Ezra Pound on the Protocols
NSWPP
(transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
April 20, 1943
ZION
If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
but they are a forgery.
Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
have of their authenticity. The Jews have worked with forged
documents for the past 24 hundred years, namely ever since
they have had any documents whatsoever. And no one can
qualify as a historian of this half century without having
examined the Protocols. Alleged, if you like, to have been
translated from the Russian, from a manuscript to be
consulted in the British Museum, where some such document
may or may not exist.
What we know for certain is that they were published two
decades ago. That Lord Sydenham wrote a preface to them.
That their content has been traced to another sketch said to
have appeared in the eighteen forties. The interest in them
does not lie in [the] question of their having been, or NOT
been concocted by a legislative assembly of Rabbis,
democratically elected, or secretly chosen by the Mysterious
Order of Seven Branched Antlers or the Bowling Society of
Milwaukee. Their interest lies in the type of mind, or the
state of mind of their author. That was their interest for
the psychologist the day they first appeared. And for the
historian two decades later, when the program contained in
them has so crushingly gone into effect up to a point, or
down to a squalor.
What is interesting, perhaps most, to the historian is their
definite campaign against history altogether, their declared
intention to blot out the classics, to blot out the record,
and to dazzle men with talk of tomorrow. That is a variant
on the pie in the bait. As far as reality is concerned, as
far as you and I are concerned it makes little difference
whether prosperity is in heaven, or in the year 2300, or
just round a corner that will never be turned.
A religious man might think his reward might be in heaven,
but even a religious man ought to know that his reward will
not be on earth in a hundred years time. In fact, the pie in
the sky is a more reasonable proposition: an opium with more
to it than Mr. Keynes' day after tomorrow.
I am not concerned with fixing blame retrospectively so much
as with judging the present: those who are against the true
word, the protocolaires. Now Keynes whose fair is foul, foul
is fair sentence can be taken as the quintessence of
something or other, is the perfect protoclaire. It comes
over me that on the one occasion I had the curious
experience of seeing him, he managed to utter two falsehoods
in a very short space of time. In fact never opened his
mouth without doing so. First in stating that he is an
orthodox economist, which he is not, second in saying that
the then high cost of living was due to lack of labor, when
there were millions of men out of work.
You couldn't have done much better in two sentences if you
were out for a record in the falsification. Protocol No. 8,
second [paragraph]:
We shall surround our government with a whole world of
economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form,
etc. Around us again will be a whole constellation of
bankers, industrialists, capitalists and the main thing,
millionaires, because in substance everything will be
settled by the question of figures.
Is it possible to arouse any interest in verbal precision?
Is it possible to persuade more than six or eight people to
consider the scope of crossword puzzles and other devices
for looking at words for something that is NOT their
meaning? Cabala, for example, anything to make the word mean
something it does NOT say. Anything to distract the auditor
from the plain sense of the word, or the sentence? Even to
communism that is NOT communism. To communism of the
episcopal sort, which they want in England. A Bolshevism
that is to leave the archbishops and curates just where they
are, each with his living or benefice. A revelation against
capital, allegedly against capital, that attacks property
and leaves capital setting pretty.
Lenin all out for making banking a state affair. And then
twenty years during which it has seemed to drop decidedly
into the background, when the world revolution was very busy
about something else.
It should by now be clear that some people fear NOT the
outcome of the war, but the END of the war. Churchill, for
example. Not defeat, not the ruin of the Empire that worries
him, but the END of the war. End of the slaughter, end of
the war conditions.
Robert Clive has been clear enough, ex-British ambassador in
Tokyo. Tells you and the world Japan can not be beaten. But
the war must go ON, according to Churchill and Roosevelt.
Churchill sees the end of monopoly and privilege, or at
least a shift when the war ends, no matter HOW. That is the
point you should consider. In regard to the protocols,
either there is and was a plot to ruin all goyim, all
nations of Europe, or some people are stark raving crazy.
They want war to go on to certain wreck. WHO are they?
Mere cannon fodder. The American troops in N. Africa know
they are not there thru any wish of their own. The war was
started for gold, to maintain the fetish value of gold.
Plenty of other sidelines. Minor advantages have been
COMMERCIALLY taken. Did the present regime in England WANT
the troops to return after Dunkirk? Every move for reform in
England is a fascist reform, or proposition along fascist
lines.
The supreme betrayal of Europe is inherent in the alliance
of Anglo-Jewry with Moscow. Debts rise. That is one part of
the war. It is a contest between STOPPING the war and going
on with it. And only one side does any fighting. Namely the
party that STARTED the war. They are for its continuance.
Who are they?
BUT they are also for starting the next one. They openly
proclaim that AFTER (that is IF) America finishes with
Japan, she will have to fight Russia. IF Russia should break
into Europe.
Only blindness and deafness can keep you unaware of these
proclamations. The U.S. must protect the world7 Why? Does
the world want it? The U.S., once this war is over, must be
strong enough to beat Russia.
The U.S. had a chance to maintain her prestige and unique
position by staying NEUTRAL. Neutral while other powers
exhausted themselves. And she DID not.
Who are the lunatics? Was there a deliberate plot? That is
what should concern you. WAS there a pIot? How long had it
been in existence? Does it continue, with its Lehmans,
Morgenthaus, Baruchs? Proposals to send the darkies to
Africa, to work for Judea, and the rest of it? And WILL you,
after Japan is thru with you, take on Russia? In order to
maintain the banking monopoly? With Mr. Wille Wiseman, late
of the British secret service, ensconced in Kuhn, Loeb and
Co., to direct you and rule you?
"This destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken,
and its mantle of strength descends upon those in its
service." - Francis Parker Yockey, IMPERIUM
Richard Phillips
===========================================================
Phillips
Pound is tearing words out of context here. What Keynes actually said
was:
"For a little while longer we are going to have to _pretend_ [empasis
mine] that fair is foul and foul is fair because foul is useful and fair
is not."
==================================
Sara Salzman
>NSWPP wrote:
>>
>> [Courtesy of Willie Martin]
>>
>> (transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
>>
>> April 20, 1943
>>
>> ZION
>>
>> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
>> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
>> but they are a forgery.
>>
>> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
>> have of their authenticity.
Which makes perfect sense, coming from a man who ended up in a mental hospital.
Sara
--
"I am an agitator, and an agitator is the center
post in a washing machine that gets the dirt out."
Jim Hightower
Richard Phillips
>
> >NSWPP wrote:
> >>
> >> [Courtesy of Willie Martin]
> >>
> >> (transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
> >>
> >> April 20, 1943
> >>
> >> ZION
> >>
> >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> >> but they are a forgery.
> >>
> >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> >> have of their authenticity.
>
Phillips
Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
=================================================
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<380C8795...@mediaone.net>...
> Sara Salzman wrote:
> >
> > >NSWPP wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [Courtesy of Willie Martin]
> > >>
> > >> (transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
> > >>
> > >> April 20, 1943
> > >>
> > >> ZION
> > >>
> > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > >> but they are a forgery.
> > >>
> > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > >> have of their authenticity.
> >
> > Which makes perfect sense, coming from a man who ended up in a mental
hospital.
> =================================================================
> Phillips
>
> Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
> Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
In this case an act of mercy based on his literary reputayion. If he had
not been sent to there, he would have been tried as the traitor he was.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
steve wolk
earth, and in-patient wannabe, wrote:
>
> Sara Salzman wrote:
> >
> > >NSWPP wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [Courtesy of Willie Martin]
> > >>
> > >> (transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
> > >>
> > >> April 20, 1943
> > >>
> > >> ZION
> > >>
> > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > >> but they are a forgery.
> > >>
> > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > >> have of their authenticity.
> >
> =================================================================
> Phillips
>
> Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
> Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
>
Richard will be shrieking this when the men in white coats come for him.
He doesn't know they'll never find him under all that toilet paper if he
just keeps quiet.
Steve
Richard Phillips
>
> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> <380C8795...@mediaone.net>...
> > Sara Salzman wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> [Courtesy of Willie Martin]
> > > >>
> > > >> (transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
> > > >>
> > > >> April 20, 1943
> > > >>
> > > >> ZION
> > > >>
> > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > > >> but they are a forgery.
> > > >>
> > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > > >> have of their authenticity.
> > >
> hospital.
> > =================================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
> > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
>
> not been sent to there, he would have been tried as the traitor he was.
======================================================================
Phillips
Do we have any reason to believe that Pound's words resulted in
--any soldier laying down his weapon or shirking his duty in any way
--any visible disaffection on the home front
--any damage to the war effort of any sort whatever.
If you do, please let us know.
=====================================================
Richard Phillips
>
> Count Richard Phillips, chronicler of vampires, explorer of hollow
> earth, and in-patient wannabe, wrote:
> >
> > Sara Salzman wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> [Courtesy of Willie Martin]
> > > >>
> > > >> (transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
> > > >>
> > > >> April 20, 1943
> > > >>
> > > >> ZION
> > > >>
> > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > > >> but they are a forgery.
> > > >>
> > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > > >> have of their authenticity.
> > >
> > =================================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
> > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
> >
>
> He doesn't know they'll never find him under all that toilet paper if he
> just keeps quiet.
>
> Steve
===========================================================
Phillips
Steve Wolk is a man who takes upon himself the "duty" of humiliating
Aryan correspondents for their errors of grammar --errors that do not
necessarily indicate a character defect but may mean nothing more than
that they did not have the good fortune to be born into the same kind of
family that he and I were born into.
And who better qualified? As anyone can plainly see, he is SOOOOO
clever.
===========================================
>
>
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<380CD3CB...@mediaone.net>...
> Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> > > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > > > >> but they are a forgery.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > > > >> have of their authenticity.
> > > >
> > > > Which makes perfect sense, coming from a man who ended up in a
mental
> > hospital.
> > > Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
> > > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
> >
> > In this case an act of mercy based on his literary reputation.
If he had
> > not been sent to there, he would have been tried as the traitor he was.
> Phillips
>
> Do we have any reason to believe that Pound's words resulted in
> --any soldier laying down his weapon or shirking his duty in any way
> --any visible disaffection on the home front
> --any damage to the war effort of any sort whatever.
Go fuck yourself with your idiotic logic chopping and defense of a
traitor.
Did Pound adhere to the enemy and assist in their war agains the US or
not?
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > Count Richard Phillips, chronicler of vampires, explorer of hollow
> > earth, and in-patient wannabe, wrote:
> > >
> > > Sara Salzman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >NSWPP wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [Courtesy of Willie Martin]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> April 20, 1943
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ZION
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > > > >> but they are a forgery.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > > > >> have of their authenticity.
> > > >
> > > > Which makes perfect sense, coming from a man who ended up in a
mental hospital.
> > > =================================================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
> > > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
> > >
> >
> > Richard will be shrieking this when the men in white coats come for
him.
> > He doesn't know they'll never find him under all that toilet paper if
he
> > just keeps quiet.
> Steve Wolk is a man who takes upon himself the "duty" of humiliating
> Aryan correspondents for their errors of grammar --errors that do not
> necessarily indicate a character defect but may mean nothing more than
> that they did not have the good fortune to be born into the same kind of
> family that he and I were born into.
And Philllips is a fraud who claims to love the US and sees no problem
with treason against it.
Andy Walton
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
:Do we have any reason to believe that Pound's words resulted in
:
:--any soldier laying down his weapon or shirking his duty in any way
:--any visible disaffection on the home front
:--any damage to the war effort of any sort whatever.
We don't have any proof that he masturbated or picked his nose, either.
It's irrelevant.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession
in open court.
-- United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
--
The idea of going completely crazy on laughing gas in the middle of
a DAs' drug conference had a definite warped appeal. But not on the
*first day,* I thought. Save that for later.
-- Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Richard Phillips
> > > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > > > > >> but they are a forgery.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > > > > >> have of their authenticity.
> > > > >
> mental
> > > hospital.
>
> > > > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
> > >
> If he had
> > > not been sent to there, he would have been tried as the traitor he was.
>
> > Phillips
> >
> > --any soldier laying down his weapon or shirking his duty in any way
> > --any visible disaffection on the home front
> > --any damage to the war effort of any sort whatever.
>
> traitor.
>
> Did Pound adhere to the enemy and assist in their war agains the US or
> not?
===========================================================
Phillips
The extent of my knowledge is that he made radio broadcasts from Italy
bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
slightest military or political value to the Axis.
===========================================
steve wolk
be guest on the Antique Toilet Paper Road Show, wrote:
>
> steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > Count Richard Phillips, chronicler of vampires, explorer of hollow
> > earth, and in-patient wannabe, wrote:
> > >
> > > Sara Salzman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [Courtesy of Willie Martin]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (transcript of an Italian radio broadcast)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> April 20, 1943
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ZION
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > > > >> but they are a forgery.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > > > >> have of their authenticity.
> > > >
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
> > > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
> > >
> >
> > He doesn't know they'll never find him under all that toilet paper if he
> > just keeps quiet.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Phillips
>
> Steve Wolk is a man who takes upon himself the "duty" of humiliating
> Aryan correspondents for their errors of grammar --errors that do not
> necessarily indicate a character defect but may mean nothing more than
> that they did not have the good fortune to be born into the same kind of
> family that he and I were born into.
>
> clever.
Why, thank you, Richard.
Steve
>
> ===========================================
> >
> >
Sara Salzman
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>>
>> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
>> <380CD3CB...@mediaone.net>...
>> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
>> > > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
>> > > > > >> but they are a forgery.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
>> > > > > >> have of their authenticity.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Which makes perfect sense, coming from a man who ended up in a
>> mental
>> > > hospital.
>>
>> > > > Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
>> > > > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
>> > >
>> > > In this case an act of mercy based on his literary reputation.
>> If he had
>> > > not been sent to there, he would have been tried as the traitor he was.
>>
>> > Phillips
>> >
>> > Do we have any reason to believe that Pound's words resulted in
>> > --any soldier laying down his weapon or shirking his duty in any way
>> > --any visible disaffection on the home front
>> > --any damage to the war effort of any sort whatever.
>>
>> Go fuck yourself with your idiotic logic chopping and defense of a
>> traitor.
>>
>> Did Pound adhere to the enemy and assist in their war agains
the US or
>> not?
>
>===========================================================
>Phillips
>
>The extent of my knowledge is that he made radio broadcasts from Italy
>bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
>slightest military or political value to the Axis.
>
Of course, his virulent anti-Semitism did NOTHING for the Axis, did it?
You're really a piece of crap, Phillips. You should seriously consider a
stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
Yale F.Edeiken
Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<catamont-191...@ts008d38.den-co.concentric.net>...
> In article <380D1948...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> >> <380CD3CB...@mediaone.net>...
> >> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
> >> > > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> >> > > > > >> but they are a forgery.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> >> > > > > >> have of their authenticity.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Which makes perfect sense, coming from a man who ended up in a
> >> mental
> >> > > hospital.
> >>
> >> > > > Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think
that
> >> > > > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like
that?
> >> > >
> >> > > In this case an act of mercy based on his literary
reputation.
> >> If he had
> >> > > not been sent to there, he would have been tried as the traitor he
was.
> >>
> >> > Phillips
> >> >
> >> > Do we have any reason to believe that Pound's words resulted in
> >> > --any soldier laying down his weapon or shirking his duty in any way
> >> > --any visible disaffection on the home front
> >> > --any damage to the war effort of any sort whatever.
> >>
> >> Go fuck yourself with your idiotic logic chopping and defense
of a
> >> traitor.
> >>
> >> Did Pound adhere to the enemy and assist in their war agains
> the US or not?
> >The extent of my knowledge is that he made radio broadcasts from Italy
> >bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
> >slightest military or political value to the Axis.
> Of course, his virulent anti-Semitism did NOTHING for the Axis, did it?
And isn't is strange how he so misdescribes Pound's activities and seems
to forget that a war was going on at that time.
Treason doesn't seem to bother Liar Philllips as long as it agrees with
his anti-American agenda.
> You're really a piece of crap, Phillips. You should seriously consider a
> stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
> psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
--YFE
Richard Phillips
>
> Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in article
> <catamont-191...@ts008d38.den-co.concentric.net>...
> > In article <380D1948...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > >Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> > >> <380CD3CB...@mediaone.net>...
> > >> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> > >> > > > > >> but they are a forgery.
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> > >> > > > > >> have of their authenticity.
> > >> > > > >
==========================================================
Phillips
I don't know. If you believe that his words aided the Axis cause, then
tell me how they did.
=========================================================
>
> And isn't is strange how he so misdescribes Pound's activities and seems
> to forget that a war was going on at that time.
===================================================
Phillips
If I posed the question of whether Pound's broadcasts caused any soldier
to lay down his weapon, then it would hardly seem I was unaware that a
war was in progress.
=======================================================================
>
> Treason doesn't seem to bother Liar Philllips as long as it agrees with
> his anti-American agenda.
=================================================================
Phillips
What treason? Did the mere act of bad-mouthing FDR constitute treason. I
can tell you that there was a hell of a lot of it happening in America
and even in the halls of Congress - yes, even though there was a war
going on. Was this treason, or even the much lesser offence of sedition?
The courts certainly didn't think so.
In 1944 FDR, irritated by the past and present activities of certain of
the America First people, had several of them indicted for sedition. My
recollection is that not one conviction resulted.
Was the thing that Pound did somehow more damnable merely because he was
doing it from Axis Italy?
====================================================================
>
> > You're really a piece of crap, Phillips. You should seriously consider a
> > stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
> > psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
=========================================================
Phillips
This is the well-known and easily-preditable behaviour of the Liberal
Jew when dealing with an opponent he cannot face down verbally. He (the
Jew) flies into a rage and descends to personal attack (often of a
scatological nature) and, as his final resource, implies that the
opponent is in need of "help" - meaning of course psychiatric help (as
if this had ever been of the slightest help to anyone or anything other
than the psychiatrist's bank balance).
=========================================================================
Richard Phillips
>
> In article <380D1948...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> >> <380CD3CB...@mediaone.net>...
> >> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> >> > > > > >> but they are a forgery.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> >> > > > > >> have of their authenticity.
> >> > > > >
> >> mental
> >> > > hospital.
> >>
> >> > > > Ended up in one or was railroaded into one. Do you really think that
> >> > > > Stalin's Russia is the only country that ever did things like that?
> >> > >
> >> > > In this case an act of mercy based on his literary reputation.
> >> If he had
> >> > > not been sent to there, he would have been tried as the traitor he was.
> >>
> >> > Phillips
> >> >
> >> > Do we have any reason to believe that Pound's words resulted in
> >> > --any soldier laying down his weapon or shirking his duty in any way
> >> > --any visible disaffection on the home front
> >> > --any damage to the war effort of any sort whatever.
> >>
> >> Go fuck yourself with your idiotic logic chopping and defense of a
> >> traitor.
> >>
> >> Did Pound adhere to the enemy and assist in their war agains
> the US or
> >> not?
> >
> >Phillips
> >
> >The extent of my knowledge is that he made radio broadcasts from Italy
> >bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
> >slightest military or political value to the Axis.
> >
>
> Of course, his virulent anti-Semitism did NOTHING for the Axis, did it?
>
> stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
> psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
>
=====================================================
Phillips
This is the usual response of the Liberal Jew when dealing with an
opponent that he/she cannot face down verbally. He/she (the Liberal Jew)
flies into a rage and commences attacking the opponent personally (and
often in scatological terms). Then, when all else has failed, there is
resort to their ultimate ploy: saying that the opponent needs "help"
meaning of course psychiatric help.
Well, psychiatry was a Jewish fad that enjoyed a certain vogue beginning
in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
must in time peter out).
Research since that time has concluded that it was never of much help to
anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
===========================================================
Sara Salzman
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Sara Salzman wrote:
>>
>> In article <380D1948...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
>> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
>> >> <380CD3CB...@mediaone.net>...
>> >> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
>> >> > > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
>> >> > > > > >> but they are a forgery.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
>> >> > > > > >> have of their authenticity.
>> >> > > > >
That sure will come as a surprise at Georgetown U (CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY)'s
Medical School. Their department of psychiatry never "petered out." My
father is a Professor Emeritus there.
And by the way, he studied under the man known as the "Father of American
Psychiatry," Harry Stack Sullivan. NOT A JEW.
But you wouldn't know anything about Sullivan, since his he taught the
principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
>Research since that time has concluded that it was never of much help to
>anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
>===========================================================
Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
Richard Phillips
>
> In article <380DC742...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Sara Salzman wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <380D1948...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> >> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> >> >> <380CD3CB...@mediaone.net>...
> >> >> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
> >> >> > > > > >> but they are a forgery.
> >> >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
> >> >> > > > > >> have of their authenticity.
> >> >> > > > >
=================================================
Phillips
Possibly so but I daresay less of a surprise to the many many shrinks
who today sit in their well-appointed offices waiting for the phone to
ring and cursing the day they chose not to go in for dentistry.
======================================================================================
>
> And by the way, he studied under the man known as the "Father of American
> Psychiatry," Harry Stack Sullivan. NOT A JEW.
>
> But you wouldn't know anything about Sullivan, since his he taught the
> principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
=================================================================
Phillips
I am familiar with the name Harry Stack Sullivan. But perhaps you would
like to clarify the alleged connection with me of that PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY bit.
======================================================================
>
> >Research since that time has concluded that it was never of much help to
> >anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
> >===========================================================
>
> Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
> else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
================================================================
Phillips
I've recall two articles along that line. Sorry, I do not make a record
of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
Just about everyone else does.
=========================================================
Sara Salzman
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Sara Salzman wrote:
>>
>> In article <380DC742...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
>> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Sara Salzman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <380D1948...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
>> >> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
>> >> >> <380CD3CB...@mediaone.net>...
>> >> >> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > > > > >> If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the
>> >> >> > > > > >> Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: Oh,
>> >> >> > > > > >> but they are a forgery.
>> >> >> > > > > >>
>> >> >> > > > > >> Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we
>> >> >> > > > > >> have of their authenticity.
>> >> >> > > > >
Name two.
>======================================================================================
>>
>> And by the way, he studied under the man known as the "Father of American
>> Psychiatry," Harry Stack Sullivan. NOT A JEW.
>>
>> But you wouldn't know anything about Sullivan, since his he taught the
>> principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
>=================================================================
>Phillips
>
>I am familiar with the name Harry Stack Sullivan. But perhaps you would
>like to clarify the alleged connection with me of that PERSONAL
>RESPONSIBILITY bit.
GO read a book.
>
>======================================================================
>>
>> >Research since that time has concluded that it was never of much help to
>> >anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
>> >===========================================================
>>
>> Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
>> else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
>
>================================================================
>Phillips
>
>I've recall two articles along that line. Sorry, I do not make a record
>of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
>Just about everyone else does.
>
In other words, you have absolutely no facts. Just "research says."
Newsflash, Mr. Phillllllips, "research says" you're a lying sack of shit.
I know I read it somewhere.
Richard Phillips
==============================================================
Phillips
Sarah, by this time you should realize that when you amalgamate Dick
Phillips with a keyboard you are virtually guaranteeing the denial,
derision, denigration, destruction, and deconstruction of all known
varieties of Political Correctness.
For you see, I shit on Political Correctness - shit on it from a great
height but with pinpoint accuracy. We could speak of it as the excreting
of 'smart turds.'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Buchanan in 2000. A chicken in every pot and two Liberals dangling from
every lamppost.
Orac
cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
> In article <380DC742...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >This is the usual response of the Liberal Jew when dealing with an
> >opponent that he/she cannot face down verbally. He/she (the Liberal Jew)
> >flies into a rage and commences attacking the opponent personally (and
> >often in scatological terms). Then, when all else has failed, there is
> >resort to their ultimate ploy: saying that the opponent needs "help"
> >meaning of course psychiatric help.
> >
> >Well, psychiatry was a Jewish fad that enjoyed a certain vogue beginning
> >in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
> >must in time peter out).
>
> That sure will come as a surprise at Georgetown U (CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY)'s
> Medical School. Their department of psychiatry never "petered out." My
> father is a Professor Emeritus there.
Phillips should tell that to every other medical school in this country
too, all of which have Departments of Psychiatry. In fact, he should tell
the authorities that certify medical schools in this country. All of them
require that medical students take classroom training and clinical
rotations in psychiatry in order to graduate. I'm not a psychiatrist, but
I still know.
> And by the way, he studied under the man known as the "Father of American
> Psychiatry," Harry Stack Sullivan. NOT A JEW.
Oh, come on, isn't it obvious? (I'm sure it is to Richards.) Obviously he
must have been a ZOG stooge! Search his room; I bet you find the
incriminating evidence: a ZOG decoder ring!
> But you wouldn't know anything about Sullivan, since his he taught the
> principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Of course. Racism and anti-Semitism are dedicated to the *denial* of
personal responsibility, as in, "It's not my fault I'm a total loser in
life despite being born a white male, the most privileged group in the
country. It must be the fault of those eeeevvvvillll Jooooooos!"
> >Research since that time has concluded that it was never of much help to
> >anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
> >===========================================================
>
> Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
> else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
And at every other major academic medical center too.
Phillips should also be informed that, among medical specialties,
psychiatric services get some of the lowest rates of reimbursement from
Medicare and Medicaid, and many private insurance plans have grossly
inadequate coverage for psychiatric services. Some private practice
psychiatrists do quite well, but most make considerably less than
physicians in procedure-oriented specialties, such as surgery or invasive
cardiology.
But we all know that Phillips never lets the facts get in the way of his
prejudices.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
a.k.a. |
David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Sara Salzman wrote:
> >
> > In article <380DC742...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >Well, psychiatry was a Jewish fad that enjoyed a certain vogue beginning
> > >in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
> > >must in time peter out).
> >
> > That sure will come as a surprise at Georgetown U (CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY)'s
> > Medical School. Their department of psychiatry never "petered out." My
> > father is a Professor Emeritus there.
>
> =================================================
> Phillips
>
> Possibly so but I daresay less of a surprise to the many many shrinks
> who today sit in their well-appointed offices waiting for the phone to
> ring and cursing the day they chose not to go in for dentistry.
You clearly have no clue what's going on in academic medicine. Think about
this: If these shrinks don't have any patients, then how can they afford
these well-appointed offices to whom you refer? Answer: If they're not
busy, they can't! Because of managed care, academic physicians have to
support themselves too, just like private practice. In fact, most academic
docs I know have offices that are much less "well-appointed" than a
typical reasonably successful private physician. This is especially true
at the Instructor and Assistant Professor level.
[Snip]
> > Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
> > else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
>
> ================================================================
> Phillips
>
> I've recall two articles along that line. Sorry, I do not make a record
> of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
> Just about everyone else does.
Perhaps you should think about why that is so.
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
And you sure don't let little things like facts stop you, either.
> For you see, I shit on Political Correctness - shit on it from a great
> height but with pinpoint accuracy. We could speak of it as the excreting
> of 'smart turds.'
Well, that explains why your arguments stink so much!
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<380DC742...@mediaone.net>...
who approves of treason comes up with another keeper.
Dodging the question of his jsutification of treason, lair Phillllips
tells a whooper:
> This is the usual response of the Liberal Jew when dealing with an
> opponent that he/she cannot face down verbally. He/she (the Liberal Jew)
> flies into a rage and commences attacking the opponent personally (and
> often in scatological terms). Then, when all else has failed, there is
> resort to their ultimate ploy: saying that the opponent needs "help"
> meaning of course psychiatric help.
>
> Well, psychiatry was a Jewish fad that enjoyed a certain vogue beginning
> in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
> must in time peter out).
>
> Research since that time has concluded that it was never of much help to
> anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
Strangely enough research shows the exact opposite of Liar Philllips
contention.
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<380DA380...@mediaone.net>...
> Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Did Pound adhere to the enemy and assist in their war
agains
> > > the US or not?
> >
> > > >The extent of my knowledge is that he made radio broadcasts from
Italy
> > > >bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
> > > >slightest military or political value to the Axis.
> >
> > > Of course, his virulent anti-Semitism did NOTHING for the Axis, did
it?
> I don't know. If you believe that his words aided the Axis cause, then
> tell me how they did.
He distributed propaganda attacking the US and favoring its enemies during
war.
That is treason.
> > And isn't is strange how he so misdescribes Pound's activities
and seems
> > to forget that a war was going on at that time.
> If I posed the question of whether Pound's broadcasts caused any soldier
> to lay down his weapon, then it would hardly seem I was unaware that a
> war was in progress.
But you demonstrated then and repeat it now that you do not understand the
word treaon.
> > Treason doesn't seem to bother Liar Philllips as long as it
agrees with
> > his anti-American agenda.
> What treason?
Pound's.
> Did the mere act of bad-mouthing FDR constitute treason.
But that's not what Pound did.
Since it is another of your lies, the rest of your idiocy is deleted.
> Was the thing that Pound did somehow more damnable merely because he was
> doing it from Axis Italy?
Absolutely. Read the Constitution sometime.
> > > You're really a piece of crap, Phillips. You should seriously
consider a
> > > stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
> > > psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
> This is the well-known and easily-preditable behaviour of the Liberal
> Jew when dealing with an opponent he cannot face down verbally.
I know six-year olds who can face you down verbally.
In this post alone you have proven to be a liar who tells his lies in
order to justify treason.
That someone who is not even familiar with the Consititution of the US and
who condones treason against it would have the nerve to question the
patriotism of others is crazy as a loon.
Richard Phillips
>
> In article <380E17B6...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Sara Salzman wrote:
> > >
> > > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > > >Well, psychiatry was a Jewish fad that enjoyed a certain vogue beginning
> > > >in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
> > > >must in time peter out).
> > >
> > > Medical School. Their department of psychiatry never "petered out." My
> > > father is a Professor Emeritus there.
> >
> > =================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Possibly so but I daresay less of a surprise to the many many shrinks
> > who today sit in their well-appointed offices waiting for the phone to
> > ring and cursing the day they chose not to go in for dentistry.
>
> You clearly have no clue what's going on in academic medicine. Think about
> this: If these shrinks don't have any patients, then how can they afford
> these well-appointed offices to whom you refer?
Phillips
You attempt to make out as though there is some mystery here. Many of
them no doubt hired and furnished their premises at a time when
prospects in their trade were much brighter. Has there never been such a
thing as a nightclub in decline which continues to present an elegant
facade to the world so long as it is able to do so.
=======================================================
Answer: If they're not
> busy, they can't!
=====================================
Phillips
And, in time, they won't.
============================================
Because of managed care, academic physicians have to
> support themselves too, just like private practice. In fact, most academic
> docs I know have offices that are much less "well-appointed" than a
> typical reasonably successful private physician. This is especially true
> at the Instructor and Assistant Professor level.
=========================================================
Phillips
What does this have to do with the shrinkage of the shrinks' trade?
(haw)
=========================================================
>
> [Snip]
>
> > > Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
> > > else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
> >
> > ================================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > I've recall two articles along that line. Sorry, I do not make a record
> > of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
> > Just about everyone else does.
>
> Perhaps you should think about why that is so.
==========================================================
Phillips
Because NGs of this sort are largely populated by ill-tempered and
ill-adjusted persons who strive to boost their damaged self-esteems by
denigrating others. The advantage of being an honest man is that it
makes it possible for one to regard that sort of thing with the contempt
that it deserves.
=======================================================================================
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Orac wrote:
> > You clearly have no clue what's going on in academic medicine. Think about
> > this: If these shrinks don't have any patients, then how can they afford
> > these well-appointed offices to whom you refer?
> ========================================================
> Phillips
>
> You attempt to make out as though there is some mystery here. Many of
> them no doubt hired and furnished their premises at a time when
> prospects in their trade were much brighter. Has there never been such a
> thing as a nightclub in decline which continues to present an elegant
> facade to the world so long as it is able to do so.
Sorry, Phillips, but the shakeout has already occurred for the most part.
You're behind the times by at least 5 years. Actually, that's an
improvement over how far behind the times you usually are.
> Answer: If they're not
> > busy, they can't!
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> And, in time, they won't.
Again, it is amusing to see how far behind the times you are.
[Snip]
> > >
> > > I've recall two articles along that line. Sorry, I do not make a record
> > > of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
> > > Just about everyone else does.
> >
> > Perhaps you should think about why that is so.
>
> ==========================================================
> Phillips
>
> Because NGs of this sort are largely populated by ill-tempered and
> ill-adjusted persons who strive to boost their damaged self-esteems by
> denigrating others.
BZZZZZZZZZT! I'm sorry. Wrong answer. Try again.
>The advantage of being an honest man is that it
> makes it possible for one to regard that sort of thing with the contempt
> that it deserves.
For an "honest" man, you use some questionable tactics. For instance, you
frequently assert that the Auschwitz death toll was "reduced" from four to
one million, and that the four million figure reigned supreme until
recently. I and others have been debunked many times in just my relatively
short time on alt.revisionism. Most recently, I and others demonstrated
the falseness of this gambit conclusively by posting many examples of
historians who put the Auschwitz death toll at approximately one million,
as soon as only a few years after the war. Yet, every so often, when you
think people have forgotten about it, you'll post the same old deniers'
lie about the four million again and we'll have to post the same rebuttals
yet again. I predict that you'll do it again. And when you do, I'll remind
you of my prediction. And you will eventually break down and repeat that
deniers' lie yet again. You can't help yourself.
I can observe that sort of behavior with the contempt that IT deserves.
Sara Salzman
in psychiatry (and psychoanalysis at that) paid for a rather nice house in
suburbia, a country house on Cape Cod, a co-op on Riverside Drive in NY,
and putting four daughters through college (and one through graduate
school AND medical school.) And not cheap schools, mind you, places you
trailer trash only DREAM about (if you knew anything about colleges) --
Hampshire, Sarah Lawrence, Georgetown. Not to mention an office on NYC's
East Side AND an office at the Washington School of Psychiatry.
His business was so *bad*, Phillips, that he kept two offices in two
different cities and commuted between them to treat all the patients who
wanted to see him.
In addition, his services as an educator were in demand at both Georgetown
and Tulane Medical Schools.
He also sat on the Catholic Church's Tribunal for the Diocese of Brooklyn
as a psychiatric advisor. Authored two books as well.
And now, at the ripe old age of 85, his practice is STILL thriving.
It's a shame he chose such a DYING art, eh,, Philllllips?
In article <Orac2001-201...@130.219.233.213>, Orac...@aol.com
(Orac) wrote:
>In article <380E2A09...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
>And you sure don't let little things like facts stop you, either.
>
>
>> For you see, I shit on Political Correctness - shit on it from a great
>> height but with pinpoint accuracy. We could speak of it as the excreting
>> of 'smart turds.'
>
>Well, that explains why your arguments stink so much!
>
--
dudalb
regarless of whether it is effective or not. if you are a spy who has stolen
plans for the enemy, and your are caught before you have a chance to get
them to the enemy, you have still commited a act of espoinage and treason
and will be tried and if found guilty punished for such....
Richard Phillips
>
> You know, I wasn't gonna brag about this, but my father's "dying" practise
> in psychiatry (and psychoanalysis at that) paid for a rather nice house in
> suburbia, a country house on Cape Cod, a co-op on Riverside Drive in NY,
> and putting four daughters through college (and one through graduate
> school AND medical school.) And not cheap schools, mind you, places you
> trailer trash only DREAM about (if you knew anything about colleges) --
> Hampshire, Sarah Lawrence, Georgetown. Not to mention an office on NYC's
> East Side AND an office at the Washington School of Psychiatry.
>
> His business was so *bad*, Phillips, that he kept two offices in two
> different cities and commuted between them to treat all the patients who
> wanted to see him.
>
> In addition, his services as an educator were in demand at both Georgetown
> and Tulane Medical Schools.
>
> He also sat on the Catholic Church's Tribunal for the Diocese of Brooklyn
> as a psychiatric advisor. Authored two books as well.
>
> And now, at the ripe old age of 85, his practice is STILL thriving.
>
> It's a shame he chose such a DYING art, eh,, Philllllips?
===================================================================
Phillips
If he is now 85, that would mean that that he began his practice around
year 1945, a time when psychiatry WAS very much in vogue (as, indeed, I
admitted it was). So there may well have been at least 30 years during
which he had a thriving practice. So I hardly see my thesis as having
shot down.
His extensive property accumulations attest far more to human
gullibility than they do to the effeicacy of his ministrations. However
if people were willing (and still are willing) to line his pockets, I'd
be the last one to stand in their way. I just happen to think they are
fools.
=======================================================
If there are still people who believe he is doing them any
>
> In article <Orac2001-201...@130.219.233.213>, Orac...@aol.com
> (Orac) wrote:
>
> >In article <380E2A09...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> >And you sure don't let little things like facts stop you, either.
> >
> >
> >> For you see, I shit on Political Correctness - shit on it from a great
> >> height but with pinpoint accuracy. We could speak of it as the excreting
> >> of 'smart turds.'
> >
> >Well, that explains why your arguments stink so much!
> >
>
Richard Phillips
>
> In article <380E5D65...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Orac wrote:
>
> > > You clearly have no clue what's going on in academic medicine. Think about
> > > this: If these shrinks don't have any patients, then how can they afford
> > > these well-appointed offices to whom you refer?
> > ========================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > You attempt to make out as though there is some mystery here. Many of
> > them no doubt hired and furnished their premises at a time when
> > prospects in their trade were much brighter. Has there never been such a
> > thing as a nightclub in decline which continues to present an elegant
> > facade to the world so long as it is able to do so.
>
> Sorry, Phillips, but the shakeout has already occurred for the most part.
> You're behind the times by at least 5 years. Actually, that's an
> improvement over how far behind the times you usually are.
>
> > Answer: If they're not
> > > busy, they can't!
> > =====================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > And, in time, they won't.
>
> Again, it is amusing to see how far behind the times you are.
> [Snip]
>
> > > >
> > > > of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
> > > > Just about everyone else does.
> > >
> >
> > ==========================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > Because NGs of this sort are largely populated by ill-tempered and
> > ill-adjusted persons who strive to boost their damaged self-esteems by
> > denigrating others.
>
> BZZZZZZZZZT! I'm sorry. Wrong answer. Try again.
>
> >The advantage of being an honest man is that it
> > makes it possible for one to regard that sort of thing with the contempt
> > that it deserves.
>
> For an "honest" man, you use some questionable tactics. For instance, you
> frequently assert that the Auschwitz death toll was "reduced" from four to
> one million, and that the four million figure reigned supreme until
> recently.
Phillips
I never said it "reigned supreme." What I did say (or at least what I
meant) was that it HAD penetrated deeply into public consciousness. I
also stated that it was part of the indictment (or at least part of the
court record) at Nurmburg.
==================================================
I and others have been debunked many times in just my relatively
> short time on alt.revisionism. Most recently, I and others demonstrated
> the falseness of this gambit conclusively by posting many examples of
> historians who put the Auschwitz death toll at approximately one million,
> as soon as only a few years after the war. Yet, every so often, when you
> think people have forgotten about it, you'll post the same old deniers'
> lie about the four million again and we'll have to post the same rebuttals
> yet again. I predict that you'll do it again. And when you do, I'll remind
> you of my prediction. And you will eventually break down and repeat that
> deniers' lie yet again. You can't help yourself.
=============================================================
Phillips
If Reitlinger shot it down, that is certainly to his credit. But there
are several things I don't know.
(1) Was Reitlinger the FIRST one to do this? Is it possible that one or
more revisoinists said it first (and drew a storm on their heads for
doing so.)
(2) Exactly what MOTIVATED Reitlinger to do this? Could it have been
that he read previous revisionist material, realized that the figure was
untenable, and figured that the sooner Jewry distanced themselves from
it, the better.
(3) Was Reitlinger's thesis quickly and quietly accepted, or was there a
storm of controversy over it.
These of course are only speculations. I tried to obtain hard facts.
Unfortunately, my friends at IHR were not as helpful as I would have
liked.
Until I have more hard facts, I'm certainly not going to use it again in
the way I did before.
=============================================
Andy Walton
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
:This is the usual response of the Liberal Jew when dealing with an
:opponent that he/she cannot face down verbally.
Let's make this simple, Richard.
Look at the definition of treason under U.S. law. This is not difficult;
it's in the Constitution, and has been posted (by me) in this thread.
Look at Ezra Pound's actions in light of that law.
Anything else is your typical diversion and hand-waving.
:Well, psychiatry was a Jewish fad that enjoyed a certain vogue beginning
:in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
:must in time peter out).
Well, no. Actually, not even close. In point of fact, you're full of shit.
Psychiatry was and is the branch of medicine dealing with the human mind.
It remains a specialty taught in every medical school in the nation.
Psychiatrists graduate from accredited medical schools every semester. It
is no more a "Jewish fad" than oncology, gastroenterology, pediatrics,
geriatrics, cardiothoracic surgery, obstetrics, gynecology, pathology,
family medicine, or any other medical speciality.
My best guess is that you said "psychiatry" when you meant
"psychoanalysis," a technique of Freud's that has fallen into disfavor in
recent years. That controversy began with Carl Jung, a contemporary and
protege of Freud's. The Freudian model of human behavior has generally
lost ground to a more biologically-based model that treats mental ailments
as manifestations of a medical condition rather than as an isolated
phenomenon; under that model, psychopharmacology often supersedes the
"talk therapy" methods that were championed by Freud and were preferred
but a few decades ago.
If you're confused by any of the above, I can find shorter words.
A friendly word of advice, Richard -- try to know what the hell you're
talking about before you spout off. It enhances your credibility. Every
time you make idiotic statements like the above, you squander that
credibility -- a currency you cannot regain. On that balance sheet, you're
already running a substantial deficit.
--
"I've never been a fan of personality-conflict burgers and
identity-crisis omelets with patchouli oil. I function very well on
a diet that consists of Chicken Catastrophe and Eggs Overwhelming
and a tall, cool Janitor-in-a-Drum." -- Tom Waits
Andy Walton
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
:Because NGs of this sort are largely populated by ill-tempered and
:ill-adjusted persons who strive to boost their damaged self-esteems by
:denigrating others.
Physician, heal thyself.
--
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone,
but they've always worked for me." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Andy Walton
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
:For you see, I shit on Political Correctness - shit on it from a great
:height but with pinpoint accuracy. We could speak of it as the excreting
:of 'smart turds.'
Unfortunately for you, you "shit ... with pinpoint accuracy" before you
realize that the lid is down. Your vaunted precision shitting, strangely,
remains in your pants -- you get a nice, warm feeling out of it, but the
rest of us only notice the stench.
You don't want to get into a battle of metaphors. It will not end well for you.
--
"I have no use for humility. I am a fellow with an exceptional talent."
-- Jackie Gleason
Andy Walton
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
:In 1944 FDR, irritated by the past and present activities of certain of
:the America First people, had several of them indicted for sedition. My
:recollection is that not one conviction resulted.
Then by your own recollection, the system did its job -- freedom of speech
was defended, and justice was done. You're bitching about what, exactly?
:Was the thing that Pound did somehow more damnable merely because he was
:doing it from Axis Italy?
"Adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Read the law.
When you understand said law, come back and discuss. Until then, you're
making shit up.
:This is the well-known and easily-preditable behaviour of the Liberal
:Jew when dealing with an opponent he cannot face down verbally.
You're repeating yourself. "[A]n opponent he cannot face down verbally?"
That's a creature I have yet to meet. You don't come close. You don't come
close to coming close. I could mention that I am not Jewish, nor "liberal"
depending on the chimeric definition of that term, but I doubt that
inconvenient facts would interrupt your rant. I could further argue that
the capital-L "liberal" means something other than what you think it
means, but that's an equally pointless diversion.
I am more than willing to deal with your arguments, should you deign to
offer any. You have yet to do so. Your logic does not intimidate me,
because it's hypothetical -- you've offered no logical argument to refute.
In fact, your pattern is to read something that jibes with your
prejudices, relate it as fact with no effort to confirm it, trumpet it as
"proven fact" with neither proof nor facts, and then backtrack when it's
debunked. "Someone said it, and I belive it." If a weaker argument exists,
I must admit that it's beyond my imagination.
When you appeal to logic, you're like a steer calling himself a bull --
you talk confidently about what you don't want to show, hoping that no one
will glance down and notice that it's absent. Confronted with that lack,
you paw and snort and show your horns, intimidating few and impressing
none.
You did want to play the metaphor game, right? You're sitting on a pair of
deuces, and we all know it.
--
"I think the development of an artificial intellect could have a tremendous
impact on society. It may also help me sell more of my roll-up plastic
lighted portable disco dance floors." -- Hugh Loebner, in Wired, 5/95
steve wolk
>
> Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> >
> > Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in article
> > <catamont-191...@ts008d38.den-co.concentric.net>...
> > > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> > > the US or not?
> >
> > > >The extent of my knowledge is that he made radio broadcasts from Italy
> > > >bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
> > > >slightest military or political value to the Axis.
> >
> > > Of course, his virulent anti-Semitism did NOTHING for the Axis, did it?
>
> Phillips
>
> I don't know. If you believe that his words aided the Axis cause, then
> tell me how they did.
>
> >
> > And isn't is strange how he so misdescribes Pound's activities and seems
> > to forget that a war was going on at that time.
>
> Phillips
>
> If I posed the question of whether Pound's broadcasts caused any soldier
> to lay down his weapon, then it would hardly seem I was unaware that a
> war was in progress.
>
> >
> > Treason doesn't seem to bother Liar Philllips as long as it agrees with
> > his anti-American agenda.
>
> Phillips
>
> What treason? Did the mere act of bad-mouthing FDR constitute treason. I
> can tell you that there was a hell of a lot of it happening in America
> and even in the halls of Congress - yes, even though there was a war
> going on. Was this treason, or even the much lesser offence of sedition?
> The courts certainly didn't think so.
>
> the America First people, had several of them indicted for sedition. My
> recollection is that not one conviction resulted.
>
> doing it from Axis Italy?
>
> >
> > > You're really a piece of crap, Phillips. You should seriously consider a
> > > stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
> > > psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
>
> Phillips
>
> This is the well-known and easily-preditable behaviour of the Liberal
> Jew) flies into a rage and descends to personal attack (often of a
> scatological nature) and, as his final resource, implies that the
> opponent is in need of "help" - meaning of course psychiatric help (as
> if this had ever been of the slightest help to anyone or anything other
> than the psychiatrist's bank balance).
Coming from Phillips, this is a virtual laugh riot. One has only to go
to Deja.com to see his long-running smear campaign against Jeffrey
Brown. Richard, in addition to his many other lovable attributes, is a
hypocrite of the first order.
Steve
>
> =========================================================================
steve wolk
> > >Phillips
> > >
> > >The extent of my knowledge is that he made radio broadcasts from Italy
> > >bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
> > >slightest military or political value to the Axis.
> > >
> >
> > Of course, his virulent anti-Semitism did NOTHING for the Axis, did it?
> >
> > stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
> > psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
> >
>
> =====================================================
> Phillips
>
> This is the usual response of the Liberal Jew when dealing with an
> opponent that he/she cannot face down verbally. He/she (the Liberal Jew)
> flies into a rage and commences attacking the opponent personally (and
> often in scatological terms). Then, when all else has failed, there is
> resort to their ultimate ploy: saying that the opponent needs "help"
> meaning of course psychiatric help.
>
> in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
> must in time peter out).
>
> anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
This attitude does much to explain your present mental condition. You
should have gotten help years ago when the symptoms first began to
manifest themselves. By now, it's too late.
Steve
> ===========================================================
steve wolk
>
> You know, I wasn't gonna brag about this, but my father's "dying" practise
> in psychiatry (and psychoanalysis at that) paid for a rather nice house in
> suburbia, a country house on Cape Cod, a co-op on Riverside Drive in NY,
> and putting four daughters through college (and one through graduate
> school AND medical school.) And not cheap schools, mind you, places you
> trailer trash only DREAM about (if you knew anything about colleges) --
> Hampshire, Sarah Lawrence, Georgetown. Not to mention an office on NYC's
> East Side AND an office at the Washington School of Psychiatry.
>
> His business was so *bad*, Phillips, that he kept two offices in two
> different cities and commuted between them to treat all the patients who
> wanted to see him.
>
> In addition, his services as an educator were in demand at both Georgetown
> and Tulane Medical Schools.
>
> He also sat on the Catholic Church's Tribunal for the Diocese of Brooklyn
> as a psychiatric advisor. Authored two books as well.
>
> And now, at the ripe old age of 85, his practice is STILL thriving.
>
> It's a shame he chose such a DYING art, eh,, Philllllips?
Sara, you really shouldn't torture Richard with success stories. He's
still smarting over his self-admitted failure as an engineer. But that
doesn't stop him from telling everyone that psychiatrists chose the
wrong career. Can't wait to see what profession he attacks next. It is
to laugh.
Steve
>
> In article <Orac2001-201...@130.219.233.213>, Orac...@aol.com
> (Orac) wrote:
>
> >In article <380E2A09...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> >And you sure don't let little things like facts stop you, either.
> >
> >
> >> For you see, I shit on Political Correctness - shit on it from a great
> >> height but with pinpoint accuracy. We could speak of it as the excreting
> >> of 'smart turds.'
> >
> >Well, that explains why your arguments stink so much!
> >
>
steve wolk
>
> In article <380DC742...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips> >> In article <380D1948...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> Medical School. Their department of psychiatry never "petered out." My
> father is a Professor Emeritus there.
>
> Psychiatry," Harry Stack Sullivan. NOT A JEW.
>
> principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
>
> >anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
>
> Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
> else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
>
And in every hospital and institution of higher learning in the world.
Even in Derry, NH.
Steve
steve wolk
> Phillips
>
> Possibly so but I daresay less of a surprise to the many many shrinks
> who today sit in their well-appointed offices waiting for the phone to
> ring and cursing the day they chose not to go in for dentistry.
>
> >
> > And by the way, he studied under the man known as the "Father of American
> > Psychiatry," Harry Stack Sullivan. NOT A JEW.
> >
> > But you wouldn't know anything about Sullivan, since his he taught the
> > principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
> Phillips
>
> I am familiar with the name Harry Stack Sullivan. But perhaps you would
> like to clarify the alleged connection with me of that PERSONAL
> RESPONSIBILITY bit.
>
> >
> > >Research since that time has concluded that it was never of much help to
> > >anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
> > >===========================================================
> >
> > Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
> > else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
>
> Phillips
>
> I've recall two articles along that line. Sorry, I do not make a record
> of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
> Just about everyone else does.
Yes, we noticed.
Steve
>
> =========================================================
> >
> > Sara
steve wolk
>
> Orac wrote:
> >
> > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Sara Salzman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <380DC742...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > > > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >Well, psychiatry was a Jewish fad that enjoyed a certain vogue beginning
> > > > >in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
> > > > >must in time peter out).
> > > >
> > > > That sure will come as a surprise at Georgetown U (CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY)'s
> > > > Medical School. Their department of psychiatry never "petered out." My
> > > > father is a Professor Emeritus there.
> > >
> > > =================================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > Possibly so but I daresay less of a surprise to the many many shrinks
> > > who today sit in their well-appointed offices waiting for the phone to
> > > ring and cursing the day they chose not to go in for dentistry.
> >
> > this: If these shrinks don't have any patients, then how can they afford
> > these well-appointed offices to whom you refer?
> ========================================================
> Phillips
>
> You attempt to make out as though there is some mystery here. Many of
> them no doubt hired and furnished their premises at a time when
> prospects in their trade were much brighter. Has there never been such a
> thing as a nightclub in decline which continues to present an elegant
> facade to the world so long as it is able to do so.
>
>
> Answer: If they're not
> > busy, they can't!
> =====================================
> Phillips
>
> And, in time, they won't.
>
>
> Because of managed care, academic physicians have to
> > support themselves too, just like private practice. In fact, most academic
> > docs I know have offices that are much less "well-appointed" than a
> > typical reasonably successful private physician. This is especially true
> > at the Instructor and Assistant Professor level.
>
> =========================================================
> Phillips
>
> What does this have to do with the shrinkage of the shrinks' trade?
> (haw)
>
> =========================================================
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > > > else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
> > >
> > > ================================================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > I've recall two articles along that line. Sorry, I do not make a record
> > > of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
> > > Just about everyone else does.
> >
>
> ==========================================================
> Phillips
>
> ill-adjusted persons who strive to boost their damaged self-esteems by
> makes it possible for one to regard that sort of thing with the > contempt that it deserves.
Richard Phillips paints a self-portrait. Oh, I think I'm gonna bust a
gut laughing.
Steve
=======================================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>But perhaps you would
>like to clarify the alleged connection with me of that PERSONAL
>RESPONSIBILITY bit.
You don't understand the concept of personal responsibility, Liar, and you
are incapable of practicing it. That's why you chose to run away rather
than pay your debts.
> [...deletia...]
>If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead. Just about everyone else does.
That's because you lie. Anything else I can clear up for you, Liar?
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Because NGs of this sort are largely populated by ill-tempered and
>ill-adjusted persons who strive to boost their damaged self-esteems by
>denigrating others.
That would explain your presence, Liar.
>The advantage of being an honest man is that it
>makes it possible for one to regard that sort of thing with the contempt
>that it deserves.
How would you know, Liar? As has already been established, you're not an
honest man.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Sufferer Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Sara Salzman wrote:
>>
>> In article <380E17B6...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
>> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Sara Salzman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <380DC742...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
>> >> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> >> >Research since that time has concluded that it was never of much help to
>> >> >anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
>> >> >===========================================================
>> >>
>> >> Oh, please, please, please produced this "research" for us. If nothing
>> >> else, it will make for great laughs at Georgetown.
>> >
>> >================================================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >I've recall two articles along that line. Sorry, I do not make a record
>> >of every solitary thing I read. If you wish to call me a liar, go ahead.
>> >Just about everyone else does.
>>
>> In other words, you have absolutely no facts. Just "research says."
>>
>> Newsflash, Mr. Phillllllips, "research says" you're a lying sack of shit.
>> I know I read it somewhere.
>
>==============================================================
>Phillips
>
>Sarah, by this time you should realize that when you amalgamate Dick
>Phillips with a keyboard you are virtually guaranteeing the denial,
>derision, denigration, destruction, and deconstruction of all known
>varieties of Political Correctness.
By this time, everyone realizes that when Liar Phillips claims that
"research says" something, he's making it all up out of whole
cloth.There's no research, and Liar read no articles. He needed to make a
phony claim about psychiatrists, so he invented this imaginary "research".
>For you see, I shit on Political Correctness - shit on it from a great
>height but with pinpoint accuracy. We could speak of it as the excreting
>of 'smart turds.'
Your turds are undoubtedly the smartest organic material you possess,
Liar. To no one's surprise, you're jettisoning the sum total of your
intelligence. Good thing you've got all that toilet paper...
>Buchanan in 2000. A chicken in every pot and two Liberals dangling from
>every lamppost.
Your advocacy of murder is noted, Liar.
Richard Phillips
>
> Richard Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> > >
> > > Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in article
> > > <catamont-191...@ts008d38.den-co.concentric.net>...
> > > > >bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
> > > > >slightest military or political value to the Axis.
> > >
> > > > Of course, his virulent anti-Semitism did NOTHING for the Axis, did it?
> >
> > > > stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
> > > > psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
> >
> > Phillips
> >
> > This is the well-known and easily-preditable behaviour of the Liberal
> > Jew when dealing with an opponent he cannot face down verbally. He (the
> > Jew) flies into a rage and descends to personal attack (often of a
> > scatological nature) and, as his final resource, implies that the
> > opponent is in need of "help" - meaning of course psychiatric help (as
> > if this had ever been of the slightest help to anyone or anything other
> > than the psychiatrist's bank balance).
>
> Coming from Phillips, this is a virtual laugh riot. One has only to go
> to Deja.com to see his long-running smear campaign against Jeffrey
> Brown. Richard, in addition to his many other lovable attributes, is a
> hypocrite of the first order.
================================================================
Phillips
You spoke of my "smear campaign" against Jeffrey Brown. Would you
describe it as an UNPROVOKED smear campaign?
===============================
>
> Steve
>
> >
> > =========================================================================
Richard Phillips
>
> Richard Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > >Phillips
> > > >
> > > >The extent of my knowledge is that he made radio broadcasts from Italy
> > > >bad-mouthing the FDR admin. So far as I know, it was not of the
> > > >slightest military or political value to the Axis.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course, his virulent anti-Semitism did NOTHING for the Axis, did it?
> > >
> > > stay at St. Elizabeth's yourself. I could recommend a couple of good
> > > psychiatrists there. White ones, even.
> > >
> >
> > =====================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > This is the usual response of the Liberal Jew when dealing with an
> > opponent that he/she cannot face down verbally. He/she (the Liberal Jew)
> > flies into a rage and commences attacking the opponent personally (and
> > often in scatological terms). Then, when all else has failed, there is
> > resort to their ultimate ploy: saying that the opponent needs "help"
> > meaning of course psychiatric help.
> >
> > in the 1940s but gradually petered out in the 70s or 80s (as all frauds
> > must in time peter out).
> >
> > anyone or anything except the bank balances of its practitioners.
>
> should have gotten help years ago when the symptoms first began to
> manifest themselves. By now, it's too late.
======================================================
Phillips
See what I mean?
============================
>
steve wolk
Jeffrey pointed out, accurately, that you had a penchant for bending the
truth, to put it as delicately as possible. Your behavior was boorish
and inappropriate. You and I have also traded insults. May I point out
to you that any insults I have hurled your way have all been based on
your behavior and your words. This has not been true in your case. Al-
though not as rancorous or as constant as your campaign against Jeffrey,
the same pricipal applies.
Steve
Steve
>
> ===============================
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > >
> > > =========================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown
Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>steve wolk wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> Coming from Phillips, this is a virtual laugh riot. One has only to go
>> to Deja.com to see his long-running smear campaign against Jeffrey
>> Brown. Richard, in addition to his many other lovable attributes, is a
>> hypocrite of the first order.
>
>================================================================
>Phillips
>
>You spoke of my "smear campaign" against Jeffrey Brown. Would you
>describe it as an UNPROVOKED smear campaign?
Translation: 'But Mommy, he made me do it'.
Now do you understand why it's become obvious that you don't understand
the concept of personal responsibility, Liar? Blaming the person you're
smearing for your own actions is proof enough of that...
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Orac wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> For an "honest" man, you use some questionable tactics. For instance, you
>> frequently assert that the Auschwitz death toll was "reduced" from four to
>> one million, and that the four million figure reigned supreme until
>> recently.
>===============================================
>Phillips
>
>I never said it "reigned supreme." What I did say (or at least what I
>meant) was that it HAD penetrated deeply into public consciousness. I
>also stated that it was part of the indictment (or at least part of the
>court record) at Nurmburg.
Oooo, nice footwork there, Liar. I don't think I've ever seen such rapid
backpedalling.
You were insisting that it was part of the indictment, period, Liar. You
only added the weaselwords about "at least part of the court record" when
the fact was pounded through your thick skull that you didn't even know
what the precise indictment at Nuremburg was. And you _still_ haven't been
able to scrape together enough working neurons to find out exactly what
was in the indictment.
> I and others have been debunked many times in just my relatively
>> short time on alt.revisionism. Most recently, I and others demonstrated
>> the falseness of this gambit conclusively by posting many examples of
>> historians who put the Auschwitz death toll at approximately one million,
>> as soon as only a few years after the war. Yet, every so often, when you
>> think people have forgotten about it, you'll post the same old deniers'
>> lie about the four million again and we'll have to post the same rebuttals
>> yet again. I predict that you'll do it again. And when you do, I'll remind
>> you of my prediction. And you will eventually break down and repeat that
>> deniers' lie yet again. You can't help yourself.
>
>=============================================================
>Phillips
>
>If Reitlinger shot it down, that is certainly to his credit. But there
>are several things I don't know.
No shit, Sherlock...
>(1) Was Reitlinger the FIRST one to do this? Is it possible that one or
>more revisoinists said it first (and drew a storm on their heads for
>doing so.)
Arguing from ignorance again, I see. If you want to claim that
"revisoinists said it first", provide factual evidence that they did.
Raising a hypothetical question isn't proof of anything, Liar, except your
own abysmal inability to support your arguments with facts.
>(2) Exactly what MOTIVATED Reitlinger to do this? Could it have been
>that he read previous revisionist material, realized that the figure was
>untenable, and figured that the sooner Jewry distanced themselves from
>it, the better.
Arguing from ignorance again, I see. If you want to claim that Reitlinger
"read previous revisionist material", provide factual evidence that he
did. Raising a hypothetical question isn't proof of anything, Liar, except
your own abysmal inability to support your arguments with facts.
>(3) Was Reitlinger's thesis quickly and quietly accepted, or was there a
>storm of controversy over it.
Arguing from ignorance again, I see. If you want to claim that there was a
"storm of controversy", provide factual evidence of said storm. Raising a
hypothetical question isn't proof of anything, Liar, except your own
abysmal inability to support your arguments with facts.
>These of course are only speculations. I tried to obtain hard facts.
>Unfortunately, my friends at IHR were not as helpful as I would have
>liked.
Gee, why on earth do you suppose that was?
>Until I have more hard facts, I'm certainly not going to use it again in
>the way I did before.
Not these particular arguments, no. You'll find something else to make a
jackass of yourself over, though. You always do.
Richard Phillips
==================================================
Phillips
I see. Your insults were justified but mine were not.
As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
satisfactions of a normal manhood.
Now we all know that this NG is an arena of combat. Bad-mouthing is
pretty frequent. But what are we to make of someone like Jeffrey
(1) Whose EVERY posting is a vicious personal attack on someone
(2) Who has NOT ONCE ever contributed an original idea
(3) Who seizes upon the fact that he, Jeffrey, knows something about
Internet that someone else doesn't know to make out a case that the
someone else is a mental defective.
(4) Who insists upon substantiation of an opponent's every syllable and
yet himself makes a claim to having had certain types of employment and,
when asked for particulars, begs off with the plea that what was being
asked for was "personal information." And, to top it off, has the
unbelievable gall to claim HIS "right" to demand the names of my
creditors from 30 years back.
(5) Who, when faced with a proof from dejanews that he DID say
such-and-such, denies it because the words do not match perfectly
although the import was the same.
Now are you going to sit there and tell me he is a responsible adult.
Are you going to tell me he is anything other than an execrable piece of
human flotsam whose sole raison d'etre are his opportunities to insult,
to irritate, and to defame. In any pre-Internet society of adults, where
people convened physically, Jeffrey would quickly have been recognized
for what he was and told politely to busy himself elsewhere. This is
what used to be called the gatekeeper function. Internet NGs are a boon
to him because that gate keeper function cannot be exercised.
I asked you if you felt that my smear campaign against Jeffrey was an
unprovoked one. About a year and a half ago I was trying every which way
to get someone -anyone- to present me with real proof of the existence
and operation of gas chambers. I made a list of requirements. Nobody
was able to meet those requirements. To keep the dialog alive, I backed
off on some of them to see if ANYBODY was prepared to come up with
ANYTHING.
The question later came up as to whether I had changed my requirements.
I answered no because I had made nothing more than a temporary retreat
to see if you people could come up with ANYTHING. But I had not changed
my original requirements one whit. In time I would have insisted upon
thew again.
Jeffrey put all this together to fabricate a case that I had lied and
ever since then I have been Liar Phillips.
Not once but twice I have posted to him the dictionary definition of the
word lie and challenged him to show that my statements met the
conditions presented in that definition. Jeffrey's reply was that I
could take my conditions and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.
So I again put it to you: can Jeffrey be classed as a responsible adult?
=================================================
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Orac wrote:
> >
> > In article <380E5D65...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >The advantage of being an honest man is that it
> > > makes it possible for one to regard that sort of thing with the contempt
> > > that it deserves.
> >
> > For an "honest" man, you use some questionable tactics. For instance, you
> > frequently assert that the Auschwitz death toll was "reduced" from four to
> > one million, and that the four million figure reigned supreme until
> > recently.
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> I never said it "reigned supreme." What I did say (or at least what I
> meant) was that it HAD penetrated deeply into public consciousness. I
> also stated that it was part of the indictment (or at least part of the
> court record) at Nurmburg.
You also neglected to mention that the four million was not accepted by
the court at Nuremberg as accurate.
> I and others have been debunked many times in just my relatively
> > short time on alt.revisionism. Most recently, I and others demonstrated
> > the falseness of this gambit conclusively by posting many examples of
> > historians who put the Auschwitz death toll at approximately one million,
> > as soon as only a few years after the war. Yet, every so often, when you
> > think people have forgotten about it, you'll post the same old deniers'
> > lie about the four million again and we'll have to post the same rebuttals
> > yet again. I predict that you'll do it again. And when you do, I'll remind
> > you of my prediction. And you will eventually break down and repeat that
> > deniers' lie yet again. You can't help yourself.
>
> =============================================================
> Phillips
>
> If Reitlinger shot it down, that is certainly to his credit. But there
> are several things I don't know.
List what you do know instead. It'll take a lot less time.
> (1) Was Reitlinger the FIRST one to do this? Is it possible that one or
> more revisoinists said it first (and drew a storm on their heads for
> doing so.)
I don't know, but I doubt it. His estimate came only a few years after the
war, before there really was a revisionist movement. Perhaps that's
something you could do with your copious free time: some actual research
in libraries. That would be a novel concept, I know, but give it a try.
Most people around here aren't yet retired and don't have the luxury of
such huge amounts of free time.
> (2) Exactly what MOTIVATED Reitlinger to do this? Could it have been
> that he read previous revisionist material, realized that the figure was
> untenable, and figured that the sooner Jewry distanced themselves from
> it, the better.
I doubt it. But, by all means, if you have evidence to suggest that
Reitlinger was influenced by revisionists, please produce it. At the very
least, it'll give us all a good laugh.
> (3) Was Reitlinger's thesis quickly and quietly accepted, or was there a
> storm of controversy over it.
There was no storm of controversy. As has been pointed out to you many
times, the four million figure was doubted by historians from the moment
it was produced by the Soviets. Hoess's own estimate was much lower, 2.5
million, and even that figure was doubted as being too high.
> These of course are only speculations.
That's all you're any good at: speculations. You're sure not much good at
finding actual facts that might interfere with your anti-Semitism and
racism.
>I tried to obtain hard facts.
> Unfortunately, my friends at IHR were not as helpful as I would have
> liked.
Well, there's your problem right there! You really need to find other
sources for your information. Do you really think the IHR would give out
information that would discredit one of the favorite denier tactics of
attacking the "four million" figure of Auschwitz? Of course not, because
then they couldn't use that old tactic anymore.
You really should try walking into a library sometime.
> Until I have more hard facts, I'm certainly not going to use it again in
> the way I did before.
I predict that you will. It's only a matter of time. The only question is
how long you'll wait. As I said, you can't help yourself. And when you do,
I'll be there to remind you of my prediction.
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> satisfactions of a normal manhood.
And how, pray tell, do you know this? Or is this just another one of your
smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
[Equivocations and crap deleted]
Richard Phillips
>
> In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
>
> smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
===========================================================
Phillips
He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
==============================
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Orac wrote:
> >
> > In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> > > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> > > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> > > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> > > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
> >
> > And how, pray tell, do you know this? Or is this just another one of your
> > smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
Funny, but for someone who's always demanding these incredibly rigorous
standards of proof when it comes to anything having to do with the
Holocaust, you seem awfully fast to conclude such a thing about Jeff on
the basis of such flimsy evidence. Perhaps your rigorous standards of
proof are only required for things that you don't want to believe. For
things that fit in with your preconceived prejudices, you're very quick to
believe on the basis of little or no evidence. I could give a couple of
more examples of such behavior from you, but you'd accuse me of repeating
myself. (Subliminal man sez: Franklin.)
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
Still trying to get out of his open support for treason natters on:
> I see. Your insults were justified but mine were not.
You are the one who announced his support of treason and using violence to
deprive others of their civil rights.
> As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> his character, allow me to enlighten you:
If you think that Americans believe in thyose who support treason let me
enlighten YOU.
They don't.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips whose persona hero is Benedict Arnold
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<380EBB5C...@mediaone.net>...
> > This attitude does much to explain your present mental condition. You
> > should have gotten help years ago when the symptoms first began to
> > manifest themselves. By now, it's too late.
> See what I mean?
What has been seen is that you will go to any lengths to avoid the
subjects of your support of treason and your complete rejection of the
philosophy of the US.
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips Friend to Traitors <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in
article <380F12CA...@mediaone.net>...
> Orac wrote:
> > In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing
of
> > > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a
responsible
> > > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> > > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from
the
> > > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
> >
> > And how, pray tell, do you know this? Or is this just another one of
your
> > smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to
know.
> He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
You have been given dozens of chances to state that you oppose treason
against the US.
You have not only refused to do that, but waved your hands and spread
enough rat shit to fertilize the Sahara Desert.
Orac
<ya...@enter.net> wrote:
> Richard Phillips whose persona hero is Benedict Arnold
> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> <380EBB5C...@mediaone.net>...
> > > This attitude does much to explain your present mental condition. You
> > > should have gotten help years ago when the symptoms first began to
> > > manifest themselves. By now, it's too late.
>
> > See what I mean?
>
> What has been seen is that you will go to any lengths to avoid the
> subjects of your support of treason and your complete rejection of the
> philosophy of the US.
...while at the same time claiming he "stands with" the Founding Fathers,
when it's clear he has no idea what the Founding Fathers actually stood
for.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>steve wolk wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> Jeffrey pointed out, accurately, that you had a penchant for bending the
>> truth, to put it as delicately as possible. Your behavior was boorish
>> and inappropriate. You and I have also traded insults. May I point out
>> to you that any insults I have hurled your way have all been based on
>> your behavior and your words. This has not been true in your case. Al-
>> though not as rancorous or as constant as your campaign against Jeffrey,
>> the same pricipal applies.
>
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>I see. Your insults were justified but mine were not.
Insults are one thing, Liar. Lies and libel are another. Your tacitly
admitted smear campaign consists of the latter, not the former.
>As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
>his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
>adult.
Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>He is a sex pervert...
Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>...and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex pervert...
Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>...a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
>satisfactions of a normal manhood.
Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>Now we all know that this NG is an arena of combat. Bad-mouthing is
>pretty frequent. But what are we to make of someone like Jeffrey
>
>(1) Whose EVERY posting is a vicious personal attack on someone
False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>(2) Who has NOT ONCE ever contributed an original idea
False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>(3) Who seizes upon the fact that he, Jeffrey, knows something about
>Internet that someone else doesn't know to make out a case that the
>someone else is a mental defective.
False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>(4) Who insists upon substantiation of an opponent's every syllable...
False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>and
>yet himself makes a claim to having had certain types of employment and,
>when asked for particulars, begs off with the plea that what was being
>asked for was "personal information."
My personal history is none of your business, Liar. You get what
information I see fit to divulge -- no more.
>And, to top it off, has the
>unbelievable gall to claim HIS "right" to demand the names of my
>creditors from 30 years back.
What "creditors"? You said you left the country debt free. Oops, you also
said you left your creditors shaking their fists at you on the docks.
Can't have it both ways, Liar. One or the other of those claims was a lie.
It doesn't matter which one -- you lied again and got caught at it. You
even admitted it.
>(5) Who, when faced with a proof from dejanews that he DID say
>such-and-such, denies it because the words do not match perfectly
>although the import was the same.
You quoted me as making a statement, Liar. You have yet to produce
evidence that I wrote the words you quoted.
You were lying. What's so hard to understand about that?
>Now are you going to sit there and tell me he is a responsible adult.
>Are you going to tell me he is anything other than an execrable piece of
>human flotsam whose sole raison d'etre are his opportunities to insult,
>to irritate, and to defame. In any pre-Internet society of adults, where
>people convened physically, Jeffrey would quickly have been recognized
>for what he was and told politely to busy himself elsewhere. This is
>what used to be called the gatekeeper function. Internet NGs are a boon
>to him because that gate keeper function cannot be exercised.
They're a boon to everyone, because they help expose liars like yourself
to a much wider audience. Far more people than just your neighbors in
Derry now know what kind of a person you are, Philllips, and just how
often you lie.
>I asked you if you felt that my smear campaign against Jeffrey was an
>unprovoked one. About a year and a half ago I was trying every which way
>to get someone -anyone- to present me with real proof of the existence
>and operation of gas chambers. I made a list of requirements. Nobody
>was able to meet those requirements. To keep the dialog alive, I backed
>off on some of them to see if ANYBODY was prepared to come up with
>ANYTHING.
False. You increased your requirements. You did not "back off on some of them".
How long do you think you can go on repeating that lie, Liar?
>The question later came up as to whether I had changed my requirements.
You did. Now you're lying about it again.
>I answered no because I had made nothing more than a temporary retreat
>to see if you people could come up with ANYTHING. But I had not changed
>my original requirements one whit.
False. You are documented as having changed those requirements, and then
lying about doing so. You did not make a "temporary retreat" -- instead
you greatly increased your "requirements". You're still lying about that,
too.
>In time I would have insisted upon thew again.
And why, exactly, should we believe this?
>Jeffrey put all this together to fabricate a case that I had lied and
>ever since then I have been Liar Phillips.
Your lie has been documented. (I'll post the evidence again.) You were a
liar then, and you are a liar now. That's why I tagged you "Liar
Philllips" -- it's an accurate nickname.
>Not once but twice I have posted to him the dictionary definition of the
>word lie and challenged him to show that my statements met the
>conditions presented in that definition. Jeffrey's reply was that I
>could take my conditions and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.
Exactly. Your lie is documented. Antics with semantics doesn't change what
you did or what you are.
>So I again put it to you: can Jeffrey be classed as a responsible adult?
The question is irrelevant. Your lies about me remain lies, whether or not
I can be classed as "a responsible adult". If someone were to go back in
time and murder my grandfather, thereby erasing me from all of history,
you would still be a liar. You would still have lied yesterday, you would
still be lying today, and you would still lie tomorrow. I expect that you
will go on lying.
Expect me to continue to point out your lies, and the simple fact that all
you are is a liar.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Orac wrote:
>>
>> In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
>> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
>> > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
>> > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
>> > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
>> > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
>>
>> And how, pray tell, do you know this? Or is this just another one of your
>> smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>===========================================================
>Phillips
>
>He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
>part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
charges -- and he knows it.
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> Orac wrote:
> > For an "honest" man, you use some questionable tactics. For instance,
you
> > frequently assert that the Auschwitz death toll was "reduced" from four
to
> > one million, and that the four million figure reigned supreme until
> > recently.
> I never said it "reigned supreme." What I did say (or at least what I
> meant) was that it HAD penetrated deeply into public consciousness. I
> also stated that it was part of the indictment (or at least part of the
> court record) at Nurmburg.
> I and others have been debunked many times in just my relatively
> > short time on alt.revisionism. Most recently, I and others demonstrated
> > the falseness of this gambit conclusively by posting many examples of
> > historians who put the Auschwitz death toll at approximately one
million,
> > as soon as only a few years after the war. Yet, every so often, when
you
> > think people have forgotten about it, you'll post the same old deniers'
> > lie about the four million again and we'll have to post the same
rebuttals
> > yet again. I predict that you'll do it again. And when you do, I'll
remind
> > you of my prediction. And you will eventually break down and repeat
that
> > deniers' lie yet again. You can't help yourself.
> If Reitlinger shot it down, that is certainly to his credit. But there
> are several things I don't know.
He shot nothing down since it had never been accepted.
And there is an awful lot that you do not know.
> (1) Was Reitlinger the FIRST one to do this?
No the IMT at Nuremberg did.
> Is it possible that one or
> more revisoinists said it first (and drew a storm on their heads for
> doing so.)
Nope. Because it is a strawman that they invented.
> (2) Exactly what MOTIVATED Reitlinger to do this?
He was a historian.
> Could it have been
> that he read previous revisionist material, realized that the figure was
> untenable, and figured that the sooner Jewry distanced themselves from
> it, the better.
Nope.
> (3) Was Reitlinger's thesis quickly and quietly accepted, or was there a
> storm of controversy over it.
Nope.
> These of course are only speculations.
Some engineer you are.
> I tried to obtain hard facts.
How? By wandering around asking random waitresses.
> Unfortunately, my friends at IHR were not as helpful as I would have
> liked.
Because they know you are supporting their lie.
> Until I have more hard facts, I'm certainly not going to use it again in
> the way I did before.
Back to random waitresses?
Try a postman or two.
And then ask them what they think of people like you who exdorse treason
against the US.
Richard Phillips
Philips
Then mhy the need for his book?
=============================
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>>
>> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> [...deletia...]
>> > If Reitlinger shot it down, that is certainly to his credit. But there
>> > are several things I don't know.
>>
>> He shot nothing down since it had never been accepted.
>================================================
>Philips
>
>Then mhy the need for his book?
There is such a thing as researching history and publishing the results
because it adds to our knowledge of ourselves, Liar -- as opposed to
making utterly fact-free claims that one is later forced to backpedal away
from, like you do.
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>>
>> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
>> <380E8D60...@mediaone.net>...
>> > If Reitlinger shot it down, that is certainly to his credit. But there
>> > are several things I don't know.
>>
>> He shot nothing down since it had never been accepted.
>================================================
>Philips
>
>Then mhy the need for his book?
Maybe he was curious, as good historians are. Maybe he wanted to be the
write the best comprehensive study of the Holocaust that had yet been
written.
You might just as well ask the same thing about ANY new book on history.
After all, with all the thousands of books that have been written on the
Civil War over the last 134 years, what's the need for any more? Yet,
historians still find new observations to make about it. Hey, what about
the American Revolution? There are thousands of books about that, but
historians still keep writing them.
When Reitlinger wrote his book, WWII was still fresh in the world's
collective memory. Comprehensive histories of WWII and the Holocaust, with
the distance of a few years to give a little perspective. That was reason
enough for him to undertake it.
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<380FA0CC...@mediaone.net>...
> Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> > Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> > <380E8D60...@mediaone.net>...
> > > If Reitlinger shot it down, that is certainly to his credit. But
there
> > > are several things I don't know.
> >
> > He shot nothing down since it had never been accepted.
> Then mhy the need for his book?
Because he wanted to set down his opinion of the Holocaust. Duh.
Still no expanation from Phillllips as to why he approves of treason.
steve wolk
Yes. And let me put it to you again: your insults to Jeffrey and
myself are based on sexual innuendo, not fact. If you cannot see the
difference, that is your problem, not mine.
Steve
> =================================================
steve wolk
>
> Orac wrote:
> >
> > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> > > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> > > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> > > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> > > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
> >
> > smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> ===========================================================
> Phillips
>
> He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
The old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" gambit. Doesn't hold
water, Richard. Are you that desperate?
Steve
>
> ==============================
> >
> > [Equivocations and crap deleted]
> >
Richard Phillips
>
> In article <380F12CA...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi> >> In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> >> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> >> > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> >> > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> >> > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> >> > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
> >>
> >> smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
> >
> >===========================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
>
> charges -- and he knows it.
=======================================================
Phillips
Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary. Any hetero would
have replied in the negative. Moreover, have any of your friends or
cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
======================================================
Richard Phillips
>
> In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
> Wannabe Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >steve wolk wrote:
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> >> Jeffrey pointed out, accurately, that you had a penchant for bending the
> >> truth, to put it as delicately as possible. Your behavior was boorish
> >> and inappropriate. You and I have also traded insults. May I point out
> >> to you that any insults I have hurled your way have all been based on
> >> your behavior and your words. This has not been true in your case. Al-
> >> though not as rancorous or as constant as your campaign against Jeffrey,
> >> the same pricipal applies.
> >
> >==================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >I see. Your insults were justified but mine were not.
>
> Insults are one thing, Liar. Lies and libel are another. Your tacitly
> admitted smear campaign consists of the latter, not the former.
================================================================
Phillips
Oh, and it was NOT libel when you called me a liar for reasons that did
not meet the dictionary's definition of the term?
===============================================
>
> >As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> >his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> >adult.
>
> Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
=============================================================
Phillips
I put it to the NG who have observed Brown over time. Is he a normal
responsible adult?
==========================================
>
> >He is a sex pervert...
>
> Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
======================================================
Phillips
You were twice challenged to deny having committed homosexual acts. You
did not reply in either case.
============================
>
> >...and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex pervert...
>
> Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>
> >...a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> >satisfactions of a normal manhood.
>
> Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>
> >Now we all know that this NG is an arena of combat. Bad-mouthing is
> >pretty frequent. But what are we to make of someone like Jeffrey
> >
> >(1) Whose EVERY posting is a vicious personal attack on someone
>
> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>
> >(2) Who has NOT ONCE ever contributed an original idea
>
> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
======================================================
Phillips
Making it up? OK now suppose you present us with three of your posts
that were constructive contributions to a thread and were free of any
personal attack on someone.
============================================================
>
> >(3) Who seizes upon the fact that he, Jeffrey, knows something about
> >Internet that someone else doesn't know to make out a case that the
> >someone else is a mental defective.
>
> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
======================================================
Phillips
Making it up? Do you recall that brouhaha about configuring one's
newsreader to suppress the appearance oh HTML code. I do.
=====================================================================
>
> >(4) Who insists upon substantiation of an opponent's every syllable...
>
> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
=============================================================
Phillips
Making it up? How many times have you posted things along the line of:
"So-and-so, without one shred of documentary proof ....."
===========================================================
>
> >and
> >yet himself makes a claim to having had certain types of employment and,
> >when asked for particulars, begs off with the plea that what was being
> >asked for was "personal information."
>
> My personal history is none of your business, Liar. You get what
> information I see fit to divulge -- no more.
===========================================================
Phillips
I see. You hold all others to rigid standards of proof yet at the same
time consider yourself perfectly entitled to support an argument by
claiming to have had a certain type of employment without providing any
instances of those alleged employments.
I put it to the NG: do you begin to perceive that Brown just cannot be
regarded as a responsible adult.
=============================================
>
> >And, to top it off, has the
> >unbelievable gall to claim HIS "right" to demand the names of my
> >creditors from 30 years back.
>
> What "creditors"? You said you left the country debt free. Oops, you also
> said you left your creditors shaking their fists at you on the docks.
=============================================================
Phillips
Then why did you demand their names?
============================
>
>
>
> >(5) Who, when faced with a proof from dejanews that he DID say
> >such-and-such, denies it because the words do not match perfectly
> >although the import was the same.
>
> You quoted me as making a statement, Liar. You have yet to produce
> evidence that I wrote the words you quoted.
=====================================================
Phillips
Brown: did you or did you not complain that I had threatened you. I can
repost it if you wish.
=======================================================
>
>
> >Now are you going to sit there and tell me he is a responsible adult.
> >Are you going to tell me he is anything other than an execrable piece of
> >human flotsam whose sole raison d'etre are his opportunities to insult,
> >to irritate, and to defame. In any pre-Internet society of adults, where
> >people convened physically, Jeffrey would quickly have been recognized
> >for what he was and told politely to busy himself elsewhere. This is
> >what used to be called the gatekeeper function. Internet NGs are a boon
> >to him because that gate keeper function cannot be exercised.
>
> They're a boon to everyone, because they help expose liars like yourself
> to a much wider audience. Far more people than just your neighbors in
> Derry now know what kind of a person you are, Philllips, and just how
> often you lie.
>
> >I asked you if you felt that my smear campaign against Jeffrey was an
> >unprovoked one. About a year and a half ago I was trying every which way
> >to get someone -anyone- to present me with real proof of the existence
> >and operation of gas chambers. I made a list of requirements. Nobody
> >was able to meet those requirements. To keep the dialog alive, I backed
> >off on some of them to see if ANYBODY was prepared to come up with
> >ANYTHING.
>
> False. You increased your requirements. You did not "back off on some of them".
>
> How long do you think you can go on repeating that lie, Liar?
>
==============================================================
Phillips
The little pustule would have you believe that the two postings he dug
up were close to being the only two on that thread. This is balls and he
knows it. There were well over a hundred and they go back to mid 1997,
but the pustule naturally presented only those that served his purpose.
Well I think the time has come to put an end to his racket and give you
the true story. It's going to take me quite some time both to dig up the
material (which is considerable) and present it in a digestible form but
it is going to be done.
=====================================================================
>
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> >
> > In article <380F12CA...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
> > Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> >
> > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
> > charges -- and he knows it.
>
> =======================================================
> Phillips
>
> Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary. Any hetero would
> have replied in the negative. Moreover, have any of your friends or
> cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
Phillips, stop being so ridiculous. You have absolutely no evidence for
your accusations other than, "Any hetero would have replied in the
negative" and your own prejudice.
Richard Phillips
Richard Phillips
>
> Richard Phillips wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> > > > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> > > > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> > > > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> > > > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
> > >
> > > smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
> >
> > ===========================================================
> > Phillips
> >
> > part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
>
> water, Richard. Are you that desperate?
================================================
Phillips
Are YOU that illogical? The question: "Have you stopped beating your
wife" is based on the prsupposition that you HAVE been beating your
wife. My challenge to Jeffrey was not based upon any presppositions.
======================================
>
> Steve
> >
> > ==============================
> > >
> > > [Equivocations and crap deleted]
> > >
Orac
<rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > Richard Phillips wrote:
> > > He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> > > part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> >
> > The old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" gambit. Doesn't hold
> > water, Richard. Are you that desperate?
>
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> Are YOU that illogical? The question: "Have you stopped beating your
> wife" is based on the prsupposition that you HAVE been beating your
> wife.
No it's not. It's based on the fact that the person making such an
accusation places his opponent in a no-win situation. If the accused
decides not to dignify such a nasty charge with a response, he creates the
impression that maybe there is something to the charge after all,
especially if his accuser keeps making the charge. If he does deny the
charge, he still looks bad, because doing so inevitably creates doubt
about his character.
And I suspect that you fully realize this.
>My challenge to Jeffrey was not based upon any presppositions.
Bullshit.
John Morris
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:04:47 -0400, Orac...@aol.com (Orac) wrote:
>In article <38105633...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
><rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
>> > In article <380F12CA...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
>> > Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
>> > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
>> > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
>> > charges -- and he knows it.
>> Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary. Any hetero would
>> have replied in the negative. Moreover, have any of your friends or
>> cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
>Phillips, stop being so ridiculous. You have absolutely no evidence for
>your accusations other than, "Any hetero would have replied in the
>negative" and your own prejudice.
My standard response is that my sexuality is none of anybody's
business and is irrelevant to the discussion.
I suppose Dick will conclude that I must therefore be a homosexual.
Well, let him, because my standard response would be, "Who fucking
cares what Dick thinks?"
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
--
"Nizkooks are not members of homosapiens.
They are members of Judeosapiens." Joe Bellinger, May 17, 1999.
Richard Phillips
>
> In <Orac2001-221...@130.219.233.213> in alt.revisionism, on
> Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:04:47 -0400, Orac...@aol.com (Orac) wrote:
>
> ><rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
>
> >> > In article <380F12CA...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
> >> > Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> >> > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
>
> >> > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
> >> > charges -- and he knows it.
>
> >> Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary. Any hetero would
> >> have replied in the negative. Moreover, have any of your friends or
> >> cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
>
> >Phillips, stop being so ridiculous. You have absolutely no evidence for
> >your accusations other than, "Any hetero would have replied in the
> >negative" and your own prejudice.
>
> My standard response is that my sexuality is none of anybody's
> business and is irrelevant to the discussion.
==================================================
Phillips
Were my 30-year old financial problems anybody else's business. Jeffrey
certainly thinks so. Therefore, his pleas for personal privacy ring
hollow.
================================================================
>
> I suppose Dick will conclude that I must therefore be a homosexual.
> Well, let him, because my standard response would be, "Who fucking
> cares what Dick thinks?"
===============================================
Phillips
Jeffrey's "pecularities" are his own business - up to a point. And that
point is when he begins inflicting them on other people. No one who has
been on this NG for any length of time can be unaware of the principal
trait in Jeffrey's character: every single one of his posts that I can
remember, going back two years, has been a personal attack on someone.
When we place this in juxtaposition with certain well-known traits of
homos, certain obvious inferences become permissible. And when the
question is put to him --twice-- has he ever engaged in homosexual acts
and he refuses to reply. Then the piture becomes pretty clear.
In any event, when we consider the fact that for nearly two years he has
been screaming "Liar Phillips" and basing it on things that do not even
MEET the definition of what a lie is, and when he CONTINUES to do this
even after his fraud is brought to his attention -- when we consider all
of these things, then we can hardly say that Jeffrey has been ill-used.
What you sow; you reap.
==========================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown
(Orac) wrote:
>In article <38105633...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
><rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <380F12CA...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
>> > Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
>> > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
>> >
>> > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
>> > charges -- and he knows it.
>>
>> =======================================================
>> Phillips
>>
>> Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary. Any hetero would
>> have replied in the negative. Moreover, have any of your friends or
>> cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
>
>Phillips, stop being so ridiculous. You have absolutely no evidence for
>your accusations other than, "Any hetero would have replied in the
>negative" and your own prejudice.
And, of course, neither of those meets Liar's own requirements for "proof".
But, please, Dr. Gorski, don't ask Liar to "stop being so ridiculous".
He's one of the best entertainment values on the Net...
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
>>
>> In article <380F12CA...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
>> Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Orac wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
>> >> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
>> >> > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
>> >> > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
>> >> > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
>> >> > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
>> >>
>> >> And how, pray tell, do you know this? Or is this just another one of your
>> >> smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
>> >
>> >===========================================================
>> >Phillips
>> >
>> >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
>> >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
>>
>> Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
>> charges -- and he knows it.
>
>=======================================================
>Phillips
>
>Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary.
Not according to Liar Phillips:
"PHYSICAL evidence lad, physical evidence."
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: Nazi Phillllllllllips shows he has
one mediocre skill - tapdancing
-- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:39:39 -0400
-- Message-ID: <379C570B...@mediaone.net>
"...[Y]ou have never presented the necessary physical evidence. And
without physical evidece it just does not fly."
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: Liar Philllips still thinks someone
is going to play his game
-- Date: Sat, 08 May 1999
-- Message-ID: <37345C20...@mediaone.net>
"Since proof, I mean real PHYSICAL proof, has never been presented..."
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: WW111 Are you happy now Brainwashed sheep?
-- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:51:08 -0400
-- Message-ID: <37116DAC...@mediaone.net>
"The burden of proof is on the affirmative..."
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: Who is white? ANSWER THE QUESTION!
-- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:24:53 -0400
-- Message-ID: <3766C4A4...@mediaone.net>
I am also reminded of a previous pronouncement from His Lying Majesty:
'Excuse me but the fact that you say certain things does not make them
"facts."'
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: BLACKS AND CRIME
-- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:26:29 -0400
-- Message-ID: <37752965...@mediaone.net>
Apparently, Liar Philllips is of the opinion that the fact that one does
_not_ say certain things _does_ make them facts. Hmmmm...
>Any hetero would
>have replied in the negative. Moreover, have any of your friends or
>cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
And how, exactly, would that qualify as Liar Philllips' Holy Grail of
"PHYSICAL evidence"?
My, my, but his rules sure are flexible...
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>steve wolk wrote:
>>
>> Richard Phillips wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> > He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
>> > part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
>>
>> The old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" gambit. Doesn't hold
>> water, Richard. Are you that desperate?
>
>================================================
>Phillips
>
>Are YOU that illogical? The question: "Have you stopped beating your
>wife" is based on the prsupposition that you HAVE been beating your
>wife. My challenge to Jeffrey was not based upon any presppositions.
Sure it was, Liar. You had already claimed, numerous times, that I was
homosexual. Only after it was pointed out to you that you hadn't bothered
to support your accusation with facts did you grasp at this particular
straw.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>John Morris wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> My standard response is that my sexuality is none of anybody's
>> business and is irrelevant to the discussion.
>
>==================================================
>Phillips
>
>Were my 30-year old financial problems anybody else's business. Jeffrey
>certainly thinks so.
So, apparently, did you, Liar -- else why would you have volunteered the
information?
> [...deletia...]
>> I suppose Dick will conclude that I must therefore be a homosexual.
>> Well, let him, because my standard response would be, "Who fucking
>> cares what Dick thinks?"
>
>===============================================
>Phillips
>
>Jeffrey's "pecularities" are his own business - up to a point. And that
>point is when he begins inflicting them on other people. No one who has
>been on this NG for any length of time can be unaware of the principal
>trait in Jeffrey's character: every single one of his posts that I can
>remember, going back two years, has been a personal attack on someone.
>When we place this in juxtaposition with certain well-known traits of
>homos, certain obvious inferences become permissible. And when the
>question is put to him --twice-- has he ever engaged in homosexual acts
>and he refuses to reply. Then the piture becomes pretty clear.
Yup. The picture quite clearly depicts the simple fact that when Richard
G. Phillips lies and gets caught at it, he responds by libelling the
person who pointed out his lies.
> [...deletia...]
>What you sow; you reap.
How true, how true. When you lie, you are branded as a liar. Maybe you
shouldn't have started lying, moron...
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> Insults are one thing, Liar. Lies and libel are another. Your tacitly
>> admitted smear campaign consists of the latter, not the former.
>
>================================================================
>Phillips
>
>Oh, and it was NOT libel when you called me a liar for reasons that did
>not meet the dictionary's definition of the term?
Nope. The evidence shows that you lied. I'm not interested in your intent,
Liar -- the evidence speaks for itself.
>> >He is a sex pervert...
>>
>> Evidence? None. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>
>======================================================
>Phillips
>
>You were twice challenged to deny having committed homosexual acts. You
>did not reply in either case.
Your claims aren't proof, Liar.
Your challenges aren't proof, Liar.
My response or lack of same isn't proof, Liar.
You've accused me of specific sexual activities. There's only one kind of
proof in your world, Liar, and that's "physical proof".
Present "physical proof" that backs up your accusations against me.
> [...deletia...]
>> >(2) Who has NOT ONCE ever contributed an original idea
>>
>> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>
>======================================================
>Phillips
>
>Making it up? OK now suppose you present us with three of your posts
>that were constructive contributions to a thread and were free of any
>personal attack on someone.
<http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=171895243>
<http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170537087>
<http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170785861>
<http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170784678>
<http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=169782504>
<http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170141576>
There's six posts of mine that meet your conditions, Liar. Now we're all
going to sit back and watch you try to change the conditions of your
challenge as soon as you realize I've met them...
>> >(3) Who seizes upon the fact that he, Jeffrey, knows something about
>> >Internet that someone else doesn't know to make out a case that the
>> >someone else is a mental defective.
>>
>> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>
>======================================================
>Phillips
>
>Making it up? Do you recall that brouhaha about configuring one's
>newsreader to suppress the appearance oh HTML code. I do.
Goodie for you. So what?
>> >(4) Who insists upon substantiation of an opponent's every syllable...
>>
>> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
>
>=============================================================
>Phillips
>
>Making it up? How many times have you posted things along the line of:
>"So-and-so, without one shred of documentary proof ....."
Many times. So what?
> [...deletia...]
>> My personal history is none of your business, Liar. You get what
>> information I see fit to divulge -- no more.
>
>===========================================================
>Phillips
>
>I see. You hold all others to rigid standards of proof yet at the same
>time consider yourself perfectly entitled to support an argument by
>claiming to have had a certain type of employment without providing any
>instances of those alleged employments.
My personal history is none of your business, Liar. You get what
information I see fit to divulge -- no more.
Don't like it? Tough shit. At least I don't lie about my past, as you do.
>I put it to the NG: do you begin to perceive that Brown just cannot be
>regarded as a responsible adult.
"Responsible adults" don't lie, Liar.
You do. You've even admitted it.
You don't fit into the category of "responsible adults".
>> >And, to top it off, has the
>> >unbelievable gall to claim HIS "right" to demand the names of my
>> >creditors from 30 years back.
>>
>> What "creditors"? You said you left the country debt free. Oops, you also
>> said you left your creditors shaking their fists at you on the docks.
>
>=============================================================
>Phillips
>
>Then why did you demand their names?
You're missing the point, Liar. Why did you lie about being in debt?
>> >(5) Who, when faced with a proof from dejanews that he DID say
>> >such-and-such, denies it because the words do not match perfectly
>> >although the import was the same.
>>
>> You quoted me as making a statement, Liar. You have yet to produce
>> evidence that I wrote the words you quoted.
>=====================================================
>Phillips
>
>Brown: did you or did you not complain that I had threatened you. I can
>repost it if you wish.
I pointed out that I was not about to divulge personal information to you
after you had made threats against me.
You then turned around and lied about what I had said. You quoted me as
saying something I had not said. Tap-dance all you like, jackass -- but
every time you did that, another of your lies was documented.
> [...deletia...]
>> >About a year and a half ago I was trying every which way
>> >to get someone -anyone- to present me with real proof of the existence
>> >and operation of gas chambers. I made a list of requirements. Nobody
>> >was able to meet those requirements. To keep the dialog alive, I backed
>> >off on some of them to see if ANYBODY was prepared to come up with
>> >ANYTHING.
>>
>> False. You increased your requirements. You did not "back off on some
>> of them".
>>
>> How long do you think you can go on repeating that lie, Liar?
>>
>==============================================================
>Phillips
>
>The little pustule would have you believe that the two postings he dug
>up were close to being the only two on that thread.
Really?
Do cite the post in which I make that claim.
(Hint: He's lying again, folks...)
>This is balls and he knows it.
Hmmmm.... there's that homosexual obsession of yours again, Liar. Do you
suppose a psychiatrist could help you overcome that?
>There were well over a hundred and they go back to mid 1997,
>but the pustule naturally presented only those that served his purpose.
The ones I present are the ones that demonstrate that you lied about not
changing your demands.
>Well I think the time has come to put an end to his racket and give you
>the true story.
That'll be a first...
>It's going to take me quite some time both to dig up the
>material (which is considerable) and present it in a digestible form but
>it is going to be done.
Have fun. When it's all done, you'll still be a liar.
Richard Phillips
===============================================================
Phillips
4 years old. a 3-line comment on the burning and controversial issue of
computer games. May your sage contribution to Humanity's wisdom not go
unrecognized.
=======================================================================
>
> <http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170537087>
===============================================================
Phillips
Ditto
=======================================================================
>
> <http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170785861>
===============================================================
Phillips
Ditto
=======================================================================
>
> <http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170784678>
========================================================
Phillips
I was obliged to stop after the third to allow my ponderous thought
processes 'breathing time' to absorb the wealth of sage and eternal
wisdom put forth.
============================================================
>
> <http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=169782504>
>
> <http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170141576>
>
> There's six posts of mine that meet your conditions, Liar. Now we're all
> going to sit back and watch you try to change the conditions of your
> challenge as soon as you realize I've met them...
>
> >> >(3) Who seizes upon the fact that he, Jeffrey, knows something about
> >> >Internet that someone else doesn't know to make out a case that the
> >> >someone else is a mental defective.
> >>
> >> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
> >
> >======================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >Making it up? Do you recall that brouhaha about configuring one's
> >newsreader to suppress the appearance oh HTML code. I do.
>
> Goodie for you. So what?
===========================================
Phillips
So, it's as I said. You will seize upon ANYTHING that gives you a
platform from which to run down another person. A balanced adult does
not do things like that.
===================================================================
>
> >> >(4) Who insists upon substantiation of an opponent's every syllable...
> >>
> >> False. Liar is once again making it up as he goes along.
> >
> >=============================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >Making it up? How many times have you posted things along the line of:
> >"So-and-so, without one shred of documentary proof ....."
>
> Many times. So what?
========================================
Phillips
So Q.E.D. That's what.
============================================
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> >> My personal history is none of your business, Liar. You get what
> >> information I see fit to divulge -- no more.
> >
> >===========================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >I see. You hold all others to rigid standards of proof yet at the same
> >time consider yourself perfectly entitled to support an argument by
> >claiming to have had a certain type of employment without providing any
> >instances of those alleged employments.
>
> My personal history is none of your business, Liar. You get what
> information I see fit to divulge -- no more.
>
> Don't like it? Tough shit. At least I don't lie about my past, as you do.
============================================================
Phillips
Not so, pustule. You lied about having had those employments.
==================================================
=================================================================
Phillips
Then you DID complain about having been threatened.
==========================================================
==================================================
Phillips
Do you understand the meaning of the phrase: "tearing things out of
their context." You ought to; you're highly skilled at doing it.
=============================================
Richard Phillips
>
> In article <38107796...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> >> My standard response is that my sexuality is none of anybody's
> >> business and is irrelevant to the discussion.
> >
> >==================================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >Were my 30-year old financial problems anybody else's business. Jeffrey
> >certainly thinks so.
>
> So, apparently, did you, Liar -- else why would you have volunteered the
> information?
==============================================================
Phillips
It was in a post addressed specifically to Eugene Holman who, unlike
yourself, is a responsible human with whom meaningful dialog is
possible. It was meant as a comical aside and Eugene who has a sense of
humour (something none of the rest of you have) took it that way.
What I had not reckoned with is that this NG is made up of a pack of
hyped-up hyenas who will go into a feeding frenzy every time they spot a
piece of dialectical "meat" they can tear to pieces. It was a mistake I
will not repeat.
==================================================================
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> >> I suppose Dick will conclude that I must therefore be a homosexual.
> >> Well, let him, because my standard response would be, "Who fucking
> >> cares what Dick thinks?"
> >
> >===============================================
> >Phillips
> >
> >Jeffrey's "pecularities" are his own business - up to a point. And that
> >point is when he begins inflicting them on other people. No one who has
> >been on this NG for any length of time can be unaware of the principal
> >trait in Jeffrey's character: every single one of his posts that I can
> >remember, going back two years, has been a personal attack on someone.
> >When we place this in juxtaposition with certain well-known traits of
> >homos, certain obvious inferences become permissible. And when the
> >question is put to him --twice-- has he ever engaged in homosexual acts
> >and he refuses to reply. Then the piture becomes pretty clear.
>
> Yup. The picture quite clearly depicts the simple fact that when Richard
> G. Phillips lies and gets caught at it, he responds by libelling the
> person who pointed out his lies.
>
> > [...deletia...]
>
> >What you sow; you reap.
>
> How true, how true. When you lie, you are branded as a liar. Maybe you
> shouldn't have started lying, moron...
>
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<38105633...@mediaone.net>...
> Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> >
> > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
> > charges -- and he knows it.
> Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary.
Let us apply the same principle to Liar Phillllips.
He has been asked several times why he supported treason against the US.
Liar Phillllips has done nothing but evade the issue.
Therefore, it is clear that the reason he supported treason is because he
has not loyalty whatsoever to the US.
>Any hetero would
> have replied in the negative.
Any American would have immediately denied that he is in favor of
treason.
> Moreover, have any of your friends or
> cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
Not a single one of Liar Philllips friends and associates have denied that
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips -- The man without a country -- wrote:
> John Morris wrote:
> > I suppose Dick will conclude that I must therefore be a homosexual.
> > Well, let him, because my standard response would be, "Who fucking
> > cares what Dick thinks?"
> Jeffrey's "pecularities" are his own business - up to a point. And that
> point is when
He begins to demosntrate that Liar Phillllips is a lair.
> In any event, when we consider the fact that for nearly two years he has
> been screaming "Liar Phillips" and basing it on things that do not even
> MEET the definition of what a lie is,
Like your Benjamin Franklin "quote."
You have lied repeatedly.
> What you sow; you reap.
And I can only hope that you soon reap what you sowed when you announced
that you approve of treason against the US.
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips -- the man without a country -- stomps his feet:
> Oh, and it was NOT libel when you called me a liar for reasons that did
> not meet the dictionary's definition of the term?
You use a rather strange dictionary.
> I put it to the NG who have observed Brown over time. Is he a normal
> responsible adult?
Those who have read your posts know that you are not.
> You were twice challenged to deny having committed homosexual acts. You
> did not reply in either case.
You ahve been challenged many times to repudiate you advocacy of treason.
You have totally failed to reply.
> Making it up? Do you recall that brouhaha about configuring one's
> newsreader to suppress the appearance oh HTML code. I do.
You should. You used the same justification for annoying many readers
that you used to justify treason against the US.
Richard Phillips
>
> Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
> <38105633...@mediaone.net>...
> > Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
>
> > > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> > > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> > >
> > > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
> > > charges -- and he knows it.
>
> > Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary.
>
> Let us apply the same principle to Liar Phillllips.
>
> He has been asked several times why he supported treason against the US.
>
> Liar Phillllips has done nothing but evade the issue.
==========================================================================
pHILLIPS
Not really. I have on at least three occasions asked you three questions
bearing on this matter. I am still waiting for your replies. I am going
to post the questions again but this time, just to show you I'm all
heart, I'll reduce them to two.
(1) Do you regard the launching of the American Revolution as an act of
treason?
(2) Do you rgard the attempt by certain German officers to assassinate
Hitler in 1944 as an act of treason
Until you have answered tese questions the thread does not progress.
===================================================
>
> Therefore, it is clear that the reason he supported treason is because he
> has not loyalty whatsoever to the US.
>
> >Any hetero would
> > have replied in the negative.
>
> Any American would have immediately denied that he is in favor of
> treason.
>
> > Moreover, have any of your friends or
> > cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
>
> Not a single one of Liar Philllips friends and associates have denied that
> he approves of treason.
>
Richard Phillips
>
> Richard Phillips -- the man without a country -- stomps his feet:
>
> > not meet the dictionary's definition of the term?
>
===========================================================
Phillips
Microsoft Bookshelf
============================================
>
>
>
> > I put it to the NG who have observed Brown over time. Is he a normal
> > responsible adult?
>
> Those who have read your posts know that you are not.
>
>
> > You were twice challenged to deny having committed homosexual acts. You
> > did not reply in either case.
>
> You ahve been challenged many times to repudiate you advocacy of treason.
>
> You have totally failed to reply.
>
> > Making it up? Do you recall that brouhaha about configuring one's
> > newsreader to suppress the appearance oh HTML code. I do.
>
> You should. You used the same justification for annoying many readers
> that you used to justify treason against the US.
>
>
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
>>
>> In article <38107796...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
>> Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> >Were my 30-year old financial problems anybody else's business. Jeffrey
>> >certainly thinks so.
>>
>> So, apparently, did you, Liar -- else why would you have volunteered the
>> information?
>
>==============================================================
>Phillips
>
>It was in a post addressed specifically to Eugene Holman who, unlike
>yourself, is a responsible human with whom meaningful dialog is
>possible.
Tough shit, old man. This is a public newsgroup. Anything you post
automatically becomes public information.
>It was meant as a comical aside and Eugene who has a sense of
>humour (something none of the rest of you have) took it that way.
>
>What I had not reckoned with is that this NG is made up of a pack of
>hyped-up hyenas who will go into a feeding frenzy every time they spot a
>piece of dialectical "meat" they can tear to pieces. It was a mistake I
>will not repeat.
Too late. It's already served its purpose of marking you -- again -- as a liar.
Yale F.Edeiken
Richard Phillips -- the man without a country -- wrote
> Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
> > > > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having
taken
> > > > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> > > >
> > > > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support
his
> > > > charges -- and he knows it.
> >
> > > Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary.
> >
> > Let us apply the same principle to Liar Phillllips.
> >
> > He has been asked several times why he supported treason
against the US.
> >
> > Liar Phillllips has done nothing but evade the issue.
> Not really. I have on at least three occasions asked you three questions
> bearing on this matter.
They do not bear on the matter whatsoever.
You were asked to demonstrate how they were relevant to the act of treason
against the US and failed to do so.
> I am still waiting for your replies. I am going
> to post the questions again but this time, just to show you I'm all
> heart, I'll reduce them to two.
> (1) Do you regard the launching of the American Revolution as an act of
> treason?
If I will answer this question AGAIN will you cease you wiggling and
discuss an entirely different matter: the treason against the US which you
advocated?
> (2) Do you rgard the attempt by certain German officers to assassinate
> Hitler in 1944 as an act of treason
If I answer this question AGAIN will you cease your wiggling and discuss
an entirely differen matter; the treason against the the US which you
advocatred?
> Until you have answered tese questions the thread does not progress.
Until you repudiate your support of treason against the US, your silence
is damning.
Start with figuring out what the word "treason" means in the US.
> > Therefore, it is clear that the reason he supported treason is
because he
> > has not loyalty whatsoever to the US.
Liar Phillllips has no answer.
> > Any American would have immediately denied that he is in favor
of
> > treason.
Liar Phillllips has not done so.
> > Not a single one of Liar Philllips friends and associates have
denied that
> > he approves of treason.
And none have yet to appear.
Since their has been neither denial or support, it can be safely stated
that Liar Phillllips is not a loyal citizen of the US.
Jeffrey G. Brown
Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
>>
>> In article <3810557A...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
>> Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>> >You were twice challenged to deny having committed homosexual acts. You
>> >did not reply in either case.
>>
>> Your claims aren't proof, Liar.
>>
>> Your challenges aren't proof, Liar.
>>
>> My response or lack of same isn't proof, Liar.
>>
>> You've accused me of specific sexual activities. There's only one kind of
>> proof in your world, Liar, and that's "physical proof".
>>
>> Present "physical proof" that backs up your accusations against me.
Awful quiet, Liar. Wattsamatta, can't meet your own standards?
> [...deletia...]
>> >OK now suppose you present us with three of your posts
>> >that were constructive contributions to a thread and were free of any
>> >personal attack on someone.
>>
>> <http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=171895243>
>
>===============================================================
>Phillips
>
>4 years old. a 3-line comment on the burning and controversial issue of
>computer games. May your sage contribution to Humanity's wisdom not go
>unrecognized.
"OK now suppose you present us with three of your posts that were
constructive contributions to a thread and were free of any
personal attack on someone."
Does the referenced post fail in any way to meet your clearly stated
original criteria, Liar?
>> <http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170537087>
>===============================================================
>Phillips
>
>Ditto
"OK now suppose you present us with three of your posts that were
constructive contributions to a thread and were free of any
personal attack on someone."
Does the referenced post fail in any way to meet your clearly stated
original criteria, Liar?
>> <http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170785861>
>===============================================================
>Phillips
>
>Ditto
"OK now suppose you present us with three of your posts that were
constructive contributions to a thread and were free of any
personal attack on someone."
Does the referenced post fail in any way to meet your clearly stated
original criteria, Liar?
>> <http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=170784678>
>
>========================================================
>Phillips
>
>I was obliged to stop after the third to allow my ponderous thought
>processes 'breathing time' to absorb the wealth of sage and eternal
>wisdom put forth.
"OK now suppose you present us with three of your posts that were
constructive contributions to a thread and were free of any
personal attack on someone."
Do the referenced posts fail in any way to meet your clearly stated
original criteria, Liar?
> [...deletia...]
>So, it's as I said. You will seize upon ANYTHING that gives you a
>platform from which to run down another person.
Not what you said, Liar. Your claim was that I am someone:
"Who seizes upon the fact that he, Jeffrey, knows something about
Internet that someone else doesn't know to make out a case that the
someone else is a mental defective."
Cite the post in which I state that "someone else is a mental defective".
> [...deletia...]
>> >How many times have you posted things along the line of:
>> >"So-and-so, without one shred of documentary proof ....."
>>
>> Many times. So what?
>
>========================================
>Phillips
>
>So Q.E.D. That's what.
Restating your claim isn't proof of it, Liar. Your claim was that I
"[insist] upon substantiation of an opponent's every syllable".
Cite a post in which I have done precisely that.
> [...deletia...]
>> My personal history is none of your business, Liar. You get what
>> information I see fit to divulge -- no more.
>>
>> Don't like it? Tough shit. At least I don't lie about my past, as you do.
>
>============================================================
>Phillips
>
>Not so, pustule. You lied about having had those employments.
"Since proof, I mean real PHYSICAL proof, has never been presented..."
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: WW111 Are you happy now Brainwashed sheep?
-- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:51:08 -0400
-- Message-ID: <37116DAC...@mediaone.net>
"I am just not impressed by bluster."
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: Liar Philllips still thinks someone
is going to play his game
-- Date: Sat, 08 May 1999
-- Message-ID: <37346850...@mediaone.net>
"...[Y]ou have never presented the necessary physical evidence. And
without physical evidece it just does not fly."
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: Liar Philllips still thinks someone
is going to play his game
-- Date: Sat, 08 May 1999
-- Message-ID: <37345C20...@mediaone.net>
'Excuse me but the fact that you say certain things does not make them
"facts."'
-- From: Richard Phillips <rgph...@mediaone.net>
-- Subject: Re: BLACKS AND CRIME
-- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:26:29 -0400
-- Message-ID: <37752965...@mediaone.net>
> [...deletia...]
>Then you DID complain about having been threatened.
I've never denied doing so, Liar.
What I have done is point out that you invented a quote, attributed it to
me, and have been repeating that lie ever since.
> [...deletia...]
>> >The little pustule would have you believe that the two postings he dug
>> >up were close to being the only two on that thread.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Do cite the post in which I make that claim.
>>
>> (Hint: He's lying again, folks...)
(Note the dead silence on this point, folks...)
> [...deletia...]
>Do you understand the meaning of the phrase: "tearing things out of
>their context." You ought to; you're highly skilled at doing it.
Do you understand the sequence of events that I documented, Liar?
1) You made a single demand.
2) You later expanded it to a set of about 10 demands.
3) You claimed that your demands were "exactly what they were at the
beginning".
What "context" changes your claim from a lie into the truth, Liar?
Yale F.Edeiken
> > Richard Phillips -- the man without a country -- stomps his feet:
> >
> > > Oh, and it was NOT libel when you called me a liar for reasons that
did
> > > not meet the dictionary's definition of the term?
> >
> Microsoft Bookshelf
Microsoft Bookshelf states that relating facts is a lie?
I'm glad I don't use it.
> > > I put it to the NG who have observed Brown over time. Is he a normal
> > > responsible adult?
> >
> > Those who have read your posts know that you are not.
> >
> >
> > > You were twice challenged to deny having committed homosexual acts.
You
> > > did not reply in either case.
> >
> > You have been challenged many times to repudiate you advocacy
of treason.
> > You have totally failed to reply.
And he still ahsn'r.
> > > Making it up? Do you recall that brouhaha about configuring one's
> > > newsreader to suppress the appearance oh HTML code. I do.
> >
> > You should. You used the same justification for annoying many
readers
> > that you used to justify treason against the US.
And Lair Phillllips, blushing like a beet, flees.
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > Richard Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > > > <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> > > > > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> > > > > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> > > > > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> > > > > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
> > > >
> > > > And how, pray tell, do you know this? Or is this just another one of your
> > > > smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
> > >
> > > ===========================================================
> > > Phillips
> > >
> > > part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> >
> > water, Richard. Are you that desperate?
>
> ================================================
> Phillips
>
> Are YOU that illogical? The question: "Have you stopped beating your
> wife" is based on the prsupposition that you HAVE been beating your
> wife. My challenge to Jeffrey was not based upon any presppositions.
>
Are YOU that illogical? It is not based on any presupposition. If the
answer is "yes", the answerer admits to being a wife-beater. If the
answer is "no", the answerer admits to being a wife-beater. I'm really
surprised at you.
Steve
> ======================================
> >
> > Steve
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > > >
> > > > [Equivocations and crap deleted]
> > > >
Richard Phillips
>
> Richard Phillips -- the man without a country -- wrote
> > Yale F.Edeiken wrote:
>
> > > > > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having
> taken
> > > > > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> > > > >
> his
> > > > > charges -- and he knows it.
> > >
> > > > Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary.
> > >
> > > Let us apply the same principle to Liar Phillllips.
> > >
> > > He has been asked several times why he supported treason
> against the US.
> > >
> > > Liar Phillllips has done nothing but evade the issue.
>
> > Not really. I have on at least three occasions asked you three questions
> > bearing on this matter.
>
> They do not bear on the matter whatsoever.
>
> You were asked to demonstrate how they were relevant to the act of treason
> against the US and failed to do so.
>
> > I am still waiting for your replies. I am going
> > to post the questions again but this time, just to show you I'm all
> > heart, I'll reduce them to two.
>
> > (1) Do you regard the launching of the American Revolution as an act of
> > treason?
>
> If I will answer this question AGAIN will you cease you wiggling and
> discuss an entirely different matter: the treason against the US which you
> advocated?
==================================================
Phillips
Answer it and we'll take it from there
===============================
>
>
> > (2) Do you rgard the attempt by certain German officers to assassinate
> > Hitler in 1944 as an act of treason
>
> If I answer this question AGAIN will you cease your wiggling and discuss
> an entirely differen matter; the treason against the the US which you
> advocatred?
========================================
Phillips
Answer it and we'll take it from there.
=======================================
>
> > Until you have answered tese questions the thread does not progress.
>
> Until you repudiate your support of treason against the US, your silence
> is damning.
>
> Start with figuring out what the word "treason" means in the US.
>
> > > Therefore, it is clear that the reason he supported treason is
> because he
> > > has not loyalty whatsoever to the US.
>
> Liar Phillllips has no answer.
>
>
> > > Any American would have immediately denied that he is in favor
> of
> > > treason.
>
> Liar Phillllips has not done so.
>
>
> > > Not a single one of Liar Philllips friends and associates have
> denied that
> > > he approves of treason.
>
> And none have yet to appear.
>
> Since their has been neither denial or support, it can be safely stated
> that Liar Phillllips is not a loyal citizen of the US.
>
>
steve wolk
>
> Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> >
> > Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Orac wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <380F0611...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > >> <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > As for Jeffrey Brown, if, after all this time, you still know nothing of
> > >> > his character, allow me to enlighten you: Jeffrey is NOT a responsible
> > >> > adult. He is a sex pervert and exhibits a well-known trait of the sex
> > >> > pervert - a self-hate that derives from his having been cut off from the
> > >> > satisfactions of a normal manhood.
> > >>
> > >> And how, pray tell, do you know this? Or is this just another one of your
> > >> smears because Jeff dogs you all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
> > >
> > >===========================================================
> > >Phillips
> > >
> > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> >
> > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
> > charges -- and he knows it.
>
> Phillips
>
> Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary. Any hetero would
> have replied in the negative. Moreover, have any of your friends or
> cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
WRONGO! I would not have answered your question either. That question
is an invasion of a person's privacy and you know it. To say that any
straight would have denied being gay is a bright red herring. If anyone
answers a question like that, the questioner has only to charge that
person with lying when, in fact, that person may or may NOT be lying.
As I previously posted, you are using the wife-beating gambit and you
don't even know it.
Steve
> ======================================================
steve wolk
>
> John Morris wrote:
> >
> > In <Orac2001-221...@130.219.233.213> in alt.revisionism, on
> >
> > >In article <38105633...@mediaone.net>, Richard Phillips
> > ><rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> >
> > >> > In article <380F12CA...@mediaone.net>, Admitted Liar and Nazi
> > >> > Wannabe Richard Philllips <rgph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having taken
> > >> > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> >
> > >> > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to support his
> > >> > charges -- and he knows it.
> >
> > >> have replied in the negative. Moreover, have any of your friends or
> > >> cohorts ever come out and flatly denied that you're a faggot?
> >
> > >your accusations other than, "Any hetero would have replied in the
> > >negative" and your own prejudice.
> >
>
> ==================================================
> Phillips
>
> Were my 30-year old financial problems anybody else's business. Jeffrey
> hollow.
>
YOU made them our business. YOU brought them up. They didn't get
posted to Usenet all by themselves. Then you compounded your error,
once you grew weary of the ridicule you brought upon yourself, by
claiming to have made it all up as some sort of test of your opposition.
What the hell is the matter with you? Are you entirely divorced from
reality?
Steve
> ================================================================
> >
> > I suppose Dick will conclude that I must therefore be a homosexual.
> > Well, let him, because my standard response would be, "Who fucking
> > cares what Dick thinks?"
>
> ===============================================
> Phillips
>
> Jeffrey's "pecularities" are his own business - up to a point. And that
> point is when he begins inflicting them on other people. No one who has
> been on this NG for any length of time can be unaware of the principal
> trait in Jeffrey's character: every single one of his posts that I can
> remember, going back two years, has been a personal attack on someone.
> When we place this in juxtaposition with certain well-known traits of
> homos, certain obvious inferences become permissible. And when the
> question is put to him --twice-- has he ever engaged in homosexual acts
> and he refuses to reply. Then the piture becomes pretty clear.
>
> In any event, when we consider the fact that for nearly two years he has
> been screaming "Liar Phillips" and basing it on things that do not even
> MEET the definition of what a lie is, and when he CONTINUES to do this
> even after his fraud is brought to his attention -- when we consider all
> of these things, then we can hardly say that Jeffrey has been ill-used.
>
> What you sow; you reap.
>
Jeffrey G. Brown
>jeff_...@bigfoot.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) wrote:
> [...deletia...]
> False. I provided the complete list, as requested.
> If Philllips has evidence that I have omitted any names, he should
>contact theHamilton County Prosecutor's Office immediately, at
>513-946-3000.
>Posted 9/02/99
>
>Why did you post this???
I posted it as a challenge to Philllips, Poor Ol' Gutless Scottie, and
others who prefer libel to debate.
>Why don't you try to make sense out of this Mr. Brown.
It makes perfect sense to me. Which part do you not understand?
>If I call the Hamilton County Prosecuter's Office, what will they tell
>me about your alleged sexual abuse of young boys?
Call them and find out.
>Does having sex with young boys constitute homosexuality? -
I would say so, yes.
Do you recall how many names were on my list?
Yale F.Edeiken
> > Richard Phillips -- the man without a country -- wrote
> >
> > > > > > >He was given not one but two opportunities to deny ever having
> > taken
> > > > > > >part in homosexual acts. He did not reply to either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Translation: Liar Philllips has no evidence whatsoever to
support
> > his
> > > > > > charges -- and he knows it.
> > > >
> > > > > Your silence is all the evidence that is necessary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > He has been asked several times why he supported treason
> > against the US.
> > > >
> > > > Liar Phillllips has done nothing but evade the issue.
> >
> > > Not really. I have on at least three occasions asked you three
questions
> > > bearing on this matter.
> >
> > They do not bear on the matter whatsoever.
> >
> > You were asked to demonstrate how they were relevant to the act
of treason
> > against the US and failed to do so.
> >
> > > I am still waiting for your replies. I am going
> > > to post the questions again but this time, just to show you I'm all
> > > heart, I'll reduce them to two.
> >
> > > (1) Do you regard the launching of the American Revolution as an act
of
> > > treason?
> >
> > If I will answer this question AGAIN will you cease you
wiggling and
> > discuss an entirely different matter: the treason against the US which
you
> > advocated?
> Answer it and we'll take it from there
In other words, you lying fuck, you will not cease your wiggling and
discuss the fact that you openly advocate and approve of treason against
the US. All I will get is more diversions.
> > > (2) Do you rgard the attempt by certain German officers to
assassinate
> > > Hitler in 1944 as an act of treason
> >
> > If I answer this question AGAIN will you cease your wiggling
and discuss
> > an entirely differen matter; the treason against the the US which you
> > advocatred?
> Answer it and we'll take it from there.
In other words you will either run away and hide from the fact that that
you openly advocatem and approve of treason against the US.
>
> > > Until you have answered tese questions the thread does not progress.
> >
> > Until you repudiate your support of treason against the US,
your silence
> > is damning.
No response from the disloyal Phillllips.
> > Start with figuring out what the word "treason" means in the
US.
No response from the disloyal Phillllips who has given several fallacious
definitions of treason in the past.
> > > > Therefore, it is clear that the reason he supported treason
is
> > because he
> > > > has not loyalty whatsoever to the US.
> >
> > Liar Phillllips has no answer.
Srill no answer.
> > > > Any American would have immediately denied that he is in
favor
> > of
> > > > treason.
> > Liar Phillllips has not done so.
And he has yet to do so.
> > > > Not a single one of Liar Philllips friends and associates
have
> > denied that
> > > > he approves of treason.
> > And none have yet to appear.
And none have appeared as yet.
Richard Phillips
============================================================
Phillips
I cannot possibly reply to your answer until I have read that answer.
That ought to have been self-evident.
===========================================================
>
> > > > (2) Do you rgard the attempt by certain German officers to
> assassinate
> > > > Hitler in 1944 as an act of treason
> > >
> > > If I answer this question AGAIN will you cease your wiggling
> and discuss
> > > an entirely differen matter; the treason against the the US which you
> > > advocatred?
>
> > Answer it and we'll take it from there.
>
> In other words you will either run away and hide from the fact that that
> you openly advocatem and approve of treason against the US.
============================================================
Phillips
I cannot possibly reply to your answer until I have read that answer.
That ought to have been self-evident.
===========================================================
>
>
>
Yale F.Edeiken
> I cannot possibly reply to your answer until I have read that answer.
> That ought to have been self-evident.
Or that you are lying again. Since you ahve done so regularly, it is
hardly a surprise.
Why don't you just repudiate your approval of treason and your advocation
of destroying this country by means of violence.
> > > > > (2) Do you rgard the attempt by certain German officers to
> > assassinate
> > > > > Hitler in 1944 as an act of treason
> > > >
> > > > If I answer this question AGAIN will you cease your
wiggling
> > and discuss
> > > > an entirely differen matter; the treason against the the US which
you
> > > > advocatred?
> >
> > > Answer it and we'll take it from there.
> >
> > In other words you will either run away and hide from the fact
that that
> > you openly advocatem and approve of treason against the US.
> I cannot possibly reply to your answer until I have read that answer.
> That ought to have been self-evident.
In other words you are attempting to divert the topic from your approval
of actual trreason and advocacy of destroying the US by violence.
There is not a single answer to your irrelvant question that I can give,
AS YOU INDICATE that would advance this discussion.
The only thing you have to reply to is present an explanation (hopefully a
repudiation) of the approval you have given to an actual act of treason
against the US and your advocacy of violently destroying the US.
You may start by demonstrating that you have somne idea what treason is
according to the US Constitution.