For Ben Holmes

[Christopher Strimbu]

Since I identify as male, I would like it if you referred to me as he and not she.

Thank you.

[Ben Holmes]

Since my name is Ben Holmes, I rather prefer it. When people can't
seem to use my correct name, then I lose the ability to use *THEIR*
correct name.

Huckster was a holdout for many years... and I correctly used his
name... but even he finally decided to call me something else.

Actions have consequences.

[Hank Sienzant]

I call Bullshit. I responded to someone else on Amazon, mockingly referencing their “keen abilities” as an armchair detective, and mockingly called them “Holmes”, as in Sherlock Holmes, the fictional detective created by A. Conan Doyle. It was a throwaway sidebar reference to the “No shit, Sherlock” phraseology used by some to say “I knew that already”.

Initially, you had no problem with that remark and merely claimed I didn’t know who I was responding to. You originally responded you didn’t write it, someone else did (I don’t recall the other person’s name). I pointed out that you weren’t the only Holmes in the world, and I was certain the fictional detective I referenced was a bit more famous than Ben Holmes was. That was the end of it on Amazon.

Even here, when you first resurrected that nonsense, you didn’t quote the context of my post and you never did. You never will. That’s because the full context of my post and our subsequent exchanges on Amazon reveal I was never talking about you whatsoever. See the below.


>
> Actions have consequences.

Yes. You lied about me calling you something other than Ben, and pretended a post referencing the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes was directed at you. You used that post as an excuse to start calling me Huckster. But your claim had no bearing in fact at the time you made ii.

It is still a lie by you.

The exchange that supposedly triggered you can be seen here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ
== quote ==
>
>(adding it back after Ben snipped it multiple times).*
> Back on the Amazon discussion boards when those were a thing, I had
> much the same response about something or other related to the JFK
> assassination, and Ben, having no other response, went on for several
> posts about how I didn't even know his first name (I referenced
> Sherlock Holmes) and of course Ben never addressed the JFK-related
> point I made. Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion
> going and make it look like he had a point. Of course, the fact that
> everyone else knew what I was referencing when I referenced Sherlock
> didn't cause him any pause.
>
>Just had to share that one.

Up till now I've tried to refrain from calling you anything but your
real name, since for the most part, you've done that for me.

But your repeated insistence has changed that.

From now on, you'll be called "Huckster Sienzant"
== unquote ==
__________
* in fact, Ben simply deleting this explanation when I first posted it earlier in that thread.

Here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/_Kwxb5fnAAAJ
And
Here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/W2SXstF8AAAJ

it was only after I reposted a few times that Sherlock Holmes and Ben Holmes are not the same person that he started to pretend I called him Sherlock Holmes, but of course I never did. Note as well Ben lied about my “repeated insistence” on calling him something other than “Ben”. Three or three hundred references to Sherlock Holmes does not equate to even a single reference to me calling him anything other than “Ben”.

[x]

On 4/17/2022 11:52 AM, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> And a year ago, we find - amusingly enough - Ben calling me Sherlock.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/xNh1vBBixRQ/m/Z38lG3PeAQAJ
>
> Apparently he learned what a reference to “Sherlock” meant in the interim, and no longer associates every mention of “Sherlock” as a reference to “Ben Holmes”. But of course, by this reference, Ben also removes his justification for calling me Huckster.

Maybe he's just an inept antisemite who can't spell?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 11:26:48 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

And a year ago, we find - amusingly enough - Healy calling me Sherlock.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/xNh1vBBixRQ/m/Z38lG3PeAQAJ

Apparently Healy learned or always knew what a reference to “Sherlock” means. Clearly Healy doesn’t associate every mention of “Sherlock Holmes” as a reference to “Ben Holmes”. But of course, by this reference, Healy also removes Ben’s justification for calling me Huckster.

[Christopher Strimbu]

Thanks for being my defense attorney Hank. Kudos to Bud as well.

[Hank Sienzant]

I mistakenly attributed to Ben a post by Healy calling me Sherlock. That post was deleted and corrected in a follow-up post.

[David Healy]

remember-- this is the lord's day, you heath'ern....

[x]

Then maybe Healy is an inept antisemite who can't spell?

[David Healy]

douche-bag, focus on case evidence, you're 23 years shy finishing your initiation here... Tony Marsh flunked out, .john quit -- what about YOU?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:29:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
>> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Since I identify as male, I would like it if you referred to me as he and not she.
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>
>> Since my name is Ben Holmes, I rather prefer it. When people can't
>> seem to use my correct name, then I lose the ability to use *THEIR*
>> correct name.
>>
>> Huckster was a holdout for many years... and I correctly used his
>> name... but even he finally decided to call me something else.
>
>I call Bullshit.

You are, of course, a proven liar... so tell it to your mother, she
might believe you.

Amusingly, Huckster's too dishonest to acknowledge the ad hominems of
Chrissy Strimbass.

And *that* tells the tale...

>> Actions have consequences.
>
>Yes.

Good of you to acknowledge the simple truth.

Do you ever plan to address Mark Lane #214, or continue to run?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>And a year ago...

Can't figure out a timeline, can you Sherlock?

Just remember, Mark Lane #214 is still slapping you in the face...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>I mistakenly attributed to Ben ...

Isn't it amusing how often believers make such mistakes?

But Mark Lane #214 is still proving your cowardice...

[Hank Sienzant]

Wow. When was the last time you focused on case evidence here? I can’t recall you ever discussing the evidence in this case. You usually pop in to make a brief comment on a LN’s character flaws or the like, then vanish again for a few days. Healy to prove me right with his next post. Watch.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:29:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
> >> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Since I identify as male, I would like it if you referred to me as he and not she.
> >>>
> >>>Thank you.
> >>
> >> Since my name is Ben Holmes, I rather prefer it. When people can't
> >> seem to use my correct name, then I lose the ability to use *THEIR*
> >> correct name.
> >>
> >> Huckster was a holdout for many years... and I correctly used his
> >> name... but even he finally decided to call me something else.
> >
> >I call Bullshit.
> You are, of course, a proven liar... so tell it to your mother, she
> might believe you.

As expected, Ben deletes my point, fails to respond to any of it, and simply calls me names.

>
> Amusingly, Huckster's too dishonest to acknowledge the ad hominems of
> Chrissy Strimbass.

Change of subject. You brought up the Sherlock reference here: “Huckster was a holdout for many years... and I correctly used his name... but even he finally decided to call me something else”.

I documented why and how that was a falsehood by you. You have used a reference to the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes to pretend I was calling you Sherlock, and used that pretense to start calling me Huckster. I established that, linking to and quoting your post in question. You deleted all that and call me dishonest. We’re back to your methodology once more — proof by repeated assertion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion#:~:text=Proof%20by%20assertion%2C%20sometimes%20informally,regardless%20of%20contradiction%20and%

“Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact due to a lack of challengers (argumentum ad nauseam).”

Of course, calling me a proven liar and dishonest is just more of an attempt at proof by assertion.

Your claim my reference to Sherlock Holmes is a reference to you (and I thereby failed to call you Ben) is the height of egotism on your part. You are not Sherlock Holmes. And references to Sherlock Holmes are not references to you, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.

>
> And *that* tells the tale...
>
> >> Actions have consequences.
> >
> >Yes.
>
> Good of you to acknowledge the simple truth.

I pointed out how and why your lie exposes you. True to form, you deleted my point, ignoring all of it, failing to rebut any of it, and take one word out of context to pretend I agree with you.

>
> Do you ever plan to address Mark Lane #214, or continue to run?

Another change of subject. Address the false claim you made in this thread, that referencing Sherlock Holmes is somehow calling you by something other than Ben.

Everyone can see who is desperately seeking to change the subject, calling the other names, taking quotes out of context, ignoring the points made by others, and making unsupported statements, and who is running.

And everyone can see who supports their claims with links to prior statements and to external sources, and who is standing their ground to get the other to defend their claim.

In short, all can see who is running from the claim they made.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >And a year ago...
>
> Can't figure out a timeline, can you Sherlock?

Ah, so you understand a reference to the fictional detective is not a reference to Ben Holmes, as you pretended here:

You lied about me calling you something other than Ben, and pretended a post referencing the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes was directed at you. You used that post as an excuse to start calling me Huckster. But your claim had no bearing in fact at the time you made ii.

It is still a lie by you.

The exchange that you used as supposedly triggering you can be seen here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ
== quote ==
>
>(adding it back after Ben snipped it multiple times).

> Back on the Amazon discussion boards when those were a thing, I had
> much the same response about something or other related to the JFK
> assassination, and Ben, having no other response, went on for several
> posts about how I didn't even know his first name (I referenced
> Sherlock Holmes) and of course Ben never addressed the JFK-related
> point I made. Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion
> going and make it look like he had a point. Of course, the fact that
> everyone else knew what I was referencing when I referenced Sherlock
> didn't cause him any pause.
>
>Just had to share that one.

Up till now I've tried to refrain from calling you anything but your
real name, since for the most part, you've done that for me.

But your repeated insistence has changed that.

From now on, you'll be called "Huckster Sienzant"
== unquote ==


>

> Just remember, Mark Lane #214 is still slapping you in the face...

Just remember, everyone can still see you *desperately* trying to change the subject from your falsehood that referencing Sherlock Holmes is somehow referencing Ben Holmes. You yourself just disproved your contention with your own reference to Sherlock Holmes.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:14 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I mistakenly attributed to Ben ...
>
> Isn't it amusing how often believers make such mistakes?

Shit happens. That’s a saying for a reason. I need only point out that Ben must have nothing much to criticize if he doesn’t even try to rebut any of the points I made and instead must remark only on a mistake *I caught and admitted to*.

That’s what is amusing here.

>
> But Mark Lane #214 is still proving your cowardice...

Everyone can see who is *desperately* seeking to change the subject, *desperately* calling the other names, taking quotes out of context, ignoring the points made by others, and making unsupported statements, and who is running.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:14 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I mistakenly attributed to Ben ...
>>
>> Isn't it amusing how often believers make such mistakes?
>
>Shit happens.

And most often from assholes. Isn't that remarkable?

>> But Mark Lane #214 is still proving your cowardice...
>

>Everyone can see...

Indeed, everyone *CAN* see!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And a year ago...
>>
>> Can't figure out a timeline, can you Sherlock?
>

>Ah...

You need to answer "yes" or "no"... not "Ah..."

>> Just remember, Mark Lane #214 is still slapping you in the face...
>

>Just remember...

I do remember. That's why I'm constantly reminding you.

Just as I did when you ran away for WEEKS from my refutation of your
lies on the news conference and Mark Lane.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 06:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:29:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
>>>> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Since I identify as male, I would like it if you referred to me as he and not she.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Since my name is Ben Holmes, I rather prefer it. When people can't
>>>> seem to use my correct name, then I lose the ability to use *THEIR*
>>>> correct name.
>>>>
>>>> Huckster was a holdout for many years... and I correctly used his
>>>> name... but even he finally decided to call me something else.
>>>
>>>I call Bullshit.
>> You are, of course, a proven liar... so tell it to your mother, she
>> might believe you.
>

>As expected, Ben deletes my point...

Yep.

>> Amusingly, Huckster's too dishonest to acknowledge the ad hominems of
>> Chrissy Strimbass.
>
>Change of subject.

Same topic, different person.

>> And *that* tells the tale...
>>
>>>> Actions have consequences.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>> Good of you to acknowledge the simple truth.
>

>I...

Yes, you.

>> Do you ever plan to address Mark Lane #214, or continue to run?
>
>Another change of subject.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:14 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I mistakenly attributed to Ben ...
> >>
> >> Isn't it amusing how often believers make such mistakes?
> >
> >Shit happens.
> And most often from assholes. Isn't that remarkable?

Snipped my response and called me names. Which one does the evidence indicate is the asshole here?

> >> But Mark Lane #214 is still proving your cowardice...
> >
> >Everyone can see...
>
> Indeed, everyone *CAN* see!

That you are still avoiding the point you brought up and desperately trying to change the subject.

Address your lies as I exposed in the third post in this thread.
§§§§ QUOTE §§§§

§§§§ UNQUOTE §§§§

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:11:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 06:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:29:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
> >>>> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Since I identify as male, I would like it if you referred to me as he and not she.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since my name is Ben Holmes, I rather prefer it. When people can't
> >>>> seem to use my correct name, then I lose the ability to use *THEIR*
> >>>> correct name.
> >>>>
> >>>> Huckster was a holdout for many years... and I correctly used his
> >>>> name... but even he finally decided to call me something else.
> >>>
> >>>I call Bullshit.
> >> You are, of course, a proven liar... so tell it to your mother, she
> >> might believe you.
> >
> >As expected, Ben deletes my point...
>
> Yep.

So who’s running? You are.

> >> Amusingly, Huckster's too dishonest to acknowledge the ad hominems of
> >> Chrissy Strimbass.
> >
> >Change of subject.
> Same topic, different person.

You claimed “ Huckster was a holdout for many years... and I correctly used his

name... but even he finally decided to call me something else. ”

I showed that was false. You are running from that falsehood.

> >> And *that* tells the tale...
> >>
> >>>> Actions have consequences.
> >>>
> >>>Yes.
> >>
> >> Good of you to acknowledge the simple truth.
> >
> >I...
>
> Yes, you.

You continually remove my points. Who is running? You.

> >> Do you ever plan to address Mark Lane #214, or continue to run?
> >
> >Another change of subject.
> Run coward... RUN!!!

Ben must chant this while looking in a mirror to motive himself.

Address your false claim. Or run.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:14 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I mistakenly attributed to Ben ...
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it amusing how often believers make such mistakes?
>>>
>>>Shit happens.
>> And most often from assholes. Isn't that remarkable?
>

>Snipped my response ...

And did so again.

>>>> But Mark Lane #214 is still proving your cowardice...
>>>
>>>Everyone can see...
>>
>> Indeed, everyone *CAN* see!

Whining deleted...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 06:24:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:11:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 06:47:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:29:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
>>>>>> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Since I identify as male, I would like it if you referred to me as he and not she.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since my name is Ben Holmes, I rather prefer it. When people can't
>>>>>> seem to use my correct name, then I lose the ability to use *THEIR*
>>>>>> correct name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huckster was a holdout for many years... and I correctly used his
>>>>>> name... but even he finally decided to call me something else.
>>>>>
>>>>>I call Bullshit.
>>>> You are, of course, a proven liar... so tell it to your mother, she
>>>> might believe you.
>>>
>>>As expected, Ben deletes my point...
>>
>> Yep.
>
>So who’s running?

Chrissy coudn't quote it, and Huckster Sienzant's a coward who refuses
to try... Here's Mark Lane #214 again for another round:

In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane quoted some of Mrs. Markham's
rather incredible testimony - showing just how wacky her testimony
actually was.

"The Commission, and the Chief Justice also, conceded that they no
longer had any reason to doubt my testimony — at least insofar as it
related to Mrs Markham. The Commission concluded, 'During her
testimony Mrs Markham initially denied that she ever had the above
phone conversation. She has subsequently admitted the existence of the
conversation and offered an explanation for her denial.' However, one
must ask — what explanation? The two sentences just quoted constitute
the whole of what the Commission had to say in extenuation of Mrs
Markham's perjury.

When Mrs Markham admitted she had not told the truth in denying her
original conversation with me, she asked, 'Well, will I get in any
trouble over this?' Counsel replied, 'I don't think so, Mrs Markham. I
wouldn't worry about it. I don't think anybody is going to cause you
any trouble over that.' A witness who had persisted in false
statements was thus assured by Commission counsel that she had no need
to worry, while I, who had challenged the Commission's theories in a
responsible fashion, was harshly admonished and threatened with
prosecution."

Mark Lane is now illustrating the deep biases with which the Warren
Commission investigated the "truth". And neither Chrissy, Huckster,
Chuckles, or Chickenshit will cite this unknown "explanation."

Let the cowardice begin!!

[Hank Sienzant]

You are still running as established by your constant deletion of my points. Deal with your lie. Or run some more.

[Hank Sienzant]

You already showed it when you attempted to change the subject from your false assertion in the second post, as I pointed out in the third post in this thread. You made a false claim. You didn’t even try to defend it, instead you called me names and tried to change the subject. You ran.

You are still running as established by your constant deletion of my points and attempts to change the subject. Deal with your lie. Or run some more.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 11:37:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:09:14 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I mistakenly attributed to Ben ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it amusing how often believers make such mistakes?
>>>>>
>>>>>Shit happens.
>>>> And most often from assholes. Isn't that remarkable?
>>>
>>>Snipped my response ...
>>
>> And did so again.
>>>>>> But Mark Lane #214 is still proving your cowardice...
>>>>>
>>>>>Everyone can see...
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, everyone *CAN* see!
>> Whining deleted...
>

>You ...

No, the topic is YOU running from Mark Lane #214.

Quite the coward, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

Huckster won't say, but I prove it below:

>You ...

Sorry stupid, I'm not the topic. You're a provable coward... I'm
simply helping you to prove it to the world.

You'll be seeing Mark Lane #214 until you gather enough courage to
answer it.