Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Challenge for DVP

4 views
Skip to first unread message

John Canal

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 12:55:20 PM6/30/08
to
Here's a challange for you.

First, I'll post the complete paragraph abut the radiating fractures and
fragments from the autopsy report and ask those posters who have a legal
background to opine on whether they think the intention of the writer was to say
that bone fragments resulted from JUST the fractures radiating from the parietal
wound or from the parietal wound AND the small wound in the occipital.

Then, if the consensus is that the writer [Humes] most likely meant that
fragments resulted from ONLY the parietal wound, I'll admit I misinterpreted
that paragraph and that the writer wasn't stating there were BOH fragments.

Conversley, if the consensus is that the writer [Humes] most likely meant that
fragments resulted from the fractures radiating from BOTH the parietal and
occipital wounds, you admit that the writer was stating there were occipital
fragments.

If you can't agree to this challenge, in the interest of not wasting any more
time, I don't think we have anything else to discuss.

John Canal


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 5:03:09 PM6/30/08
to


I have no idea where you think you are going with this, but you seem to
have overlooked a simple fact. Fractures radiate throughout the skull the
moment the bullet strikes. Fractures do not have to appear only at the
site of an entrance or exit. Antipodal focusing causes massive fractures
on the opposite side from the entrance even before the bullet exits. The
fractures at the back of the head were caused the moment the bullet hit
the forehead. Regardless of where bullet fragments exited.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 10:49:43 AM7/1/08
to


>>> "First, I'll post the complete paragraph about the radiating fractures and fragments from the autopsy report..." <<<


Never mind, I'll re-post it right now (to save you the trouble):


"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are
seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the
smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and
direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in
the production of numerous fragments which vary in size from a few
millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest diameter." -- FROM JOHN F. KENNEDY'S
1963 AUTOPSY REPORT


www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

>>> "...and ask those posters who have a legal background to opine on whether they think the intention of the writer was to say that bone fragments resulted from JUST the fractures radiating from the parietal wound or from the parietal wound AND the small wound in the occipital." <<<


But before doing any opining on this matter, it'd be a good idea for
those doing the opining to take a good long look at this picture:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

>>> "Then, if the consensus is that the writer [Humes] most likely meant that fragments resulted from ONLY the parietal wound, I'll admit I misinterpreted that paragraph and that the writer wasn't stating there were BOH fragments." <<<

Why on Earth would the random opinions of other people make you
willing to change your tune so abruptly on an issue that you've been
so adamant about for years now? That's crazy.

Along the same lines, if I could produce the opinions of many people
who think Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book is a great book and that VB
proves that there was no "BOH" wound in Kennedy's head, would that
"consensus" of opinion compel you to change your mind about your
current BOH arguments?

Approximately 75% of America believes that there was a conspiracy in
the murder of President Kennedy. But I'm certainly not going to switch
from the LN side to a CT one due to this ongoing "consensus" of public
opinion. Seems to me, via your "challenge" in this thread, you're
essentially (and loosely speaking) encouraging me to make that drastic
leap (since the "consensus" of opinion doesn't currently favor an
LNer's position).

>>> "Conversley [sic], if the consensus is that the writer [Humes] most likely meant that fragments resulted from the fractures radiating from BOTH the parietal and occipital wounds, you admit that the writer was stating there were occipital fragments." <<<


To use some of my earlier words written to you on this matter ---

Why on Earth would the random opinions of other people (who may not
even have a good deal of knowledge with regard to the subject at hand;
how would I know for sure?) suddenly want to make me immediately
reverse my own opinion on this matter?

>>> "If you can't agree to this challenge, in the interest of not wasting any more time, I don't think we have anything else to discuss." <<<


Gee, I actually thought you were through with my opinions a long time
ago. Suddenly I'm back in the fold again?? That's curious.

Looks to me like my post yesterday about the autopsy report put some
'worry wrinkles' on John Canal's forehead.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 6:28:44 PM7/1/08
to
In article <cc1654e9-e2d8-47cb...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

>
>
>
>
>>>>"First, I'll post the complete paragraph about the radiating fractures and
>>>>fragments from the autopsy report..." <<<
>
>
>Never mind, I'll re-post it right now (to save you the trouble):
>
>
> "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are
>seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the
>smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and
>direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in
>the production of numerous fragments which vary in size from a few
>millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest diameter." -- FROM JOHN F. KENNEDY'S
>1963 AUTOPSY REPORT
>
>
>
>
>www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>"...and ask those posters who have a legal background to opine on whether they
>>>>think the intention of the writer was to say that bone fragments resulted from
>>>>JUST the fractures radiating from the parietal wound or from the parietal wound
>>>>AND the small wound in the occipital." <<<
>
>
>But before doing any opining on this matter, it'd be a good idea for
>those doing the opining to take a good long look at this picture:
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

No, the particular argument here was about what the writer of the report
meant in that paragraph. So, I'll just include that paragraph...nothing
else.

>>>>"Then, if the consensus is that the writer [Humes] most likely meant that
>>>>fragments resulted from ONLY the parietal wound, I'll admit I misinterpreted
>>>>that paragraph and that the writer wasn't stating there were BOH fragments." <<<
>
>
>
>Why on Earth would the random opinions of other people make you
>willing to change your tune so abruptly on an issue that you've been
>so adamant about for years now? That's crazy.

It wouldn't change my mind about whether the BOH was fragmented...I know
it was from the testimony and F8. It would tell me if I was
misinterpreting what the writer was tryingto say in that
paragraph...that's all.



>Along the same lines, if I could produce the opinions of many people
>who think Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book is a great book and that VB
>proves that there was no "BOH" wound in Kennedy's head, would that
>"consensus" of opinion compel you to change your mind about your
>current BOH arguments?

No, because VB was misled on these issues by Baden et. al. His "proof" is
simply parroting what Baden said, which is wrong. Posner and McA did it
too.

>
>Approximately 75% of America believes that there was a conspiracy in
>the murder of President Kennedy. But I'm certainly not going to switch
>from the LN side to a CT one due to this ongoing "consensus" of public
>opinion.

There is no consensus among the CTs...they all have different theories.

>Seems to me, via your "challenge" in this thread, you're
>essentially (and loosely speaking) encouraging me to make that drastic
>leap (since the "consensus" of opinion doesn't currently favor an
>LNer's position).

No, I'm just trying to make the point that you're misinterpreting what
Hums wrote in the report in that paragraph. Even if the consensus is that
you are misinterpreting what was said, I know you won't change your mind
because you ignore just about everything else Humes said.

>>>>"Conversley [sic], if the consensus is that the writer [Humes] most likely meant
>>>>that fragments resulted from the fractures radiating from BOTH the parietal and
>>>>occipital wounds, you admit that the writer was stating there were occipital
>>>>fragments." <<<
>
>
>To use some of my earlier words written to you on this matter ---
>
>Why on Earth would the random opinions of other people (who may not
>even have a good deal of knowledge with regard to the subject at hand;
>how would I know for sure?) suddenly want to make me immediately
>reverse my own opinion on this matter?

Again, I'm just trying toshow you that you're misinterpreting what was
said, that's all. IOW, it's an English [interpretation] thing...no experts
on these issues needed.

>>>>"If you can't agree to this challenge, in the interest of not wasting any more
>>>>time, I don't think we have anything else to discuss." <<<
>
>
>Gee, I actually thought you were through with my opinions a long time
>ago. Suddenly I'm back in the fold again?? That's curious.
>
>Looks to me like my post yesterday about the autopsy report put some
>'worry wrinkles' on John Canal's forehead.

I worry about your opinions like I do Marshes'. I'm mostly arguing with
you because I want the lurkers who aren't sure about these issues to see
who has the most compelling arguments. You have your mind made up like McA
does, neither of you would ever change your minds...it's a pride thing.

IMO, your arguments on this are wacko. You got Humes hallucinatng about
seeing cerebellum and not knowing the EOP from the posterior parietal...,
not to mention the fact that you're calling Zimmerman (who has examined
the x-rays and is expert at reading them) wrong about his conclusion that
the BOH was fragmented......all based largely on an x-ray that you can't
prove wasn't taken after the rear scalp (with pieces of rear bone adhered
to it) was pushed back into place.

JC


David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 9:50:38 PM7/1/08
to

>>> "I'm just trying to show you that you're misinterpreting what was

said, that's all. IOW, it's an English [interpretation] thing...no experts
on these issues needed." <<<


Which must be why you said this in your thread-starter, huh?:


"...And ask those posters who have a legal background to opine on
whether they think..."


No "experts" are needed, but for some reason we need posters with a "legal
background" to determine a mere "English [interpretation] thing", right?

Curious.

>>> "Not to mention the fact that you're calling Zimmerman (who has

examined the x-rays and is expert at reading them) wrong about his
conclusion that the BOH was fragmented." <<<


If Chad said that, then yes, I definitely think he is 100% wrong. There is
no "fragmentation" of the BOH. None. Fracture lines (cracks), yes. But
where's the "fragmentation"? Where? Look:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm


And why do I need to be deeply schooled in X-ray interpretation to merely
SEE FOR MYSELF the obvious -- i.e., that the above
authenticated-by-the-HSCA X-ray shows no big hole in the far-right- rear
portion of John F. Kennedy's head? It just simply is not there. Period.
Nor are there the proper fracture lines at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head
to support your goofy "LARGE BOH/LN" theory, John. They simply are not
there. Period.

~Mark VII~

John Canal

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 11:13:31 PM7/1/08
to
In article <0ead6ee2-cb28-4f94...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>

>>>> "I'm just trying to show you that you're misinterpreting what was
>said, that's all. IOW, it's an English [interpretation] thing...no experts
>on these issues needed." <<<
>
>
>Which must be why you said this in your thread-starter, huh?:
>
>
> "...And ask those posters who have a legal background to opine on
>whether they think..."
>
>
>No "experts" are needed, but for some reason we need posters with a "legal
>background" to determine a mere "English [interpretation] thing", right?
>
>Curious.
>
>
>
>>>> "Not to mention the fact that you're calling Zimmerman (who has
>examined the x-rays and is expert at reading them) wrong about his
>conclusion that the BOH was fragmented." <<<
>
>
>If Chad said that, then yes, I definitely think he is 100% wrong. There is
>no "fragmentation" of the BOH. None. Fracture lines (cracks), yes. But
>where's the "fragmentation"? Where? Look:

Tired of looking at it. But going from memory how in the world can you
tell, especially on a scan of a copy, that those fractures do not
represent perimeters of fragments...even after Humes testified that when
they reflected the scalp pieces of bone came out? How David, I really want
to know how.

>And why do I need to be deeply schooled in X-ray interpretation to merely
>SEE FOR MYSELF the obvious -- i.e., that the above

>authenticated-by-the-HSCA X-ray shows no big hole in the far-right- rear.

Well, you're correct, anyone can see there is no gaping hole there...but
how can you be so certain that Boswell didn't push the rear scalp (with
bone fragments adhered to it) back into place before the lateral was
taken....how David, I really want to know? Compare the chances of Boswell
doing that to the chances of literally dozens of witnesses, lying or
hallucinating about seeing a BOH wound, Humes not seeing cerebellum when
he testified he did, and the AR containing false statements about the
large wound extending somewhat into the occipital.......what's more
likely?...it's obvious what is.

>portion of John F. Kennedy's head? It just simply is not there. Period.
>Nor are there the proper fracture lines at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head
>to support your goofy "LARGE BOH/LN" theory, John. They simply are not
>there. Period.

After what you said about Chad being 100% wrong, I see no point in making
you look any worse than you have on these issues by contiuing
this...."discussion".

John Canal

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 2, 2008, 8:56:26 AM7/2/08
to

>>> "Well, you're correct, anyone can see there is no gaping hole there...but how can you be so certain that Boswell didn't push the rear scalp (with bone fragments adhered to it) back into place before the lateral was taken....how David, I really want to know?" <<<


Because if J. Thornton Boswell had done that at the area of the head
where you desperately want a large BOH hole to be located, we'd
certainly see evidence of several radiating cracks (fracture lines) in
that area of the head via the lateral X-ray.

Instead, I see no such fracture lines/cracks in the precise area of
JFK's head where YOU NEED THEM TO AMPLY EXIST. Do you think that a
series of fracture lines/cracks that would have created the LARGE-
SIZED BOH hole you think was there could ESCAPE DETECTION IN THIS X-
RAY PHOTO ("scanned" copy or otherwise?):


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 2, 2008, 4:33:51 PM7/2/08
to


And you can't see the fractures drawn on the autopsy sheets either.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 2, 2008, 9:19:41 PM7/2/08
to
John Canal wrote:
> In article <0ead6ee2-cb28-4f94...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>>>> "I'm just trying to show you that you're misinterpreting what was
>> said, that's all. IOW, it's an English [interpretation] thing...no experts
>> on these issues needed." <<<
>>
>>
>> Which must be why you said this in your thread-starter, huh?:
>>
>>
>> "...And ask those posters who have a legal background to opine on
>> whether they think..."
>>
>>
>> No "experts" are needed, but for some reason we need posters with a "legal
>> background" to determine a mere "English [interpretation] thing", right?
>>
>> Curious.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Not to mention the fact that you're calling Zimmerman (who has
>> examined the x-rays and is expert at reading them) wrong about his
>> conclusion that the BOH was fragmented." <<<
>>
>>
>> If Chad said that, then yes, I definitely think he is 100% wrong. There is
>> no "fragmentation" of the BOH. None. Fracture lines (cracks), yes. But
>> where's the "fragmentation"? Where? Look:
>
> Tired of looking at it. But going from memory how in the world can you
> tell, especially on a scan of a copy, that those fractures do not
> represent perimeters of fragments...even after Humes testified that when
> they reflected the scalp pieces of bone came out? How David, I really want
> to know how.
>

Some might be and certainly did become fragments.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 3, 2008, 12:55:59 AM7/3/08
to

>>> "And you can't see the fractures drawn on the autopsy sheets either."
<<<

Why would anybody expect to?

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 3, 2008, 12:59:13 AM7/3/08
to

Excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":


============================================


"If one were to set forth the top-five allegations of the Warren
Commission critics and conspiracy theorists in the Kennedy assassination,
one of the five would most likely be that Kennedy's body was unlawfully
spirited away from the Dallas authorities at Parkland Hospital (mainly,
from Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas medical examiner who physically resisted
the appropriation of Kennedy's body by the Secret Service) to be taken to
Bethesda for the autopsy. And if the autopsy HAD been conducted in Dallas,
no cover-up would have taken place by the incompetent and/or complicit (in
the conspiracy to cover- up) autopsy surgeons, and therefore the autopsy
findings would have been different.

"The only serious problem with this is that ironically, and very
unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, they don't even have the
support for their argument from the very person whom they wanted to
conduct the autopsy--Dr. Earl Rose. ....

"In 1978, [Dr. Rose] was appointed by the HSCA to be one of the nine
forensic pathologists to review the autopsy findings. Now retired in Iowa
City, Dr. Rose told me no one ever calls him regarding his one year on the
HSCA forensic panel and he was "enjoying" his "anonymity." My key question
to Dr. Rose was this: "Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy
photos and X-rays that the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion
you would have reached if you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in
Dallas?"

"Rose immediately and unequivocally answered, "Yes, there's no
question their conclusions were correct. Two shots entered the president
from behind, the entrance wound to the back exiting in the throat at the
site of the tracheotomy and the entrance wound to the back of the head
exiting in the right frontal temporal area."

"The only place he said he disagreed with the autopsy surgeons is
that they reported the entrance wound to the back of the head "too low. It
was in the cowlick area." " -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 388-389 OF
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)*

* = Source Note #41 on Page 389 = "Telephone interviews of Earl Rose by
author [VB] on October 17, 2002, and March 18, 2005."

========================

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose
logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the
parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong,"
[Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to
determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw
was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been
mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity
would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them
probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly,
from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the
autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area.
There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the
entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." [End Baden quote]."
-- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 407-408 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)*

* = Source Note #168 on Page 408 = "Telephone interview of Dr. Michael
Baden by author [VB] on January 8, 2000."


www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 3, 2008, 8:38:21 PM7/3/08
to
David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
> ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":
>
>

Excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book "REVISING HISTORY: THE
COVER-UP OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":

He says that only because he was denied the facts that he would have
discovered had he done the autopsy. Such as dissection of the back wound.
And examination of the brain. He would have found no hole in the back of
the brain. CBS would have reported that the President was shot in the
front of the head when he turned to look back at the TSBD. And LIFE would
have confirmed that is what is seen in the Zapruder film.

> "The only place he said he disagreed with the autopsy surgeons is
> that they reported the entrance wound to the back of the head "too low. It
> was in the cowlick area." " -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 388-389 OF
> "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)*
>

Just a slight error, eh? Which explains why you continue to support the
WC propaganda.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 3, 2008, 8:47:47 PM7/3/08
to


http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/011a.%20JFK%20HEAD%20X-RAY?gda=KLA6e0UAAABpJ3eVRTcKQSBScG8KchTgEBPAFkitAaEV6q6zh10F7GG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDSFwjKfnRyfQ7qIBJo_o-vrwKbTaMHo_0cbUNo4A2jWCQ&gsc=fXRUvQsAAAB8tTCTude-1skOLTPGy_lV

Apart from the above-linked autopsy X-ray, which (by itself) proves
that John Canal's odd "BOH/LN" theory is inaccurate, John has another
very big photographic problem in trying to fit all of the pieces of
his BOH/LN puzzle together cohesively and believably....

And that problem is: the autopsy photograph linked below, which shows
President Kennedy's SCALP on the back of his head to be completely
INTACT (including the entire area of the head/scalp at the far-right-
rear portion of JFK's head where John Canal insists a large hole
existed, with that large hole being easily visible and viewable by the
various doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63):


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=b0_phEcAAACzXMUR5-PWJyUOKn1zbkCgW_M9HnSurVXIBqVV4qsKJ2G1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQigVbThTP8TDn4ugjKLpza8B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q&gsc=RdqwERYAAAAqZ3boo9r9LWJRVcEudzeA1-8z8plR0DPnojN3bu4ndA


But when examining the photo linked above, it's quite evident that
JFK's scalp was undamaged (except for the perforating entry hole near
the cowlick, of course, which was where Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5mm
bullet entered the President's head).

This "scalp" issue has been discussed previously on this forum, with
Mr. Canal theorizing that a relatively-small area of the scalp was, in
fact, torn (or cut), which in turn allowed the people at Parkland to
observe the gaping hole at the right-rear of Kennedy's head.

Such an argument is just nonsense, of course....because even if a very
SMALL portion of the scalp had been torn or damaged (which is
perceived damage that is certainly not visible in the autopsy pictures
at all), how in the world could a very SMALL tear in that scalp
somehow translate into this (as described by Parkland witness Dr.
Robert McClelland)?:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/MD264_thumb.jpg


In my view, the best explanation for the admittedly-major discrepancy
that exists re. this controversial "BOH" matter between the official
record and the observations of the Parkland witnesses was probably
given by Dr. Michael Baden (during a telephone conversation he had
with "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi on January 8, 2000).
Baden said the following to Bugliosi during that phone call:


"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as

the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. That's why we have


autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this.
Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at
Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of
the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain
tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the
occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push
his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably
assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from
the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy
surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area.
There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than

the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- DR.
MICHAEL BADEN; 01/08/2000

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html


John Canal would probably be better off if he were to believe what
many conspiracy theorists firmly believe -- i.e., that the autopsy
photo and X-ray linked earlier are fakes (and/or have been "altered"
in some manner).

Because just one good look at each of the two photos linked above (the
X-ray and the color image of the back of John Kennedy's head after he
died) should be enough visual proof right there to know that Mr. Canal
is barking up the wrong tree as he searches for a hole in the
President's head that simply was never there.

Thank you.


Respectfully,
David R. Von Pein

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History


David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 3, 2008, 11:04:25 PM7/3/08
to


>>> "CBS would have reported that the President was shot in the front of
the head when he turned to look back at the TSBD. And LIFE would have
confirmed that is what is seen in the Zapruder film." <<<


Does anybody know when the next spaceship leaves for The Twilight Zone? I
want to pay Tony Marsh a visit, and I'll need that spaceship to do so.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 4, 2008, 1:05:52 PM7/4/08
to


I guess you've never seen that type of literary device in use before.
Watch CSA/Confederate States of America on IFC or read Diary of a
Handmaiden.

0 new messages