info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bugliosi's 53 Reasons Refuted. Puddy Proves Himself A Liar.
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 24, 2019, 1:12:34 PM4/24/19
to
In my refutation of Bugliosi's 53 reasons for believing that Oswald
alone shot JFK - I used a summary form of the list found on the
censored forum, and compiled by a believer.
COMPILED BY A BELIEVER.
And never objected to by any believer in that forum.
Naturally, I checked them against my copy of 'Reclaiming History'
before using them, since believers are notorious liars.
Puddy began crying:
>> You're the one implying that I've not accurately portrayed his position.
>
> I asked why what you were using differed from another version.
> When you say what you are using is reflective of Bugliosi`s words I
> have to wonder why you aren`t using his actual words.
It's worth pointing out that Puddy never did manage to show that there
was **ANY** substative difference between the summary quote, and the
full quote found in 'Reclaiming History'.
Nor did he object to the original list found in the censored forum.
It's only when a critic re-uses it, that suddenly "problems" are
allegedly found. (but never documented or cited for...)
In other words, Puddy's a liar.
Bud
Apr 24, 2019, 6:35:02 PM4/24/19
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:12:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In my refutation of Bugliosi's 53 reasons for believing that Oswald
> alone shot JFK - I used a summary form of the list found on the
> censored forum, and compiled by a believer.
>
> COMPILED BY A BELIEVER.
>
> And never objected to by any believer in that forum.
>
> Naturally, I checked them against my copy of 'Reclaiming History'
> before using them, since believers are notorious liars.
>
> Puddy began crying:
<snicker> It`s fringe reset time with our starved for attention toddler.
> In my refutation of Bugliosi's 53 reasons for believing that Oswald
> alone shot JFK - I used a summary form of the list found on the
> censored forum, and compiled by a believer.
>
> COMPILED BY A BELIEVER.
>
> And never objected to by any believer in that forum.
>
> Naturally, I checked them against my copy of 'Reclaiming History'
> before using them, since believers are notorious liars.
>
> Puddy began crying:
> >> You're the one implying that I've not accurately portrayed his position.
> >
> > I asked why what you were using differed from another version.
> > When you say what you are using is reflective of Bugliosi`s words I
> > have to wonder why you aren`t using his actual words.
>
>
> It's worth pointing out that Puddy never did manage to show that there
> was **ANY** substative difference between the summary quote, and the
> full quote found in 'Reclaiming History'.
> Nor did he object to the original list found in the censored forum.
>
> It's only when a critic re-uses it, that suddenly "problems" are
> allegedly found. (but never documented or cited for...)
>
>
>
> In other words, Puddy's a liar.
healyd...@gmail.com
Apr 25, 2019, 12:26:56 AM4/25/19
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:12:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In my refutation of Bugliosi's 53 reasons for believing that Oswald
> > alone shot JFK - I used a summary form of the list found on the
> > censored forum, and compiled by a believer.
> >
> > COMPILED BY A BELIEVER.
> >
> > And never objected to by any believer in that forum.
> >
> > Naturally, I checked them against my copy of 'Reclaiming History'
> > before using them, since believers are notorious liars.
> >
> > Puddy began crying:
>
> <snicker> It`s fringe reset time with our starved for attention toddler.
>
> > >> You're the one implying that I've not accurately portrayed his position.
> > >
> > > I asked why what you were using differed from another version.
> > > When you say what you are using is reflective of Bugliosi`s words I
> > > have to wonder why you aren`t using his actual words.
> >
> >
> > It's worth pointing out that Puddy never did manage to show that there
> > was **ANY** substative difference between the summary quote, and the
> > full quote found in 'Reclaiming History'.
>
> Ben never did manage to explain why he was using things he claimed were "reflective" of Bugliosi`s words rather than actual quotes.
reflective? you aren't sounding any smarter, moron. Simply full of fear.
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:12:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In my refutation of Bugliosi's 53 reasons for believing that Oswald
> > alone shot JFK - I used a summary form of the list found on the
> > censored forum, and compiled by a believer.
> >
> > COMPILED BY A BELIEVER.
> >
> > And never objected to by any believer in that forum.
> >
> > Naturally, I checked them against my copy of 'Reclaiming History'
> > before using them, since believers are notorious liars.
> >
> > Puddy began crying:
>
> <snicker> It`s fringe reset time with our starved for attention toddler.
>
> > >> You're the one implying that I've not accurately portrayed his position.
> > >
> > > I asked why what you were using differed from another version.
> > > When you say what you are using is reflective of Bugliosi`s words I
> > > have to wonder why you aren`t using his actual words.
> >
> >
> > It's worth pointing out that Puddy never did manage to show that there
> > was **ANY** substative difference between the summary quote, and the
> > full quote found in 'Reclaiming History'.
>
> Ben never did manage to explain why he was using things he claimed were "reflective" of Bugliosi`s words rather than actual quotes.
Ben Holmes
May 6, 2019, 11:41:57 AM5/6/19
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:12:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In my refutation of Bugliosi's 53 reasons for believing that Oswald
>> alone shot JFK - I used a summary form of the list found on the
>> censored forum, and compiled by a believer.
>>
>> COMPILED BY A BELIEVER.
>>
>> And never objected to by any believer in that forum.
>>
>> Naturally, I checked them against my copy of 'Reclaiming History'
>> before using them, since believers are notorious liars.
>>
>> Puddy began crying:
>
> <snicker> It`s fringe reset time with our starved for attention toddler.
Puddy apparently believes his lies turn to truth with the passage of
time...
>> >> You're the one implying that I've not accurately portrayed his position.
>> >
>> > I asked why what you were using differed from another version.
>> > When you say what you are using is reflective of Bugliosi`s words I
>> > have to wonder why you aren`t using his actual words.
>>
>>
>> It's worth pointing out that Puddy never did manage to show that there
>> was **ANY** substative difference between the summary quote, and the
>> full quote found in 'Reclaiming History'.
>
> Ben never did manage to explain why he was using things he claimed
> were "reflective" of Bugliosi`s words rather than actual quotes.
You're lying again, Puddy. This was the summary prepared BY A FELLOW
BELIEVER - and you had zilch to say about that fact.
No need to quote everything he said unless by leaving it out, I'm
misrepresenting what his assertion is.
And despite your implications - you could never show that.
You simply lied.
>> Nor did he object to the original list found in the censored forum.
>>
>> It's only when a critic re-uses it, that suddenly "problems" are
>> allegedly found. (but never documented or cited for...)
>>
>> In other words, Puddy's a liar.
>
> Ben gets to where he desperately wants to go regardless of the facts.
What "facts" are here that show you were teilling the truth?
Did you complain about the original summary that I used from the
censored forum?
Nope.
Did you demonstrate any inaccuracy?
Nope.
You simply lied, then ran away...
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:12:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In my refutation of Bugliosi's 53 reasons for believing that Oswald
>> alone shot JFK - I used a summary form of the list found on the
>> censored forum, and compiled by a believer.
>>
>> COMPILED BY A BELIEVER.
>>
>> And never objected to by any believer in that forum.
>>
>> Naturally, I checked them against my copy of 'Reclaiming History'
>> before using them, since believers are notorious liars.
>>
>> Puddy began crying:
>
> <snicker> It`s fringe reset time with our starved for attention toddler.
time...
>> >> You're the one implying that I've not accurately portrayed his position.
>> >
>> > I asked why what you were using differed from another version.
>> > When you say what you are using is reflective of Bugliosi`s words I
>> > have to wonder why you aren`t using his actual words.
>>
>>
>> It's worth pointing out that Puddy never did manage to show that there
>> was **ANY** substative difference between the summary quote, and the
>> full quote found in 'Reclaiming History'.
>
> Ben never did manage to explain why he was using things he claimed
> were "reflective" of Bugliosi`s words rather than actual quotes.
BELIEVER - and you had zilch to say about that fact.
No need to quote everything he said unless by leaving it out, I'm
misrepresenting what his assertion is.
And despite your implications - you could never show that.
You simply lied.
>> Nor did he object to the original list found in the censored forum.
>>
>> It's only when a critic re-uses it, that suddenly "problems" are
>> allegedly found. (but never documented or cited for...)
>>
>> In other words, Puddy's a liar.
>
> Ben gets to where he desperately wants to go regardless of the facts.
Did you complain about the original summary that I used from the
censored forum?
Nope.
Did you demonstrate any inaccuracy?
Nope.
You simply lied, then ran away...
0 new messages