Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Huckster Sienzant Blatantly Lies...
96 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 5, 2024, 12:16:22 PM2/5/24
to
>> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
>> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
>> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>> (WCR 61)
>>
>> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
>> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
>> lying. ...
> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> claim.
Of course, Huckster can't quote me saying what he just claimed I'd
said... he's too busy molesting the neighborhood childred to face the
fact that the WCR flat lied.
There is indeed "credible evidence" that suggests shots were fired
from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
And Huckster knows this to be a fact.
Yet he's willing to blatantly lie.
This fact tells you all you need to know about Huckster.
>> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
>> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>> (WCR 61)
>>
>> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
>> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
>> lying. ...
> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> claim.
Of course, Huckster can't quote me saying what he just claimed I'd
said... he's too busy molesting the neighborhood childred to face the
fact that the WCR flat lied.
There is indeed "credible evidence" that suggests shots were fired
from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
And Huckster knows this to be a fact.
Yet he's willing to blatantly lie.
This fact tells you all you need to know about Huckster.
Bud
Feb 5, 2024, 9:25:18 PM2/5/24
to
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
> >> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
> >> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
> >> (WCR 61)
> >>
> >> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
> >> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
> >> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
> >> lying. ...
>
> > Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> > accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> > claim.
>
> Of course, Huckster can't quote me saying what he just claimed I'd
> said... he's too busy molesting the neighborhood childred to face the
> fact that the WCR flat lied.
>
> There is indeed "credible evidence" that suggests shots were fired
> from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
Using what standard?
> >> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
> >> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
> >> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
> >> (WCR 61)
> >>
> >> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
> >> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
> >> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
> >> lying. ...
>
> > Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> > accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> > claim.
>
> Of course, Huckster can't quote me saying what he just claimed I'd
> said... he's too busy molesting the neighborhood childred to face the
> fact that the WCR flat lied.
>
> There is indeed "credible evidence" that suggests shots were fired
> from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.
Gil Jesus
Feb 6, 2024, 6:41:28 AM2/6/24
to
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:25:18 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.
Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
> Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.
The old double-standard again.
Ben Holmes
Feb 6, 2024, 10:44:12 AM2/6/24
to
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 03:41:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:25:18?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.
>
>Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
>
>The old double-standard again.
You can't argue with morons... They're much better at stupidity than
you are.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:25:18?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.
>
>Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
>
>The old double-standard again.
you are.
Ben Holmes
Feb 6, 2024, 10:44:12 AM2/6/24
to
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:25:16 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Bud
Feb 6, 2024, 1:28:34 PM2/6/24
to
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
This is where the concept came from. Then Ben cries when the concept is explored.
> The old double-standard again.
It isn`t a double standard when you are talking about two different things.
The WC conducted an investigation for the purpose of producing findings.
When Ben was talking about (although he will likely lie and deny) was what is accepted into evidence. But even erroneous information is accepted into evidence, being accepted into evidence isn`t the standard for validity or veracity.
But these arte ideas, and this is reasoning, something you and Ben are incapable of.
Ben Holmes
Feb 6, 2024, 2:29:23 PM2/6/24
to
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
> Ben said this...
>
> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
And this is merely a fact. (Huckster lied about it, and you remained
silent.)
Just as true as the fact that you can't answer this:
wrote:
> Ben said this...
>
> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
silent.)
Just as true as the fact that you can't answer this:
Hank Sienzant
Feb 6, 2024, 8:05:51 PM2/6/24
to
On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > Ben said this...
> >
> > "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
No, it doesn’t. It is accepted as evidence, but not credible evidence. It is up to the jury to decide how credible each witness is. On an individual basis, after hearing that person’s testimony, in court, under oath. All that is important to judging the credibility of a witness, iti is not simply bestowed upon a witness because he is a witness, that’s the point I made initially, and that you continue to ignore.
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > Ben said this...
> >
> > "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
You want to ignore all those important distinctions and just pretend all eyewitness testimony is credible, merely because it comes from an eyewitness: “And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.”
I said the above initially, and repeatedly since.
You just continue to do an another fringe reset, and beat the same dead horse as if this was never addressed.
Addressed in 2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Addressed in 2021:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5j1CpnJsfoY/m/IahGceB1AAAJ
Addressed in 2023:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0EEXKPBDVIk/m/T8pku2BMAwAJ
I responded other times as well. You continue with your pretense that this is some issue where the Commission lied, and I have not addressed this. Make sure to bring it up again when I’m no longer around to expose your perfidy here.
It won’t change the facts any.
Hank Sienzant
Feb 6, 2024, 8:08:57 PM2/6/24
to
On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:41:28 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Ben Holmes
Feb 7, 2024, 9:08:30 AM2/7/24
to
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Ben said this...
>>>
>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
>
>No, it doesn’t.
Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
Nor can cowardice:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Ben said this...
>>>
>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
>
>No, it doesn’t.
Nor can cowardice:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
Feb 7, 2024, 9:08:32 AM2/7/24
to
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:08:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:41:28?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:41:28?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:25:18?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.
>> Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
>>
>> The old double-standard again.
As well as cowardice:
>> > Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.
>> Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
>>
>> The old double-standard again.
Hank Sienzant
Feb 8, 2024, 6:58:58 AM2/8/24
to
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Ben said this...
> >>>
> >>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
> >
> >No, it doesn’t.
> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
Please, point out the supposed lies in the below, that you deleted from my response, ignored, and ran from:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Ben said this...
> >>>
> >>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
> >
> >No, it doesn’t.
> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
== quote ==
No, it doesn’t. It is accepted as evidence, but not credible evidence. It is up to the jury to decide how credible each witness is. On an individual basis, after hearing that person’s testimony, in court, under oath. All that is important to judging the credibility of a witness, iti is not simply bestowed upon a witness because he is a witness, that’s the point I made initially, and that you continue to ignore.
You want to ignore all those important distinctions and just pretend all eyewitness testimony is credible, merely because it comes from an eyewitness: “And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.”
I said the above initially, and repeatedly since.
You just continue to do an another fringe reset, and beat the same dead horse as if this was never addressed.
Addressed in 2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Addressed in 2021:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5j1CpnJsfoY/m/IahGceB1AAAJ
Addressed in 2023:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0EEXKPBDVIk/m/T8pku2BMAwAJ
I responded other times as well. You continue with your pretense that this is some issue where the Commission lied, and I have not addressed this. Make sure to bring it up again when I’m no longer around to expose your perfidy here.
It won’t change the facts any.
== unquote ==
You want to ignore all those important distinctions and just pretend all eyewitness testimony is credible, merely because it comes from an eyewitness: “And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.”
I said the above initially, and repeatedly since.
You just continue to do an another fringe reset, and beat the same dead horse as if this was never addressed.
Addressed in 2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Addressed in 2021:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5j1CpnJsfoY/m/IahGceB1AAAJ
Addressed in 2023:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0EEXKPBDVIk/m/T8pku2BMAwAJ
I responded other times as well. You continue with your pretense that this is some issue where the Commission lied, and I have not addressed this. Make sure to bring it up again when I’m no longer around to expose your perfidy here.
It won’t change the facts any.
>
> Nor can cowardice:
Speaking of cowardice, why are you constantly deleting my responses on the topic under discussion,, ignoring my points, running from the topic under discussion, and desperately trying to change the subject to something I explained months ago, as you again do below?
Ben Holmes
Feb 8, 2024, 9:32:45 AM2/8/24
to
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ben said this...
>>>>>
>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
>>>
>>>No, it doesn’t.
>>
>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
>
>Please, point out the supposed lies...
No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
Indeed, your original *FIRST* response to my statement was a lie that
you've NEVER supported.
And never will. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Huckster?
Let's not forget:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ben said this...
>>>>>
>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
>>>
>>>No, it doesn’t.
>>
>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
>
No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
Indeed, your original *FIRST* response to my statement was a lie that
you've NEVER supported.
And never will. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Huckster?
Let's not forget:
Hank Sienzant
Feb 8, 2024, 12:14:40 PM2/8/24
to
On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Ben said this...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
> >>>
> >>>No, it doesn’t.
> >>
> >> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
> >
> >Please, point out the supposed lies...
>
> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
>
Where judged *credible*.
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Ben said this...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
> >>>
> >>>No, it doesn’t.
> >>
> >> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
> >
> >Please, point out the supposed lies...
>
> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
>
Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible, especially when eyewitnesses contradict each other. It’s up to the trier of fact (typically the jury) to make that determination in a criminal or civil trial about what eyewitnesses are credible and which aren’t.
The Commission found them not credible. They said that.
That doesn’t make them liars, as you claim.
You have reached a different conclusion, fine. What makes your opinion more valuable and accurate than the determination by the Commission, most of whom were lawyers with years of trial experience (Earl Warren, for example, was a prosecutor in California before he became a judge).
By all means, share your experience in American jurisprudence so we can judge who is better qualified to make that determination about which witnesses are credible and which aren’t.
> Indeed, your original *FIRST* response to my statement was a lie that
> you've NEVER supported.
>
> And never will. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Huckster?
Calling me a coward is simple ad hominem, and you wouldn’t resort to this if you had anything substantial.
> And never will. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Huckster?
>
> Let's not forget:
Ben changing the subject again.
Hank Sienzant
Feb 8, 2024, 12:22:15 PM2/8/24
to
So you delete my points, and the evidence I cite, and Gil simply ignores all that. “Don’t confuse me with the facts” appears to be your’s and Gil’s motto.
Neither one of you are willing to actually discuss the evidence.
Ben Holmes
Feb 8, 2024, 6:06:02 PM2/8/24
to
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>I’ve been learning that.
But not this:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>I’ve been learning that.
Ben Holmes
Feb 8, 2024, 6:08:37 PM2/8/24
to
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ben said this...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it doesn’t.
>>>>
>>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
>>>
>>>Please, point out the supposed lies...
>>
>> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
>> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
>>
>Where judged *credible*.
>
>Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible
Quote me saying this... or admit that you're molesting your own
grandmother...
You're such a despicable slimebag... Of course, you won't.
Just as you've been running from this:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ben said this...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it doesn’t.
>>>>
>>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
>>>
>>>Please, point out the supposed lies...
>>
>> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
>> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
>>
>Where judged *credible*.
>
>Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible
grandmother...
You're such a despicable slimebag... Of course, you won't.
Just as you've been running from this:
Bud
Feb 8, 2024, 6:57:01 PM2/8/24
to
On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:08:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ben said this...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, it doesn’t.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
> >>>
> >>>Please, point out the supposed lies...
> >>
> >> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
> >> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
Thousand of people were found not guilty because eyewitness testimony was not accepted as credible.
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ben said this...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, it doesn’t.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
> >>>
> >>>Please, point out the supposed lies...
> >>
> >> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
> >> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
> >>
> >Where judged *credible*.
> >
> >Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible
> Quote me saying this... or admit that you're molesting your own
> grandmother...
>
> You're such a despicable slimebag... Of course, you won't.
But as Chucks points out, he argues to argue.
Hank Sienzant
Feb 8, 2024, 7:15:08 PM2/8/24
to
On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:06:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I’ve been learning that.
>
Ben ignores the below. Of course.
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I’ve been learning that.
>
Where judged *credible*.
Hank Sienzant
Feb 8, 2024, 7:23:01 PM2/8/24
to
On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:08:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ben said this...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, it doesn’t.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
> >>>
> >>>Please, point out the supposed lies...
> >>
> >> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
> >> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
> >>
> >Where judged *credible*.
> >
> >Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible
> Quote me saying this...
You didn’t. And won’t, because it destroys your argument.
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ben said this...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, it doesn’t.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
> >>>
> >>>Please, point out the supposed lies...
> >>
> >> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
> >> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
> >>
> >Where judged *credible*.
> >
> >Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible
> Quote me saying this...
> or admit that you're molesting your own
> grandmother...
>
> You're such a despicable slimebag...
And red herrings, as below:
Ben Holmes
Feb 9, 2024, 9:20:43 AM2/9/24
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 9, 2024, 9:20:43 AM2/9/24
to
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:15:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:06:02?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I致e been learning that.
>>
>
>Ben ignores...
Huckster changes the topic and runs again... let me put it back in:
>I致e been learning that.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:06:02?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>Ben ignores...
Huckster changes the topic and runs again... let me put it back in:
>I致e been learning that.
Ben Holmes
Feb 9, 2024, 9:20:45 AM2/9/24
to
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:22:58 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:08:37?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ben said this...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it doesn’t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please, point out the supposed lies...
>>>>
>>>> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
>>>> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
>>>>
>>>Where judged *credible*.
>>>
>>>Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible
>>
>> Quote me saying this...
>
>You didn’t.
Then you're a liar to imply that I did - and argue based on something
that not only I never said, but that you can't quote me saying.
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:08:37?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ben said this...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it doesn’t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please, point out the supposed lies...
>>>>
>>>> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
>>>> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.
>>>>
>>>Where judged *credible*.
>>>
>>>Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible
>>
>> Quote me saying this...
>
>You didn’t.
that not only I never said, but that you can't quote me saying.
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!
Hank Sienzant
Feb 9, 2024, 11:35:09 AM2/9/24
to
> - and argue based on something
> that not only I never said, but that you can't quote me saying.
>
> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
> participant... it's still sick!
>
> You're a sick sick man... get help!
Ben Holmes
Feb 9, 2024, 6:33:50 PM2/9/24
to
Sick, aren't you?
And CLEARLY a coward:
Bud
Feb 9, 2024, 7:35:21 PM2/9/24
to
On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
> >> participant... it's still sick!
> >>
> >> You're a sick sick man... get help!
> >
> >We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
Ben said "the legal system in America".
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
> >> participant... it's still sick!
> >>
> >> You're a sick sick man... get help!
> >
> >We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
> Sick, aren't you?
You certainly are.
Ben Holmes
Feb 12, 2024, 9:28:33 AM2/12/24
to
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
>>>> participant... it's still sick!
>>>>
>>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
>>>
>>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
>>
>> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
>
> Ben said "the legal system in America".
>
> Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
>
> Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.
Coward too!
wrote:
>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
>>>> participant... it's still sick!
>>>>
>>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
>>>
>>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
>>
>> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
>
> Ben said "the legal system in America".
>
> Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
>
> Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
claimed I'd said.
Coward too!
Bud
Feb 12, 2024, 9:38:07 AM2/12/24
to
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
> >>>> participant... it's still sick!
> >>>>
> >>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
> >>>
> >>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
> >>
> >> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
> >
> > Ben said "the legal system in America".
> >
> > Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
> >
> > Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
> Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
> claimed I'd said.
I quoted you both.
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
> >>>> participant... it's still sick!
> >>>>
> >>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
> >>>
> >>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
> >>
> >> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
> >
> > Ben said "the legal system in America".
> >
> > Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
> >
> > Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
> Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
> claimed I'd said.
You were making a distinction where none exists an then crying like you are some victim who has been wronged.
Ben Holmes
Feb 12, 2024, 5:26:28 PM2/12/24
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:38:05 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
>>>>>> participant... it's still sick!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
>>>>>
>>>>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
>>>
>>> Ben said "the legal system in America".
>>>
>>> Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
>>>
>>> Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
>> Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
>> claimed I'd said.
>
> I quoted you both.
And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...
wrote:
>On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
>>>>>> participant... it's still sick!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
>>>>>
>>>>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
>>>
>>> Ben said "the legal system in America".
>>>
>>> Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
>>>
>>> Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
>> Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
>> claimed I'd said.
>
> I quoted you both.
Bud
Feb 12, 2024, 7:49:31 PM2/12/24
to
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 5:26:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:38:05 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
> >>>>>> participant... it's still sick!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
> >>>
> >>> Ben said "the legal system in America".
> >>>
> >>> Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
> >>>
> >>> Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
> >> Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
> >> claimed I'd said.
> >
> > I quoted you both.
> And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...
I did. It was a distinction without a difference.
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:38:05 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
> >>>>>> participant... it's still sick!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
> >>>
> >>> Ben said "the legal system in America".
> >>>
> >>> Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
> >>>
> >>> Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
> >> Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
> >> claimed I'd said.
> >
> > I quoted you both.
> And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...
Ben Holmes
Feb 13, 2024, 9:09:31 AM2/13/24
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:49:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
>>>>>> participant... it's still sick!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
>>>>>
>>>>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
>>>
>>> Ben said "the legal system in America".
>>>
>>> Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
>>>
>>> Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
>> Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
>> claimed I'd said.
>
> I quoted you both.
And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...
>On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
>>>>>> participant... it's still sick!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a sick sick man... get help!
>>>>>
>>>>>We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.
>>>
>>> Ben said "the legal system in America".
>>>
>>> Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
>>>
>>> Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.
>> Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
>> claimed I'd said.
>
> I quoted you both.
And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...
0 new messages