further... LHO's marksmanship and weapon handling abilities 5-02-2013

[aeffects]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18820#entry272939

Sgt Mike Williams says:

"...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."

Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?

[Sam McClung]

"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a4ae81b-f3b2-4429...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

<begin mike williams quote>
The Marine Corp basic doctrine is that every man is a rifle man first.
<end mike williams quote>
from http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18820#entry272939

where is this marine corp basic doctrine in writing stating this? or, is
this mike william's interpretation of other things?

nowhere here, which seems to be relevant, does it mention "every man
[marine] is a rifleman first"
http://knightowldefense.com/riflemans-creed/

is that what they call literary license?

sgt. sam

[Bud]

It was the opinion of the Marine Corps that he was good shot.

[Sam McClung]

"Sam McClung" <mcc...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:klubc...@news4.newsguy.com...

doing a google search for "every man is a rifle man first"

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22every+man+is+a+rifle+man+first%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=there are only 6 hitssuppose mike willimas is the source of them all?and "every man is a rifle man first" is some made up baloney by mikewilliams...

[timstter]

Marine Corps expert witnesses testified that he was an EXCELLENT shot
to the the WC.

You don't seem to know much *case evidence* on the matter, Dave/Ringo.

Have you ever actually SEEN the 26 volumes??

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Jason Burke]

On 5/3/2013 2:52 PM, timstter wrote:
> On May 3, 2:48 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18820#entry272939
>>
>> Sgt Mike Williams says:
>>
>> "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>>
>> Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>
> Marine Corps expert witnesses testified that he was an EXCELLENT shot
> to the the WC.

That doesn't matter to Herr Dipshit.
He's probably too stupid to realize how a can opener works (though it
looks like he's probably had a lot of fun with one, his rear, and the
floor.)

[aeffects]

On May 3, 2:55 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/3/2013 2:52 PM, timstter wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 2:48 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18820#entry272939
>
> >> Sgt Mike Williams says:
>
> >> "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>
> >> Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>
> > Marine Corps expert witnesses testified that he was an EXCELLENT shot
> > to the the WC.
>
> That doesn't matter to Herr Dipshit.
> He's probably too stupid to realize how a can opener works (though it
> looks like he's probably had a lot of fun with one, his rear, and the
> floor.)

I see I still own your (Paul May-Mark Ulrik) and Tim Brennan (aka Tim
Shell) sorry asses. All in a days work--ROTFLMFAO! !

The only thing wrong with that though is why do I want to own a
worthless pieces of shit (POS) like you? If you had a modicum of
knowledge concerning this case that would be one thing, but you
fuckwads can't even get your names correct, which leads one to ask,
just why the hell are you here posting on this board... afterall even
the most serious defenders of the WCR **KNOW** its a crock-of-shit.

And now we have 60's era, draft-doding cowards not only defending the
WCR but commenting on marksmanship abilities...what pieces of work
you fools are....

Keep coming back pudless, we need to keep you idiots front and
center.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You don't seem to know much *case evidence* on the matter, Dave/Ringo.
>
> > Have you ever actually SEEN the 26 volumes??
>
> > Concerned Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
> > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

[Jason Burke]

On 5/3/2013 3:29 PM, aeffects wrote:
> On May 3, 2:55 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/3/2013 2:52 PM, timstter wrote:
>>
>>> On May 3, 2:48 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18820#entry272939
>>
>>>> Sgt Mike Williams says:
>>
>>>> "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>>
>>>> Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>>
>>> Marine Corps expert witnesses testified that he was an EXCELLENT shot
>>> to the the WC.
>>
>> That doesn't matter to Herr Dipshit.
>> He's probably too stupid to realize how a can opener works (though it
>> looks like he's probably had a lot of fun with one, his rear, and the
>> floor.)
>
>
> I see I still own your (Paul May-Mark Ulrik) and Tim Brennan (aka Tim
> Shell) sorry asses. All in a days work--ROTFLMFAO! !
>

I see you're still too fucking stupid to read headers, asswipe.

> The only thing wrong with that though is why do I want to own a
> worthless pieces of shit (POS) like you? If you had a modicum of
> knowledge concerning this case that would be one thing, but you
> fuckwads can't even get your names correct, which leads one to ask,
> just why the hell are you here posting on this board... afterall even
> the most serious defenders of the WCR **KNOW** its a crock-of-shit.
>
> And now we have 60's era, draft-doding cowards not only defending the
> WCR but commenting on marksmanship abilities...what pieces of work
> you fools are....
>
> Keep coming back pudless, we need to keep you idiots front and
> center.
>

Again the fuckshit is rolling around!

'doding' What the fuck does that mean, asshole?

Probably what your mama did to you when you were a tyke that she wishes
she aborted.

But at least she'll get the satisfaction of knowing that you'll never
reproduce. (Here's a hint, retard. You have to have something called
'sex' to reproduce. And you hand doesn't count - although I'm sure you
LOVE it!)

[Bill Clarke]

In article <klubc...@news4.newsguy.com>, Sam McClung says...

Well Sgt. Sam, call it a Marine motto or whatever but the old, "every Marine is
a rifleman first" has been around a very long time. Hell, Holmes probably even
knows it.

Bill Clarke

[timstter]

On May 3, 2:48 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:

Lord help us! Dave/Ringo Healy appears to be trying to take on the
role of *The Beer-Gutted Cavorter* and attempt to enforce an adherence
to <snicker> *case evidence* around these parts.

Fortunately *case evidence* is a STRANGER to Dave/Ringo, a fellow
simply too STUPID to realise that USMC experts rated Oswald as an
EXCELLENT shot, all available in his precious *case evidence* were he
to take the substance-addled time to look.

Of course, he can't.

Sorrowing Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[aeffects]

On May 5, 2:44 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 2:48 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18820#entry272939
>
> > Sgt Mike Williams says:
>
> > "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>
> > Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>
> Lord help us! Dave/Ringo Healy appears to be trying to take on the
> role of *The Beer-Gutted Cavorter* and attempt to enforce an adherence
> to <snicker> *case evidence* around these parts.
>
> Fortunately *case evidence* is a STRANGER to Dave/Ringo, a fellow
> simply too STUPID to realise that USMC experts rated Oswald as an
> EXCELLENT shot, all available in his precious *case evidence* were he
> to take the substance-addled time to look.
>
> Of course, he can't.

old Pudge Brennan (aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) is sure whining
to high heavens these days, must be that ass drubbing he's taken on
Amazon by that 10+year marine vet, expert marksman Ben Holmes,
concerning all things LHO marksmanship abilities.... as usual Chubbs
Brennan shows his incompetence when faced with experts in the field...
Makes you wonder how much disinfo central pays idiots like Brennan
(aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) to take the drubbing they are
surely going to get.

One would THINK the fools would at least read some background before
they open their fawning yaps before they make damn fools of
themselves.

This guy Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) supposedly
from Fresno, a place full of US military veterans doesn't even know
what a DD2145 is yet here the fool is commenting on military
marksmanship.... old Bill Clarke threw in with a bunch of lone nut
damn fools....

And he's gonna tell us all about Mark Lane? L-M-F-A-O!

Carry on girls!
>
> Tim Brennan
> Fresno
> *Newsgroup(s) Primo Suck-ass*

[aeffects]

I see we're bewyond your pay grade shithead.... lmfao!

> Probably what your mama did to you when you were a tyke that she wishes
> she aborted.

now that comment is the best .john mcadams, lone nut trolls can stoop
to... never send a rank, two-bit no-nothing amateur to do mans work,
yet .johnites do it day, after day, after DAY.... lmao!

> But at least she'll get the satisfaction of knowing that you'll never
> reproduce. (Here's a hint, retard. You have to have something called
> 'sex' to reproduce. And you hand doesn't count - although I'm sure you
> LOVE it!)

again more .john mcadams, marquette university, lone nut disinfo-
distraction... feel free to continue, Paul May (aka Jason Burke - Mark
Ulrik)

Carry on!

[Ben Holmes]

In article <km408...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

>
>In article <klubc...@news4.newsguy.com>, Sam McClung says...
>>
>>"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:0a4ae81b-f3b2-4429...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18820#entry272939
>>>
>>> Sgt Mike Williams says:
>>>
>>> "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>>>
>>> Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>>
>><begin mike williams quote>
>>The Marine Corp basic doctrine is that every man is a rifle man first.
>><end mike williams quote>
>>from http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18820#entry272939
>>
>>where is this marine corp basic doctrine in writing stating this? or, is
>>this mike william's interpretation of other things?

This *is* correct Marine Corps doctrine.

>>nowhere here, which seems to be relevant, does it mention "every man
>>[marine] is a rifleman first"
>>http://knightowldefense.com/riflemans-creed/
>>
>>is that what they call literary license?
>>
>>sgt. sam
>>
>>
>
>Well Sgt. Sam, call it a Marine motto or whatever but the old, "every Marine is
>a rifleman first" has been around a very long time. Hell, Holmes probably even
>knows it.
>
>Bill Clarke

Billy Clarke is too much of a coward to admit the truth...


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

[Ben Holmes]

In article <5eef5e36-eb75-474a...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 5, 2:44=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 3, 2:48=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D18820#entry27293=

>9
>>
>> > Sgt Mike Williams says:
>>
>> > "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>>
>> > Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>>
>> Lord help us! Dave/Ringo Healy appears to be trying to take on the
>> role of *The Beer-Gutted Cavorter* and attempt to enforce an adherence
>> to <snicker> *case evidence* around these parts.
>>
>> Fortunately *case evidence* is a STRANGER to Dave/Ringo, a fellow
>> simply too STUPID to realise that USMC experts rated Oswald as an
>> EXCELLENT shot, all available in his precious *case evidence* were he
>> to take the substance-addled time to look.

Strangely enough, the *less* you knew Oswald, the better a shot he "was".

But his actual scores tell a story that you cannot refute.

>> Of course, he can't.
>
>
>old Pudge Brennan (aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) is sure whining
>to high heavens these days, must be that ass drubbing he's taken on
>Amazon by that 10+year marine vet, expert marksman Ben Holmes,
>concerning all things LHO marksmanship abilities.... as usual Chubbs
>Brennan shows his incompetence when faced with experts in the field...
>Makes you wonder how much disinfo central pays idiots like Brennan
>(aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) to take the drubbing they are
>surely going to get.
>
>One would THINK the fools would at least read some background before
>they open their fawning yaps before they make damn fools of
>themselves.
>
>This guy Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) supposedly
>from Fresno, a place full of US military veterans doesn't even know
>what a DD2145 is yet here the fool is commenting on military
>marksmanship.... old Bill Clarke threw in with a bunch of lone nut
>damn fools....
>
>And he's gonna tell us all about Mark Lane? L-M-F-A-O!
>
>Carry on girls!
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Fresno
>> *Newsgroup(s) Primo Suck-ass*

[aeffects]

On May 5, 2:44 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 3, 2:48 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

...

here's a hint, Pudge... a DD214 is a single piece of paper.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <km8bd...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

So this means you DIDN'T know every Marine is a rifleman first? Damn Holmes.

Bill Clarke

[Bud]

On May 6, 9:47 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <5eef5e36-eb75-474a-97d9-da515921a...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,

> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 5, 2:44=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 3, 2:48=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D18820#entry27...

> >9
>
> >> > Sgt Mike Williams says:
>
> >> > "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>
> >> > Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>
> >> Lord help us! Dave/Ringo Healy appears to be trying to take on the
> >> role of *The Beer-Gutted Cavorter* and attempt to enforce an adherence
> >> to <snicker> *case evidence* around these parts.
>
> >> Fortunately *case evidence* is a STRANGER to Dave/Ringo, a fellow
> >> simply too STUPID to realise that USMC experts rated Oswald as an
> >> EXCELLENT shot, all available in his precious *case evidence* were he
> >> to take the substance-addled time to look.
>
> Strangely enough, the *less* you knew Oswald, the better a shot he "was".
>
> But his actual scores tell a story that you cannot refute.

You can`t prove that his last shooting score was truly reflective of
his shooting ability.

[aeffects]

On May 6, 12:57 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On May 6, 9:47 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <5eef5e36-eb75-474a-97d9-da515921a...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,
> > aeffects says...
>
> > >On May 5, 2:44=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 3, 2:48=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D18820#entry27...
> > >9
>
> > >> > Sgt Mike Williams says:
>
> > >> > "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>
> > >> > Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>
> > >> Lord help us! Dave/Ringo Healy appears to be trying to take on the
> > >> role of *The Beer-Gutted Cavorter* and attempt to enforce an adherence
> > >> to <snicker> *case evidence* around these parts.
>
> > >> Fortunately *case evidence* is a STRANGER to Dave/Ringo, a fellow
> > >> simply too STUPID to realise that USMC experts rated Oswald as an
> > >> EXCELLENT shot, all available in his precious *case evidence* were he
> > >> to take the substance-addled time to look.
>
> > Strangely enough, the *less* you knew Oswald, the better a shot he "was".
>
> > But his actual scores tell a story that you cannot refute.
>
>   You can`t prove that his last shooting score was truly reflective of
> his shooting ability.
>

...

"truly reflective" I see you've taken your moron med's today,
Dudster.... truly reflective.... lmfao!

[Bud]

You`ve repeated it, do you understand it?

Ben will understand it, and run like a cunt from it.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <km8l4...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

Why would you email me your sexual fantasies with the neighborhood children,
Billy?

Did you think that I'd be anything other than revolted by your email?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <8ce3cab4-a0ff-45ad...@kq11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 6, 12:57=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 6, 9:47=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <5eef5e36-eb75-474a-97d9-da515921a...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 5, 2:44=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On May 3, 2:48=3DA0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D3D18820#ent=

>ry27...
>> > >9
>>
>> > >> > Sgt Mike Williams says:
>>
>> > >> > "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>>
>> > >> > Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opinion?
>>
>> > >> Lord help us! Dave/Ringo Healy appears to be trying to take on the

>> > >> role of *The Beer-Gutted Cavorter* and attempt to enforce an adheren=

>ce
>> > >> to <snicker> *case evidence* around these parts.
>>
>> > >> Fortunately *case evidence* is a STRANGER to Dave/Ringo, a fellow
>> > >> simply too STUPID to realise that USMC experts rated Oswald as an

>> > >> EXCELLENT shot, all available in his precious *case evidence* were h=

>e
>> > >> to take the substance-addled time to look.
>>

>> > Strangely enough, the *less* you knew Oswald, the better a shot he "was=

>".
>>
>> > But his actual scores tell a story that you cannot refute.
>>
>> You can`t prove that his last shooting score was truly reflective of
>> his shooting ability.

You see? I stated that you'd be unable to refute his actual scores...

>...
>
>"truly reflective" I see you've taken your moron med's today,
>Dudster.... truly reflective.... lmfao!

If "Bud" were ever "truly reflective", he'd no longer be a Lone Nut... of
course, that would require both intelligence and honesty...

[aeffects]

trey and control yourself dudster, you're acting like a defeated,
deflated lone nut pussy, AGAIN. So what else is new, eh?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <km9ca...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

Damn Holmes, a new low for your sorry ass. How low can you go? I have never
emailed you and I never intend to email you. A liar again.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

Both In article <km9cv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

Both of which you lack. Just like your hero Mark Lane.

Bill Clarke

[Bud]

On May 6, 7:05 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <8ce3cab4-a0ff-45ad-887b-4f3ec5459...@kq11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Yah, I do see. You ran like a cunt exactly like I predicted.

> I stated that you'd be unable to refute his actual scores...

His actual scores are on record, stupid. What you can`t show is
whether his lesser score was truly reflective of his ability. To dumb
it down so Healy can understand it, you can`t show he was trying.

> >...
>
> >"truly reflective" I see you've taken your moron med's today,
> >Dudster.... truly reflective.... lmfao!
>
> If "Bud" were ever "truly reflective", he'd no longer be a Lone Nut... of
> course, that would require both intelligence and honesty...

Ad hominem and cowardice is all you have to offer. You can`t even
claim you are ignorant of the evidence that Oswald wasn`t performing
his tasks in the Marines up to his full potential towards the end of
his service.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <022c3544-0c8f-423a...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 6, 2:02=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 6, 4:07=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 6, 12:57=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 6, 9:47=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article <5eef5e36-eb75-474a-97d9-da515921a...@d3g2000pbs.googleg=
>roups.com>,
>> > > > aeffects says...
>>

>> > > > >On May 5, 2:44=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> On May 3, 2:48=3DA0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> > > > >> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D3D18820=

>#entry27...
>> > > > >9
>>
>> > > > >> > Sgt Mike Williams says:
>>
>> > > > >> > "...Oswald was far from being a "poor" shot."
>>

>> > > > >> > Is THAT a fact, Sgt Mikey? Or simply unabashed, lone nut opini=
>on?
>>
>> > > > >> Lord help us! Dave/Ringo Healy appears to be trying to take on t=
>he
>> > > > >> role of *The Beer-Gutted Cavorter* and attempt to enforce an adh=

>erence
>> > > > >> to <snicker> *case evidence* around these parts.
>>

>> > > > >> Fortunately *case evidence* is a STRANGER to Dave/Ringo, a fello=
>w
>> > > > >> simply too STUPID to realise that USMC experts rated Oswald as a=
>n
>> > > > >> EXCELLENT shot, all available in his precious *case evidence* we=

>re he
>> > > > >> to take the substance-addled time to look.
>>

>> > > > Strangely enough, the *less* you knew Oswald, the better a shot he =

>"was".
>>
>> > > > But his actual scores tell a story that you cannot refute.
>>
>> > > You can`t prove that his last shooting score was truly reflective of
>> > > his shooting ability.
>>
>> > ...
>>
>> > "truly reflective" I see you've taken your moron med's today,
>> > Dudster.... truly reflective.... lmfao!
>>
>> You`ve repeated it, do you understand it?
>>
>> Ben will understand it, and run like a cunt from it.
>
>trey and control yourself dudster, you're acting like a defeated,
>deflated lone nut pussy, AGAIN. So what else is new, eh?

This is the basic problem with the kooks - they rely on speculation, and we rely
on evidence.

When the evidence doesn't favor them, they immediately begin to speculate why
the evidence isn't really saying what it's clearly saying...

Kooks...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <km9ud...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

Nor did I ever state or even imply that I'm not perfectly familiar with the fact
that every Marine is a rifleman first...

If you make blatantly false claims about what I said, then you really shouldn't
be surprised that others do the same to you.

So tell me Billy, just how low can you go? How many lies can you tell?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <km9uh...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

>
>Both In article <km9cv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>

>>In article <8ce3cab4-a0ff-45ad-887b-
4f3ec5...@kq11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Still the coward, eh Billy?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <kmav6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

Tell me, Benny, just how fucked up can you get? I think you are about to limit
out.

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <kmb5o...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

So tell me Billy, just how low can you go? How many lies can you tell? Are you
too stupid to realize that *YOU* started it?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <kmdj3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

You are boring the hell out of me Holmes. And I see you fall in with the
"nothing is my fault" crowd. Sad.

Bill Clarke

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <kmdtv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

Of course... I keep asking questions that you can't answer.

>And I see you fall in with the
>"nothing is my fault" crowd. Sad.

Of course, it's *YOU* that is now claiming that this isn't your fault.

Rather dishonest of you, isn't it moron?


>Bill Clarke
>
>Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <kme9u...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

Seek professional help Holmes.

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <kmee8...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

>
>In article <kme9u...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kmdtv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <kmdj3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <kmb5o...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <kmav6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <km9ud...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <km9ca...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <km8l4...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <km8bd...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <km408...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <klubc...@news4.newsguy.com>, Sam McClung says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>news:0a4ae81b-f3b2-4429-bc14-
7974fa...@d3g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

What "professional help" do I need pointing out the truth?

What "professional help" could you accept to learn honesty?

You're lying again, Billy...