 'sociopath' is probably a more accurate appelation. But hey
> > you say potato, I say... (aw, hell, doesn't work in print).
> >
> > Steven Mock
>
> Steve! The record alone -- now how many posters, including yourself BTW,
> have begun exchanges with DEM on his psychotic ravings on virtually
> any theme only to eventually get the N/H gambit dragged out? Yes? You,
> me, Gord, Steve Wolk, John Morris et al. And recall the gem to Morris as
> to DEM's 'solution' for ending the war, to wit, "just stop fighting" and
> "drop a bomb in an open field".
He also suggested dropping a bomb in the ocean. I guess he figured
that if the Japanese wouldn't surrender, the fish would.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>as Crackpot® Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
You have evidence to substantiate your allegation that I am willing to
'write off' my own kin? Please produce it.
<snip>
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>as Crackpot® Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
<snip>
That's because I still don't have a straight answer from you. Here we
go again:
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>as Crackpot® Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
<snip>
> Then we can move on to the 'why' of your utter failure to attempt an
> 'isolated community' while barfing up spiel after spiel what ails the
> world and its 'decay and degeneracy' while doing absolutely nothing
> about it save for the parroted and quite sickening Osama/Limonov belch.
> Have you in fact considered going the John Walker Lindh route?
What evidence do you have that I am 'doing nothing about it'? Is this
another of your inventions?
<snip>
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>as Crackpot® Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
<snip>
> Still think you're doing well, David? Good! That's the plan as the
> exposure continues. You wanted it and I can assure you you'll get it.
> Question is, is such exposure worth the trade off of simply repeating
> yourself for a gambit that makes you look stupid because hey, what have
> you done save for the Osama/Limonov parrot and the belching lackey for
> same who must simply love stooges like you to do their bidding and even
> have them, as a bonus, turn against their own nation. Or kin, if that is
> required for the cause.
You repeat your points, I'll repeat mine. You can't back up your
assertions and I intend to show that.
> More still? Your call! You may also wish to respond to Steve Mock who
> had some questions for you which I see are being met by you with the
> track shoes in full motion therein.
I'll respond to Mock when I start getting straight answers from you.
He's trying to rescue you because he can see you making a complete ass
of yourself.
You might start by answering this:
sm...@nizkor.org
> I'll respond to Mock when I start getting straight answers from you.
> He's trying to rescue you because he can see you making a complete ass
> of yourself.
Really? What evidence do you have that I am 'trying to rescue' him
because I can see him 'making a complete ass' of himself? Is this
another of your inventions?
You see, Dr. M? I can play the same asinine games you can.
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
> I'll respond to Mock when I start getting straight answers from you.
> He's trying to rescue you because he can see you making a complete ass
> of yourself.
Really? What evidence do you have that I am 'trying to rescue' him
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
#6, 7, and 8 of the repetition gambit and so .... we do but turn another
page in the further exposure of Psycho® David E. Michael [DEM].
Cracks in the wall, David, and the old multiple post thing noted as well
but let me explain the cracks in the wall remark. Now you go on about
having discussion in a "normal way" but then the illness takes you over
and you add and say to me that you will keep doing your repetitive froth
along with the N/H gambit "for the rest of your days" which of course is
not a 'normal' statement but a psychotic statement. 'Telling', if you
will, that the mental illness which now controls you mandates the 'to
the rest of my days' comment hence clearly showing the psychological
grip that the psychosis has on you.
Further the noted use of the word "stories" I've allegedly been 'making
up' about you and, once again, telling wordage in that yet another in
situ 'transference' is occurring as the illness dictates certain
responses. In fact, you had the same episode some weeks ago when you
worked up such a psychotic froth about 1945 that it literally
transferred itself to 2005 and the present, 60 years later, and you
ended the paragraph by a generalized "You people are filth!"
declaration! Do you recall that? I do but this in itself showed the
'cracks' as the illness controls you and thus further evidence is given
via the wordage and redundancies and/or repetitions as to your psychotic
demeanor!
It remains painfully revealing and psychologically telling in itself
that you trade the repetitive and now the ol' multi-post repetitive
gambit for such public exposure of both your mental illness 'and'
susceptibility of being used as a willing tool by the likes of Osama and
Limonov but then it is necessary on my part to demonstrate these things
as additional proofs of my assessment of you as a psychotic.
So too, you even say that you intend to 'keep' dragging out the N/H
gambit because, well, what else do you have? The quotes I listed of your
own psychotic statements since 9-11-01 speak volumes without a word from
me so this is merely icing on the proverbial cake. That you 'welcome'
and indeed practically beg for such exposure and 'more' exposure on top
of that may quite possibly be a subliminal cry to in fact 'be' so
publicly revealed and exposed as a psychotic so that possibly an inner
catharsis of sorts may await you as a form of inner turmoil relief! It
is not unknown for psychotics to literally froth and drool and these
'cracks' of wordage ["for the rest of your days" et al] are the
beginning .... of the final collapse.
Could take time but that's not a problem and as long as you are willing
and in fact volunteer to be so exposed and revealed for the psycho you
are, hey, I'll merely help you along using your own words as the
requisite proofs! I still think you underestimate the readership tho'
but then when has that ever been an issue for you because you've already
informed [and insulted] the AR readership, both sides mind you, how you
feel about their families and loved ones as just so much requisite
fodder for those you bray for and support so what could you possibly say
after that readership slap in the face where you have to worry about how
they view you, yes? And now that they know you're willing to sacrifice
your own family as well for the cause, well, can you get any more
psychotic than that?
Still more? Your call!
Doc Tony
;-)
"Obvious point: the correctness or otherwise of a military decision
cannot be judged by how'd we feel if one of our own relatives died as a
result of it." [DEM ... being fully prepared, as I interpret this
statement, to sacrifice his own family [and in addition to the 'other'
victims of world-wide terror] as requisite fodder should the 'cause'
demand same. Perhaps 'not nice' [sic] but as DEM says when in fact his
own nation was struck by terror on 7-7-05, "it's fair." [sic] ]
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
Steve Wolk
"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:6jo9e1lm5rjf3h1ac...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:02:53 -0400, in
> <42E42C2D...@localnet.com>, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> <doc...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > > I think 'sociopath' is probably a more accurate appelation. But hey
> > > you say potato, I say... (aw, hell, doesn't work in print).
> > >
> > > Steven Mock
> >
> > Steve! The record alone -- now how many posters, including yourself BTW,
> > have begun exchanges with DEM on his psychotic ravings on virtually
> > any theme only to eventually get the N/H gambit dragged out? Yes? You,
> > me, Gord, Steve Wolk, John Morris et al. And recall the gem to Morris as
> > to DEM's 'solution' for ending the war, to wit, "just stop fighting" and
> > "drop a bomb in an open field".
>
> He also suggested dropping a bomb in the ocean. I guess he figured
> that if the Japanese wouldn't surrender, the fish would.
Casualties at Okinawa were 110,000 Japanese dead, 100,000 civilian
Okinawans, and 50,000 Americans dead and wounded. Japanese troops fought to
the last man. Can you imagine the carnage if their homeland had been
invaded?
Contrary to the lying DEM's assertion that the Japanese were trying to
surrender before the bombs were dropped, the truth is that they wanted to
negotiate a cease fire without an American occupation of Japan. In other
words, a cessation of hostilities with the terms dictated by the defeated.
Fat chance.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Worse Steve was the Emperor's surrender spiel [which I quoted in full to
DEM and the website where I got it] where the Emperor says,
specifically, and this spiel 'before' the Allies set foot in Japan and
were still dealing with the Kamikaze and land fighting, that the ONLY
reason he is 'now' [read: 'after' Nagasaki] accepting the Potsdam
declaration for unconditional surrender was to prevent further loss of
life due the the 'enemy use of a most cruel new bomb' YET in the same
speech he alludes [read: moans] the loss of 'Japanese friends' that have
'abandoned Japan' and their, ready?, "LIBERATION EFFORTS" [!] of the
Far East .... his word BTW ..."LIBERATION" [!] which is a crock and a
half from the word go as --ALL-- Japanese actions since the 'invasion'
of China [and its outrageous atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese Army
on Chinese 'civilians'] were via force of arms. Some "liberation".
Meanwhile while the Emperor 'could' have ended it after Hiroshima, but
he says nothing and I'm afraid that Emperor penned Haiku poetry about
how wars are 'unhealthy' doesn't translate nor mitigate the act of
accepting surrender. Only after Nagasaki did he surrender and hence, as
you point out, prevent a land invasion which, IMO, would have made the
figures at N/H sound almost paltry! This was a people willing to die for
their divine Emperor and the Bushido Code notwithstanding which DEM
relegated to being, in his opinion, 'exaggerated'. Sure, meanwilke on
island after island where there was no hope whatsover of further
supplies and relief forces, they deid in droves rather then the
Bushido'shame' of surrender.
Imagine the home islands and its literally millions of casualties, both
sides. Millions! But then with DEM having 60 years of hindsight 20-20
vision behind him, it's always easy 60 years later to say there 'might'
have been another way ... his 'solutions' tho' ... "simply stop
fighting", "drop a bomb [of the just 2 we had] in an open field" and, as
Gord alluded to in re DEM, "drop a bomb in the ocean." But then, a
matter has already avoided, had that 'not' worked, then what and of
course DEM reverts to the he was 'ready to surrender' gambit. Sure.
Ready ... but did NOT despite the warnings that utter devastation would
be the result which he no doubt interpreted as Allied rhetoric. Bottom
line, AFTER we saw the results which 'then' was anyone;s guess as to max
potential of the weapons, it was mercifully never used again.
Doc Tony
Doc Tony
david_...@onetel.net.uk
A simple question for you to avoid, Mr Lomenzo.
Which is more 'psychotic'? Your support for the nuclear bombing to
death of 170,000 Japanese civilians by the American government, knowing
full well as they did (cf. Dulle's comments, American intercepts and
Truman's own writings) that the Japanese emperor had already attempted
to initiate surrender negotiations? Or my declaration that I will
pursue you in this forum for that support for the rest of your days?
Another question for you to avoid, Mr Lomenzo.
Which is more 'psychotic'? Your assertion that it was OK to slaughter
170,000 men women and children by nuclear bombing because 'readiness to
surrender is not surrender'? Or my declaration that I will pursue you
in this forum for that position for the rest of your days?
Go on -- dodge it.
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote:
<snip>
> And now that they know you're willing to sacrifice
> your own family as well for the cause, well, can you get any more
> psychotic than that?
<snip>
What evidence do you have to support that allegation, Mr Lomenzo?
Is it not hypocritical for you -- a man who has stated that he doesn't
believe in bringing people's families into alt.revisionism -- to
attempt to attack me by telling lies about me and mine?
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>>>>>as CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
>>page in the further exposure of PsychoŽ David E. Michael [DEM].
>>
>>Cracks in the wall, David, and the old multiple post thing noted as well
>>but let me explain the cracks in the wall remark. Now you go on about
>>having discussion in a "normal way" but then the illness takes you over
>>and you add and say to me that you will keep doing your repetitive froth
>>along with the N/H gambit "for the rest of your days" which of course is
>>not a 'normal' statement but a psychotic statement. 'Telling', if you
>>will, that the mental illness which now controls you mandates the 'to
>>the rest of my days' comment hence clearly showing the psychological
>>grip that the psychosis has on you.
>
>
> A simple question for you to avoid, Mr Lomenzo.
>
> Which is more 'psychotic'? Your support for the nuclear bombing to
> death of 170,000 Japanese civilians by the American government, knowing
> full well as they did (cf. Dulle's comments, American intercepts and
> Truman's own writings) that the Japanese emperor had already attempted
> to initiate surrender negotiations? Or my declaration that I will
> pursue you in this forum for that support for the rest of your days?
>
> Another question for you to avoid, Mr Lomenzo.
>
> Which is more 'psychotic'? Your assertion that it was OK to slaughter
> 170,000 men women and children by nuclear bombing because 'readiness to
> surrender is not surrender'? Or my declaration that I will pursue you
> in this forum for that position for the rest of your days?
>
> Go on -- dodge it.
>
#10! And so we continue .... WHY are you willing to sacrifice your own
family, and say so publicly, for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists?
Only a rank coward would do that! And a psychotic. Why are you willing
to be used and stooge for these terrorists?
I don't know why you don't abandon your family entirely and go over
there for a chance to become a member of the Jihad 'martyr' groups! Why
don't you 'do' something save for braying for these terrorists or
anarachists for that matter who wish to see the whole system crumble
like your other hero Limonov? Now here the readership has to be
wondering why don't simply list what you've done over the years yet,
like an imbecile, you elect to repeat the same gambit 10 times now when
I mention 'your' isolated community and you run and so then I say [and
others ask as well] 'what' have you done and you make with the 'I won't
say but you can't prove I've done nothing' gambit.
I've never seen anyone take such public punishment at the trade off of
their integrity albeit demonstrated cowardice and mental aberrations as
you and not even touch your 'known' multi-year psychotic statements made
in this forum supporting international terror [et al] yet remain content
to simply repeat the same thing when the simple solution to to list what
you've done! But when you in fact are exposed at your own public behest
as the psychotic and rank coward, you relish same! I think you actually
prefer it that way [sort of like the popular walk in the street and
self-flagellation thing so popular with your heroes] for some additional
deep rooted psychotic reasons!
And snipping my remarks wholesale now [without notation] and multiple
repetitive posts doesn't help your 'cause' but the willingness to
sacrifice and write off your own family, I mean that's .... psychotic!
You are a quite disgusting individual and no wonder even the BNP won't
have you but then you 'did' tell them in your resignation blow-off
letter that they should be 'marching shoulder to shoulder' with
apparently 'your' Islamic brothers although Nick Griffin as BNP honcho
has a much different view of UK Islamic terrorism than you do. I suggest
you view the website and from what they say, the last thing they would
want is an Osama bin Laden belching parrot. No wonder there was a
parting of the ways! What an embarrassment you would be to 'any'
organization including the off the wall versions as you inform them too
that their families and loved ones are fodder for the cause. Or, put
another way, as an Englishman apparently trapped in a Jihad terrorist
body!
Have you ever considered renouncing your UK citizenship? I have to
assume you've been interrogated and are being monitored by the British
internal security authorities because any coward who would support
international terrorism 'and' state in a public forum over a multi-year
period that victims getting killed via terrorism is 'wonderful' and
'beautiful' with the hope for 'many more days like it' and, worst of
all, who would apparently 'understand' [per your quote and comment which
you snipped] if those victims were even his own blood and family .... is
mentally ill.
I pity you and the family who has to suffer with your mental illness.
What chance does that youngster have with your psychotic drool? Some
role model father and husband you are in view of your known public
record and twisted psychotic rhetoric where the lives of victims count
naught for the good of the Osama/Limonov cause. You publicly turn your
back on both you own nation and people {"Your side won, Mr. Mock"]
--and-- you do so, if necessary, on your own blood to boot. Disgusting!
Filth actually. You should seek psychiatric interventions if you haven't
already! Or, as I stated, do the John Walker Lindh thing and be done
with it.
Doc Tony
PS: If your gambit continues, well, for 11 through 15, I just add a
'ditto' and pick you up along the way. In the meantime, others have
comments and questions. So get the N/H gambit ready!
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>>>>>as Crackpot® Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
> >>page in the further exposure of Psycho® David E. Michael [DEM].
> >>
> >>Cracks in the wall, David, and the old multiple post thing noted as well
> >>but let me explain the cracks in the wall remark. Now you go on about
> >>having discussion in a "normal way" but then the illness takes you over
> >>and you add and say to me that you will keep doing your repetitive froth
> >>along with the N/H gambit "for the rest of your days" which of course is
> >>not a 'normal' statement but a psychotic statement. 'Telling', if you
> >>will, that the mental illness which now controls you mandates the 'to
> >>the rest of my days' comment hence clearly showing the psychological
> >>grip that the psychosis has on you.
> >
> >
> > A simple question for you to avoid, Mr Lomenzo.
> >
> > Which is more 'psychotic'? Your support for the nuclear bombing to
> > death of 170,000 Japanese civilians by the American government, knowing
> > full well as they did (cf. Dulle's comments, American intercepts and
> > Truman's own writings) that the Japanese emperor had already attempted
> > to initiate surrender negotiations? Or my declaration that I will
> > pursue you in this forum for that support for the rest of your days?
> >
> > Another question for you to avoid, Mr Lomenzo.
> >
> > Which is more 'psychotic'? Your assertion that it was OK to slaughter
> > 170,000 men women and children by nuclear bombing because 'readiness to
> > surrender is not surrender'? Or my declaration that I will pursue you
> > in this forum for that position for the rest of your days?
> >
> > Go on -- dodge it.
> >
>
>
> #10! And so we continue .... WHY are you willing to sacrifice your own
> family,
<snip>
I'm not, so why are you telling lies about it?
And why are you -- someone who has claimed to be opposed to bringing
other people's families into alt.revisionism -- telling lies about me
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
The part you snipped in the other thread! Your quote! I interpret that
quote that just as 'other' world victims of terrorists mean nothing to
you, neither are your own immune if the cause [with relatives, per you,
being a NON consideration] demands it . Find the snipped stuff and read
it. I firmly believe you would be ready to sacrifice your family in a
heartbeat and 'understand' its Osama based 'necessity' should terrorism
find its way to 'your' door and if the terrorist cause and that which
you support mandated same. Why? Because your psychotic! And a rank
coward. That's why!
OR are you now wiggling on your public quote and going back to the for
'other' victims it's 'OK' and perhaps not nice but "it's fair" [sic] ...
but 'not' for yours? Which is it because the quote seems like a blanket
declaration to me and I assume when you mention "relatives", well, that
applies to 'your' own relatives as well, yes, and not just such
'judgments' or "correctness or otherwise of a military decision cannot
be judged by how'd we feel if one of our own relatives died as a result
of it" -- when it's 'only' the 'others', yes? I assume, in fairness,
that means your relatives too, yes? Or are they to be spared and your
psychotic drool duly 'modified' for their specific exclusion? You can't
have it both ways, PsychoŽ. Why don't you ask Osama about that if you
ever make the trek and become a martyr group volunteer?
Doc Tony
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>>>>>>>as CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
>>>>page in the further exposure of PsychoŽ David E. Michael [DEM].
#11 [Ditto! See cut material]
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> have it both ways, Psycho®. Why don't you ask Osama about that if you
> ever make the trek and become a martyr group volunteer?
>
> Doc Tony
I have never stated that I am 'willing to sacrifice' my 'own family as
well for the cause'. My position is, and always has been, that the
morality of a military act cannot be judged by considerations of how
one would feel if one's own family was on the receiving end. Take the
bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which you support. Would that be
RIGHT if Tony Lomenzo's family weren't there but WRONG if Tony
Lomenzo's family was there? Now at this stage in the festivities you've
given up all attempt at meaningful interaction but the points need to
be made that:
(a) The view that military acts need to be judged in terms other than
one's own personal interests is hardly indicating a willingness to
'sacrifice' my own family 'for the cause' (whatever that is).
(b) As I have indicated before, it is very hypocritical of you, having
earlier expressed the view that people's families should not be brought
into alt.revisionism discussions, to now attempt to extricate yourself
from your predicament by telling lies about me and mine.
david_...@onetel.net.uk
> >>>>>>>>as Crackpot® Freddy Berg did when similarly exposed.
> >>>>page in the further exposure of Psycho® David E. Michael [DEM].
There was no cut material in that exchange. See above. You asked me.
'WHY are you willing to sacrifice your own family'
<snip>
I replied
<begin quote>
I'm not, so why are you telling lies about it?
And why are you -- someone who has claimed to be opposed to bringing
other people's families into alt.revisionism -- telling lies about me
and mine?
<end quote>
So are you going to dodge that question as well?
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
>>have it both ways, PsychoŽ. Why don't you ask Osama about that if you
>>ever make the trek and become a martyr group volunteer?
>>
>>Doc Tony
>
>
> I have never stated that I am 'willing to sacrifice' my 'own family as
> well for the cause'. My position is, and always has been, that the
> morality of a military act cannot be judged by considerations of how
> one would feel if one's own family was on the receiving end. Take the
> bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which you support. Would that be
> RIGHT if Tony Lomenzo's family weren't there but WRONG if Tony
> Lomenzo's family was there? Now at this stage in the festivities you've
> given up all attempt at meaningful interaction but the points need to
> be made that:
>
> (a) The view that military acts need to be judged in terms other than
> one's own personal interests is hardly indicating a willingness to
> 'sacrifice' my own family 'for the cause' (whatever that is).
>
> (b) As I have indicated before, it is very hypocritical of you, having
> earlier expressed the view that people's families should not be brought
> into alt.revisionism discussions, to now attempt to extricate yourself
> from your predicament by telling lies about me and mine.
>
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
Then with this 'addition' and 'clarification' [read: wiggle as we're
talking YOUR family now, yes?, not those 'others'] ] , I take it that
we're back to you still embracing terrorism [Osama] and anarchism
[Limonov] and the cowardly murder of victims by terrorist acts as still
'beautiful' and 'wonderful' and the publicly expressed hope for 'many
more days like it' but 'not' your own, yes? Is this your position?
You see, and as I told you previously which you snipped, why should I
not mention and drag out of you how you would feel if those terrorists
victims were 'yours' when you so cavalierly and disgustingly speak of
'other' families and loved ones being terrorist victims [including the
families and loved ones of those readers in this very forum] as
'beautiful' and 'wonderful' and the 'chickens coming home to roost' and
Osama quotes, usw. usw. or, in the case of the recent 7-7-05 London
terror attack, "not nice, but fair." [sic]
Thus, I asked you specifically if you would 'still' feel that way if the
victims were your own family! Then you make with the original worded
quote and I assume "relatives" applies to yours too but now you
'clarify' that position and it appears to me that the "not nice, but
fair" thing certainly REMAINS "not nice, but fair" as long as you and
yours are spared in the process.
I mean, how CAN it be "not nice, but fair" for 'other' terrorist victims
be that London or anywhere else and then 'not' "fair" if 'your' family
are the victims, yes? You see, David, if you make the public 'blanket'
statement that these terrorist murders are "not nice, but fair" then
logically this MUST apply to you and yours! Must! Hence, you are forced
to accept their demise [that's 'your' family now] as a matter of your
publicly supporting terrorists in general, viz., their actions in toto
as you put it being "not nice, but fair" --- INCLUDING you and yours.
Now 'had' you said like the BNP did and does as a matter of fact [see
their website] that such terrorist murder in Britain is an abomination
[although Nick Griffin again made the press just 2 weeks ago with the
bombed bus picture and a shot at 'Labour' but he is still very much anti
terrorist and says so rather vehemently and this of course places you at
odds with 'Chairman' Nick ] --- but that aside ---- your rhetoric in AR
has buried you! It began on 9-11-01 and your psychotic remarks while the
carnage was 'still' burning, the 'only' one in AR to make such psychotic
remarks including those who for one reason or another have a political
ax to grind with the US although the bodies of innocent men, women and
children found them not saying a word from a simple and I'll add
'neutral' human compassion perspective because, hey, geographical chance
and including loved ones on a visit or business or 'whatever' in those
planes or buildings that day 'could' have been their own!] ---anyway,
from your remarks "on" 9-11-01 to as late as 7-7-05 and this time in
your nation and you say with those victims being killed, "it's not nice,
but fair",
So 'IF' such terror ever [and I hope it does NOT and I have said that
various times so there is no misunderstanding on that matter!] comes to
your door and the victims are YOUR wife and child, are you saying that
you response to the authorities who give you such tragic news would be
that their deaths were "... not nice, but fair" ! Is 'that' your
position which, ironically, it would HAVE to be because that was your
public blanket comment although on 7-7-05 the victims were 'other'
family and loved ones .... and mercifully not your own. But, as I said,
fate can be very fickle and sometimes seemingly selective.
Doc Tony