info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Question for Ben or Gil:
147 views
Skip to first unread message
Chuck Schuyler
Feb 14, 2024, 8:20:16 PMFeb 14
to
Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
Why wait?
NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
Why wait?
Bud
Feb 14, 2024, 8:43:42 PMFeb 14
to
Gil Jesus
Feb 15, 2024, 6:16:36 AMFeb 15
to
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
That's a pretty stupid question.
> NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
What have you Lone Nutters accomplished in your many years here ?
Not a damned thing. And now, as your source of "entertainment" is fading into the sunset, the best you morons can come up with is a daily countdown from 10 by BT George.
I'm surprised that he could count that high.
I've got my new newsreader already set up. I've tested it and will be using it starting Feb. 22nd.
So why would we leave a world wide audience for private messages or private groups ?
That's a stupid move only a knucklehead like you would take.
In the final analysis, history will show that in the end, you Lone Nutters finally surrendered.
That when it came to putting your money where your mouths were, your loyalty to your faith wasn't worth a few dollars a month.
I'm not surprised. Cowards are usually quitters and quitters are usually cowards.
And even assholes like yourselves can see that when your insults can't reach the eyes of your intended targets, it's not worth it.
> Why wait?
Why switch when Google is free and still available ?
Gil Jesus
Feb 15, 2024, 6:18:22 AMFeb 15
to
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:43:42 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> Yes, a two man jerk circle.
I thought you and Chuckles were only friends
> Yes, a two man jerk circle.
Bud
Feb 15, 2024, 7:05:48 AMFeb 15
to
I will say I enjoyed reading what Chuck has had to say over the years. Doubtful either of us would have gravitated to a "Oh boy, the Warren Commission sure did get it right, by gum" forum. We`re here for the monkeys, and you guys have played your part.
I`ve learned more about the case from posters like Hank, Jean Davison (and later, DVP). When I first came here, I knew almost nothing about the CTer talking points, the issues they would bring up. But luckily all I needed to do is search the archives for "zircon" or Jean Davison, and the name of the issue to find what the CTers were neglecting to say, what information they were ignoring, or basically how you guys were looking at the wrong things incorrectly. And it seems those things will remain in the archive, available to anyone interested in looking at the things you bring up correctly.
Gil Jesus
Feb 15, 2024, 7:14:03 AMFeb 15
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:05:48 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual nonsense and insults >
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT ?
Yes or no ?
< his usual nonsense and insults >
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT ?
Yes or no ?
Mark Ulrik
Feb 15, 2024, 7:15:40 AMFeb 15
to
torsdag den 15. februar 2024 kl. 12.16.36 UTC+1 skrev Gil Jesus:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
> Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
> That's a pretty stupid question.
> > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
> Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
> You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
> Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
> We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
> Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
>
> My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
In other words, you're a conspiracy nut with an internet connection. In your own, highly inflated, view of yourself, what is your single greatest contribution to the case? Your amigo Ben couldn't stop patting himself on the back when he discovered that the Lady in Yellow Pants in the Nix film couldn't be seen in the Z film, and we all know how that went. Very sad.
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
> Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
> That's a pretty stupid question.
> > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
> Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
> You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
> Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
> We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
> Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
>
> My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
Gil Jesus
Feb 15, 2024, 7:23:37 AMFeb 15
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:15:40 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
< his usual occasional nonsense >
Another loser who hasn't accomplished anything in his life.
< his usual occasional nonsense >
Another loser who hasn't accomplished anything in his life.
Bud
Feb 15, 2024, 7:29:52 AMFeb 15
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:15:40 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> torsdag den 15. februar 2024 kl. 12.16.36 UTC+1 skrev Gil Jesus:
> > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > > Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> > Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> > We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
> > Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
> > That's a pretty stupid question.
> > > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
> > Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
> > You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
> > Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> > > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
> > We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
> > Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
> >
> > My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> > My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> > A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
> In other words, you're a conspiracy nut with an internet connection. In your own, highly inflated, view of yourself, what is your single greatest contribution to the case? Your amigo Ben couldn't stop patting himself on the back when he discovered that the Lady in Yellow Pants in the Nix film couldn't be seen in the Z film, and we all know how that went. Very sad.
I was looking at his "credentials" and thinking they could apply to any number of other crackpots, those who say the earth is flat, that we didn`t land on the Moon, or that climate change is real.
> > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > > Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> > Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> > We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
> > Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
> > That's a pretty stupid question.
> > > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
> > Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
> > You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
> > Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> > > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
> > We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
> > Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
> >
> > My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> > My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> > A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
> In other words, you're a conspiracy nut with an internet connection. In your own, highly inflated, view of yourself, what is your single greatest contribution to the case? Your amigo Ben couldn't stop patting himself on the back when he discovered that the Lady in Yellow Pants in the Nix film couldn't be seen in the Z film, and we all know how that went. Very sad.
And yes, the last one was "tongue in cheek", I tripped you up that way before.
Anyway, you and Tim deserve a lot of credit for thoroughly demolishing the LYP theory. Tim, if you are lurking, take a bow before they turn off the lights.
Mark Ulrik
Feb 15, 2024, 7:34:58 AMFeb 15
to
Gil Jesus
Feb 15, 2024, 7:42:13 AMFeb 15
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:34:58 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
< more nonsense >
Ask yourself this folks:
Why would a guy from Denmark be such a staunch defender of the Warren Commission ?
Not his President.
Not his country.
I could see his interest if he doubted the Commission.
But why would a foreign national be so hell bent to defend the official version ?
< more nonsense >
Ask yourself this folks:
Why would a guy from Denmark be such a staunch defender of the Warren Commission ?
Not his President.
Not his country.
I could see his interest if he doubted the Commission.
But why would a foreign national be so hell bent to defend the official version ?
Mark Ulrik
Feb 15, 2024, 7:44:06 AMFeb 15
to
torsdag den 15. februar 2024 kl. 13.29.52 UTC+1 skrev Bud:
> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:15:40 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > torsdag den 15. februar 2024 kl. 12.16.36 UTC+1 skrev Gil Jesus:
> > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > > > Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> > > Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> > > We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
> > > Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
> > > That's a pretty stupid question.
> > > > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
> > > Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
> > > You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
> > > Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> > > > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
> > > We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
> > > Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
> > >
> > > My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> > > My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> > > A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
> > In other words, you're a conspiracy nut with an internet connection. In your own, highly inflated, view of yourself, what is your single greatest contribution to the case? Your amigo Ben couldn't stop patting himself on the back when he discovered that the Lady in Yellow Pants in the Nix film couldn't be seen in the Z film, and we all know how that went. Very sad.
> I was looking at his "credentials" and thinking they could apply to any number of other crackpots, those who say the earth is flat, that we didn`t land on the Moon, or that climate change is real.
>
> And yes, the last one was "tongue in cheek", I tripped you up that way before.
>
> Anyway, you and Tim deserve a lot of credit for thoroughly demolishing the LYP theory. Tim, if you are lurking, take a bow before they turn off the lights.
You're far to kind, Bud, but it's appreciated. I'll miss reading your posts.
> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:15:40 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > torsdag den 15. februar 2024 kl. 12.16.36 UTC+1 skrev Gil Jesus:
> > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > > > Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> > > Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> > > We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
> > > Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
> > > That's a pretty stupid question.
> > > > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
> > > Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
> > > You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
> > > Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> > > > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
> > > We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
> > > Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
> > >
> > > My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> > > My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> > > A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
> > In other words, you're a conspiracy nut with an internet connection. In your own, highly inflated, view of yourself, what is your single greatest contribution to the case? Your amigo Ben couldn't stop patting himself on the back when he discovered that the Lady in Yellow Pants in the Nix film couldn't be seen in the Z film, and we all know how that went. Very sad.
> I was looking at his "credentials" and thinking they could apply to any number of other crackpots, those who say the earth is flat, that we didn`t land on the Moon, or that climate change is real.
>
> And yes, the last one was "tongue in cheek", I tripped you up that way before.
>
> Anyway, you and Tim deserve a lot of credit for thoroughly demolishing the LYP theory. Tim, if you are lurking, take a bow before they turn off the lights.
Bud
Feb 15, 2024, 8:10:26 AMFeb 15
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 15, 2024, 9:02:36 AMFeb 15
to
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 04:05:46 -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?
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.
Ben Holmes
Feb 15, 2024, 9:02:36 AMFeb 15
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 15, 2024, 9:02:37 AMFeb 15
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 15, 2024, 9:02:37 AMFeb 15
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 15, 2024, 9:02:37 AMFeb 15
to
you deserve any answers?
Watch folks, as Chuckles runs again.
As he does...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
Ben Holmes
Feb 15, 2024, 9:02:37 AMFeb 15
to
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 04:14:01 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:05:48?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>< his usual nonsense and insults >
>
>So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT ?
>Yes or no ?
He can't answer. He desperately wants to say *Yes* - but then he'd
have to explain who it was BEHIND JFK... since JFK's back wound has a
similar oval shape.
So in order not to look stupid, he prefers to look like a coward.
He CERTAINLY cannot admit that a fellow believer wrote a silly
argument. But that's what happened.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:05:48?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>< his usual nonsense and insults >
>
>So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT ?
>Yes or no ?
have to explain who it was BEHIND JFK... since JFK's back wound has a
similar oval shape.
So in order not to look stupid, he prefers to look like a coward.
He CERTAINLY cannot admit that a fellow believer wrote a silly
argument. But that's what happened.
Bud
Feb 15, 2024, 9:20:28 AMFeb 15
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 9:02:37 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 04:14:01 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:05:48?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >< his usual nonsense and insults >
> >
> >So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT ?
> >Yes or no ?
> He can't answer.
Why do you say I haven`t?
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 04:14:01 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:05:48?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >< his usual nonsense and insults >
> >
> >So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT ?
> >Yes or no ?
> He can't answer.
Ben Holmes
Feb 15, 2024, 9:57:14 AMFeb 15
to
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 06:20:26 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
Gil Jesus
Feb 15, 2024, 11:30:00 AMFeb 15
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 9:02:37 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> So in order not to look stupid, he prefers to look like a coward.
I've got news for him. He looked stupid a long time ago.
BT George
Feb 15, 2024, 11:31:39 AMFeb 15
to
Gil Jesus
Feb 15, 2024, 11:35:15 AMFeb 15
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> Coming from a personal expert on the subject.
Says the guy whose best post is a daily countdown from 10.
> Coming from a personal expert on the subject.
I'm surprised that you can count that high.
Mark Ulrik
Feb 15, 2024, 3:18:27 PMFeb 15
to
Chuck Schuyler
Feb 15, 2024, 9:11:47 PMFeb 15
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 5:16:36 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
Name a "critic" of yours that you are interested in reading or hearing from.
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
Man, you are delusional. Countless websites, blogs, books, articles, YouTube documentaries, movies, television shows, etc. have tackled this subject from all sides, not to mention several MAJOR investigations, and yet you feel YOUR MESSAGE--that some people did something on 11/22/63--needs to get out there?
> Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
> That's a pretty stupid question.
> > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
> Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
> You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
> Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
> We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
> Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
>
> My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
You've contributed nothing, you whiny, sniveling child. I forwarded your website to JFK's online library and they never contracted you. I'll bet you were roundly laughed at, if anyone even bothered to read your drivel. You're the online version of the old-fashioned cranks who used to stand on corners with a bullhorn, screeching about the world coming to an end for one reason or another, passing out flyers--like your hero Oswald in New Orleans--only to eventually get shooed away by some beat cop.
> My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
>
> What have you Lone Nutters accomplished in your many years here ?
My accomplishments are blessedly away from here. What have you accomplished? Belief in a JFK conspiracy was at it's zenith a long time ago. Team Oswald has been slowly losing ground. And how many people have you convinced that Oswald was totally innocent of ANYTHING nefarious on 11/22/63? You are in the fringe minority. Boris the Truther disagrees with you. Don Willis disagrees with you. The Toilet disagrees with you. You're a nut, not a researcher.
> What have you Lone Nutters accomplished in your many years here ?
> Not a damned thing. And now, as your source of "entertainment" is fading into the sunset, the best you morons can come up with is a daily countdown from 10 by BT George.
> I'm surprised that he could count that high.
>
> I've got my new newsreader already set up. I've tested it and will be using it starting Feb. 22nd.
The hobby continues for you.
> I've got my new newsreader already set up. I've tested it and will be using it starting Feb. 22nd.
> So why would we leave a world wide audience for private messages or private groups ?
> That's a stupid move only a knucklehead like you would take.
>
> In the final analysis, history will show that in the end, you Lone Nutters finally surrendered.
You never put up a case to examine to "surrender" to, silly Gilly.
> In the final analysis, history will show that in the end, you Lone Nutters finally surrendered.
> That when it came to putting your money where your mouths were, your loyalty to your faith wasn't worth a few dollars a month.
> I'm not surprised. Cowards are usually quitters and quitters are usually cowards.
> And even assholes like yourselves can see that when your insults can't reach the eyes of your intended targets, it's not worth it.
Gil Jesus
Feb 16, 2024, 6:40:42 AMFeb 16
to
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 9:11:47 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> Name a "critic" of yours that you are interested in reading or hearing from.
You're not a "critic" Chuck, you're a troll .
> Name a "critic" of yours that you are interested in reading or hearing from.
> What message, Gil? You all have a DIFFERENT point of view. Different captains on different ships carrying different cargo in different directions to different ports, yet you all pretend to be part of the same convoy: Team Oswald. This doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to post whatever you want, but you seem clueless to the idea that few of you can agree on anything other than the vague notion that on 11/22/63, something happened, somehow.
> Man, you are delusional.
Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are.
> You'll block anyone who presses you for an explanation for what happened on 11/22/63.
> You are utterly delusional.
More name calling, proving what an asshole you are.
> you whiny, sniveling child.
More name calling, proving what an asshole you are.
> I'll bet you were roundly laughed at, if anyone even bothered to read your drivel.
>You're the online version of the old-fashioned cranks who used to stand on corners with a bullhorn, screeching about the world coming to an end for one reason or another.....
More name calling, proving what an asshole you are.
>You're a nut, not a researcher.
> I'm surprised you bought a truck online without checking it out first.
> No one without a newsreader--maybe 99 percent of the online public--will ever see any of your digital flotsam and jetsam.
> You never put up a case to examine to "surrender" to, silly Gilly.
>You are the internet mayor of your own Potemkin village, and Ben is your village idiot.
> I'll find someone else to insult. There's lots of conspiracy idiots like you around to tease.
God, you're so much better than they are.
Some people may refer to people like yourself as bullies.
But where I come from, we have a name for people like you, who serve no other purpose in life than to give the world a lot of shit.
We call them assholes.
Let me give you some advice:
What ever topic you choose to insult and tease your opponents on, make sure you know something about the topic.
Because when it comes to the JFK assassination, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Ben Holmes
Feb 16, 2024, 10:01:43 AMFeb 16
to
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:11:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 5:16:36?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
>
>What message, Gil? You all have a DIFFERENT point of view.
Not a single critic denies that there was a conspiracy.
> Countless websites, blogs, books, articles, YouTube documentaries,
> movies, television shows, etc. have tackled this subject from all
> sides, not to mention several MAJOR investigations, and yet you feel
> YOUR MESSAGE--that some people did something on 11/22/63--needs to get
> out there?
You indict yourself.
>> Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
>> That's a pretty stupid question.
>> > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
>
>> Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
>
>You'll block anyone who presses you for an explanation for what happened on 11/22/63.
How silly!! We're HAPPY to explain what you can't.
>> You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
>
>
>I don't assume that at all. I have read that Usenet has really faded in popularity.
Yet you're still here. You destroy your own arguments. How STUPID of
you!
>> Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
>> > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
>> We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
>
>Like?
Stick around and we'll answer your question.
>> Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
>
>"Of value to contribute" means ...
Being able to explain your beliefs.
>> My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
>> My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
>> A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
>
>You've contributed nothing...
Lies do not an argument make.
>> What have you Lone Nutters accomplished in your many years here ?
>
>My accomplishments...
Can't be seen here.
>> Not a damned thing. And now, as your source of "entertainment" is fading into the sunset, the best you morons can come up with is a daily countdown from 10 by BT George.
>> I'm surprised that he could count that high.
>>
Lies can't convince anyone...
>> That when it came to putting your money where your mouths were, your loyalty to your faith wasn't worth a few dollars a month.
>>
and pretend that you're not quiting the forum.
>> And even assholes like yourselves can see that when your insults can't reach the eyes of your intended targets, it's not worth it.
>>
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 5:16:36?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
>>> Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
>
>> Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
>
>Name a "critic" of yours that you are interested in reading or hearing from.
None... **ALL** of you are liars and cowards.
>
>>> Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
>
>> Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
>
>Name a "critic" of yours that you are interested in reading or hearing from.
>> We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
>
>What message, Gil? You all have a DIFFERENT point of view.
> Countless websites, blogs, books, articles, YouTube documentaries,
> movies, television shows, etc. have tackled this subject from all
> sides, not to mention several MAJOR investigations, and yet you feel
> YOUR MESSAGE--that some people did something on 11/22/63--needs to get
> out there?
>> Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
>> That's a pretty stupid question.
>> > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
>
>> Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
>
>You'll block anyone who presses you for an explanation for what happened on 11/22/63.
>> You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
>
>
>I don't assume that at all. I have read that Usenet has really faded in popularity.
you!
>> Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
>> > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
>> We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
>
>Like?
>> Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
>
Being able to explain your beliefs.
>> My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
>> My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
>> A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
>
Lies do not an argument make.
>> What have you Lone Nutters accomplished in your many years here ?
>
Can't be seen here.
>> Not a damned thing. And now, as your source of "entertainment" is fading into the sunset, the best you morons can come up with is a daily countdown from 10 by BT George.
>> I'm surprised that he could count that high.
>>
>> I've got my new newsreader already set up. I've tested it and will be using it starting Feb. 22nd.
>>
>>
>> So why would we leave a world wide audience for private messages or private groups ?
>> That's a stupid move only a knucklehead like you would take.
>>
>> That's a stupid move only a knucklehead like you would take.
>>
>> In the final analysis, history will show that in the end, you Lone Nutters finally surrendered.
>
>You never put up a case to examine to "surrender" to...
>
Lies can't convince anyone...
>> That when it came to putting your money where your mouths were, your loyalty to your faith wasn't worth a few dollars a month.
>>
>> I'm not surprised. Cowards are usually quitters and quitters are usually cowards.
>
>Quit what?
You see? You're incapable of honest debate - you argue the obvious,
>
>Quit what?
and pretend that you're not quiting the forum.
>> And even assholes like yourselves can see that when your insults can't reach the eyes of your intended targets, it's not worth it.
>>
>>> Why wait?
>>
>> Why switch when Google is free and still available ?
(Deleted most of Chuckles logical fallacies...)
>>
>> Why switch when Google is free and still available ?
Ben Holmes
Feb 16, 2024, 10:01:44 AMFeb 16
to
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 03:40:39 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
But no-one's interested in that.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Let me give you some advice:
>
>What ever topic you choose to insult and tease your opponents on, make sure you know something about the topic.
>Because when it comes to the JFK assassination, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
The only topic that Chuckles is knowledgeable on is his own biography.
>
>What ever topic you choose to insult and tease your opponents on, make sure you know something about the topic.
>Because when it comes to the JFK assassination, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
But no-one's interested in that.
Bud
Feb 16, 2024, 1:04:07 PMFeb 16
to
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:11:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 5:16:36?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> >
> >>> Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> >
> >> Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> >
> >Name a "critic" of yours that you are interested in reading or hearing from.
> None... **ALL** of you are liars and cowards.
You guys have your own little worlds going on.
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:11:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 5:16:36?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:20:16?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> >
> >>> Years go, why didn't you guys just set up an email group and Cc each other about various conspiracy topics if you're not interested in reading what your critics write?
> >
> >> Because the world has access to Usenet newsgroups. It doesn't have access to our private conversations.
> >
> >Name a "critic" of yours that you are interested in reading or hearing from.
> None... **ALL** of you are liars and cowards.
You`re like those blow up clown punching bags, no matter how hard you are hit you bounce back up like nothing happened. We get the satisfaction of punching you in the face, but we don`t get the satisfaction of you staying down. Still, it was fun punching you in the face, but for some not worth the price of admission. For me learning how to operate a new newsreader is enough of a deterrent, I might not bother if it was free.
> >> We're trying to get our message out to the world, not to each other.
> >
> >What message, Gil? You all have a DIFFERENT point of view.
> Not a single critic denies that there was a conspiracy.
> > Countless websites, blogs, books, articles, YouTube documentaries,
> > movies, television shows, etc. have tackled this subject from all
> > sides, not to mention several MAJOR investigations, and yet you feel
> > YOUR MESSAGE--that some people did something on 11/22/63--needs to get
> > out there?
> You indict yourself.
> >> Why on earth would we go private when we have the usenet ?
> >> That's a pretty stupid question.
> >> > NO ONE except you two and maybe Gentleman Don are going to participate here after 2/22/24.
> >
> >> Not true. Anyone in the world who has access to Usenet newsgroups using a newsreader and NNTP server other than Google will be able to participate.
> >
> >You'll block anyone who presses you for an explanation for what happened on 11/22/63.
> How silly!! We're HAPPY to explain what you can't.
> >> You're assuming that no one in the world pays for Usenet newsgroup access. That's not true.
> >
> >
> >I don't assume that at all. I have read that Usenet has really faded in popularity.
> Yet you're still here. You destroy your own arguments. How STUPID of
> you!
> >> Plus, our posts to a.c.j. will appear in search engines, while posts in Google Groups do not.
> >> > In fact, you could set up the email chain NOW or use Messenger on Facebook or something and not need to deal with any of your critics.
> >> We will be able to see the posts of our opponents who have not been blocked.
> >
> >Like?
> Stick around and we'll answer your question.
> >> Insulting jackasses like yourself who have nothing of value to contribute and have no credibility will be blocked. ( from my screen, I can't speak for Ben )
> >
> >"Of value to contribute" means ...
>
>
> Being able to explain your beliefs.
Why?
> >> My posts are seen on several different formats, including X ( formerly Twitter ) , Facebook, several JFK forums and I've appeared more than a half dozen times on internet podcasts.
> >> My essays and videos have received world-wide exposure. My writings have been sources for several different authors.
> >> A search for "gil jesus jfk" on any search engine will reveal my contributions to the JFK assassination community.
> >
> >You've contributed nothing...
>
>
> Lies do not an argument make.
> >> What have you Lone Nutters accomplished in your many years here ?
> >
> >My accomplishments...
>
>
> Can't be seen here.
> >> Not a damned thing. And now, as your source of "entertainment" is fading into the sunset, the best you morons can come up with is a daily countdown from 10 by BT George.
> >> I'm surprised that he could count that high.
> >>
> >> I've got my new newsreader already set up. I've tested it and will be using it starting Feb. 22nd.
> >>
> >> So why would we leave a world wide audience for private messages or private groups ?
> >> That's a stupid move only a knucklehead like you would take.
> >>
> >> In the final analysis, history will show that in the end, you Lone Nutters finally surrendered.
> >
> >You never put up a case to examine to "surrender" to...
>
>
> Lies can't convince anyone...
> >> That when it came to putting your money where your mouths were, your loyalty to your faith wasn't worth a few dollars a month.
> >>
> >> I'm not surprised. Cowards are usually quitters and quitters are usually cowards.
> >
> >Quit what?
> You see? You're incapable of honest debate - you argue the obvious,
> and pretend that you're not quiting the forum.
Ben Holmes
Feb 16, 2024, 1:20:33 PMFeb 16
to
0 new messages