David Von Pein Is Anti Semitic...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <44d14c02-9667-4670...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>In "ragged" summary.....
>
>There are no DVP "lies" associated with Ben Holmes' obsessive "ragged"
>discussions at all. Holmes apparently can't even read a source note
>properly. He thinks "MD58, p.9" is the exact same thing as "MD58, p. 15".
>Curious.
>
>But, maybe Holmes had a brain cramp. :-)

Hitler never mentioned the Jews even a *SINGLE TIME* in chapter one of Mein
Kampf. So clearly he wasn't concerned about the Jews at all.

Clearly, you must believe that.

For in your world, it's perfectly permissible to take a small segment, such as
one chapter, or in your case, A *SINGLE* PAGE, and base on that an argument
about what someone said (or didn't say).

Only someone as kooky and dishonest as you can believe such nonsense, however.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[David Von Pein]

>>> "In your world, it's perfectly permissible to take a small segment, such as one chapter, or in your case, A *SINGLE* PAGE, and base on that an argument about what someone said (or didn't say)." <<<

That's got nothing to do with the issue at hand, you goofball.

The issue at hand in this "MD58" instance is: "What is the source that
Mr. Bugliosi utilizes in his book?"

And I am unquestionably correct in this instance -- i.e., Page 9 of
MD58 does not include any reference to the word "ragged". Simple as
that.

And I'm still trying to figure out why you're arguing with me on this
"MD58" topic, especially since I'm being critical of one of Mr.
Bugliosi's source notes. You should be doing handsprings, because I'm
actually saying something negative about the person you claim is my
"hero".

In short -- You're getting goofier by the day, Holmes. (Which is no
easy task, to be sure.)

[aeffects]

On Jun 1, 12:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "In your world, it's perfectly permissible to take a small segment, such as one chapter, or in your case, A *SINGLE* PAGE, and base on that an argument about what someone said (or didn't say)." <<<
>
> That's got nothing to do with the issue at hand, you goofball.
>
> The issue at hand in this "MD58" instance is: "What is the source that
> Mr. Bugliosi utilizes in his book?"
>
> And I am unquestionably correct in this instance -- i.e., Page 9 of
> MD58 does not include any reference to the word "ragged". Simple as
> that.
>
> And I'm still trying to figure out why you're arguing with me on this
> "MD58" topic, especially since I'm being critical of one of Mr.
> Bugliosi's source notes. You should be doing handsprings, because I'm
> actually saying something negative about the person you claim is my
> "hero".

you're dodging, moron.....

> In short -- You're getting goofier by the day, Holmes. (Which is no
> easy task, to be sure.)

are you embarrassed yet? embarrassed for being the lone nut kook-of-
the-year?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <4f800872-5191-48f3...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 1, 12:48=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "In your world, it's perfectly permissible to take a small segment, s=
>uch as one chapter, or in your case, A *SINGLE* PAGE, and base on that an a=

>rgument about what someone said (or didn't say)." <<<
>>
>> That's got nothing to do with the issue at hand, you goofball.

It is, however, EXACTLY what you did. So why would you lie and say it has
nothing to do with the issue at hand? You *ADMIT* that you base your statement
on a *SINGLE* page. I based your anti-Semitism on an entire *CHAPTER*

Tell us, why are you anti-Semitic?

And why are you lying again?

>> The issue at hand in this "MD58" instance is: "What is the source that
>> Mr. Bugliosi utilizes in his book?"

And you're more dishonest that people can even *imagine* if you think that
Bugliosi read page 9, and refused to read any more of the cited source.

So it's a FACT that Bugliosi *KNEW* that Perry had EXPLICITLY denied that the
original bullet wound was "ragged". He knew this ... because DESPITE your lie,
the term "ragged" is indeed used in MD58.

>> And I am unquestionably correct in this instance -- i.e., Page 9 of
>> MD58 does not include any reference to the word "ragged". Simple as
>> that.

Anti-Semitic, aren't you? Tell us, why do you hate the Jews?

Why can't you refute my point? Perhaps your inherent hatred of the Jews is
blinding you.

And why do you think your lies about the source material will continue to help
Bugliosi? Everyone reading has now *SEEN* that Bugliosi lied about what his
source material was saying - you can't hide that fact now.

>> And I'm still trying to figure out why you're arguing with me on this
>> "MD58" topic, especially since I'm being critical of one of Mr.
>> Bugliosi's source notes. You should be doing handsprings, because I'm
>> actually saying something negative about the person you claim is my
>> "hero".
>
>you're dodging, moron.....

Indeed he is... he's DESPERATELY trying to evade the fact that Bugliosi's
citations CONTRADICT what he claimed using them.

That's evidence that this wasn't some "senior moment" - but simply a lie on his
part. But that's what lawyers do - they lie.

>> In short -- You're getting goofier by the day, Holmes. (Which is no
>> easy task, to be sure.)
>
>are you embarrassed yet? embarrassed for being the lone nut kook-of-
>the-year?

"Embarrassed" is the kook who refused to respond to my post, point by point, as
I did with his.

Or retract the several lies he told...