Exterminationists' perversion of the rules of historical evidence
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
clippings from all camps so that we can make felt slippers and human
hair socks"
In order to prove this a fabrication it is not enough to point out
a) their only two camps where they is "evidence" of hair collection are
the two camps liberated by the Soviets.
b) there are no hair socks or human hair felt slippers.
Apparantly it is necessary to prove a negative. It is necessary to
prove that there is no and never has been a human hair sock and felt
slipper. Which would imply that only a forensic examination of every
sock and slipper would suffice to satisfy exterminationists.
A perversion of the rules of historical evidence.
If you think the Nazis made hair socks and human hair felt slippers,
produce one.
The onus is on you.
Sergey Romanov
Sure, but we have met the burden of proof.
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
Majdanek - personally I dont, because I am quite aware of the extents
that Soviet propaganda would extend to.
But you havent even gone close to proving it was made into socks for
Uboat sailors and
felt slippers for railway workers.
Sergey Romanov
But we don't have to. They had plans to do it. Whether they implemented
these particular plans is not known.
Joe Bruno
You are assuming that all the evidence related to these claims came
from the USSR. How do you know that?
The Soviets did not lie about everything, even if they lied about some
things.
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
So you concede there is not evidence that any socks or felt slippers
were actually manufactured? No physical evidence. Outside that single
document USSR-XXX.
Joe Bruno
So what? The Nazis had plans to conquer England too, but they never
made it. Does that mean those plans never existed?
The Nazis had plans to take Moscow. Does the fact that they never
succeeded mean the plans never existed?
Sergey Romanov
I think I have already said once that this document in itself doesn't
prove that this particular plan was implemented. Maybe it was, maybe it
wasn't. The hair was still used.
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
It is agreed that the Nazis didnt manufacture hair socks or felt
slippers, the charge is simply that they had PLANS to manufacture hair
socks or felt slippers
(I take your point about Nazi plans, although as far as I can see they
never made serious attempts to conquer either England or Moscow.
Historians say that the English Navy and airforce made it too difficult
to invade Britain, but no real reasons have been given for the failure
to make a serious attempt in 1942 to envelope Moscow).
Joe Bruno
colonel_bland...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> Right, we seem to have reached some kind of consensus here.
>
> It is agreed that the Nazis didnt manufacture hair socks or felt
> slippers,
I don't know if they did or not.
the charge is simply that they had PLANS to manufacture hair
> socks or felt slippers
>
> (I take your point about Nazi plans, although as far as I can see
they
> never made serious attempts to conquer either England or Moscow.
> Historians say that the English Navy and airforce made it too
difficult
> to invade Britain, but no real reasons have been given for the
failure
> to make a serious attempt in 1942 to envelope Moscow).
They did get as close as 25 miles to Moscow. However, by that time,
Stalin had moved his government 700 miles to the East.
The USSR was simply too big for the German army to conquer and occupy.
Sergey Romanov
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> Right, we seem to have reached some kind of consensus here.
>
> It is agreed that the Nazis didnt manufacture hair socks or felt
> slippers, the charge is simply that they had PLANS to manufacture
hair
> socks or felt slippers
When will you stop lying? Nobody agreed with such a thing. They might
have implemented such plans or they might have failed. The evidence
posted here is not enough to reach a definite conclusion.
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
was too big to conquer and occupy which makes all the more strange why
Germany make a priority of occupying all the big populations centres
and cut the rail links north and south rather than go traipsing off
down to the Caucases - scenic though they are.
Joe Bruno
Sergey Romanov wrote:
> colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> > Right, we seem to have reached some kind of consensus here.
> >
> > It is agreed that the Nazis didnt manufacture hair socks or felt
> > slippers, the charge is simply that they had PLANS to manufacture
> hair
> > socks or felt slippers
>
> When will you stop lying? Nobody agreed with such a thing.
For once, I agree with you. I never agreed to it. My argument was that
the failure to implement the plan does not prove the plan never
existed.
Joe Bruno
Most of the big decisions on the Eastern Front were made by Hitler
himself. He refused to listen to the advice of his Generals. Hitler
made many decisions in fits of emotional rage. The invasion of the USSR
itself was proven by history to be disastrous, but Hitler insisted on
it for his own reasons, which he "explains" in "Mein Kampf".
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
"I think I have already said once that this document in itself doesn't
prove that this particular plan was implemented"
So there is no evidence that socks and slippers were actually
manufactured out of human hair.
Obviously its is impossible to prove that they didnt just as its
impossible to prove that the Queen doesnt stick peacock feathers up her
arse.
But there is no EVIDENCE to suggest that human hair socks or slippers
were ever manufactured (desperately trying to pin down the slippery
eel).
Joe Bruno
Your original claim was that, in order to prove the note describing
hair socks is a forgery, you'd have to prove there are no hair socks.
The note is a statement of intent, not a statement that hair socks were
actually made.
Sergey is not confused. Your logic is faulty.
Is this more of your stupid trolling?
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
>
> Your original claim was that, in order to prove the note describing
> hair socks is a forgery, you'd have to prove there are no hair socks.
In fact I claim in order to prove your document is GENUINE, hair socks
would have to have been found.
Now, I think, the claim is the document is genuine, but no hair socks
were made. The Germans simply desired to make hair socks and hair
slippers.
It is obviously impossible to prove that hair socks were never made,
that is to prove a negative.
You cant prove that Jews were making hair socks from Aryan hair.
Nor can you prove that Jews werent using christian babies' blood in
rituals. You rightly claim it is up to the accusers to prove that
claim, it is impossible to prove a negative.
All I am asking that the same level of proof that Jews demand for blood
ritual claims should be extented to claims of human hair socks and
human felt slippers.
Joe Bruno
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> >
> > Your original claim was that, in order to prove the note describing
> > hair socks is a forgery, you'd have to prove there are no hair
socks.
> As Phil would say: that is a lie, you are a desperate liar.
Your original post was very confusing. That is the way I interpreted
it.
>
> In fact I claim in order to prove your document is GENUINE, hair
socks
> would have to have been found.
There, again is your faulty logic. The note does not claim hair socks
were made. It only asks that hair clipped be sent to a certain place
for the purpose of making socks.The hair might have been clipped but
never sent .
> Now, I think, the claim is the document is genuine, but no hair socks
> were made. The Germans simply desired to make hair socks and hair
> slippers.
>
> It is obviously impossible to prove that hair socks were never made,
> that is to prove a negative.
>
> You cant prove that Jews were making hair socks from Aryan hair.
Whoever claimed they were?
>
> Nor can you prove that Jews werent using christian babies' blood in
> rituals. You rightly claim it is up to the accusers to prove that
> claim, it is impossible to prove a negative.
Some negatives CAN be proven.
(1)I can prove I did not kill anyone in 1943 by showing you my birth
certificate which proves I was born in 1945.
(2)I can prove I never joined the Air Force by searching Air Force
personnel records looking for my name. You won't find it.
>
> All I am asking that the same level of proof that Jews demand for
blood
> ritual claims should be extented to claims of human hair socks and
> human felt slippers.
I doubt it. I suspect you are doing your usual trolling.
Your logic is full of holes.
sc...@free.info
>Sorry Sergey let me quote you exactly
>"I think I have already said once that this document in itself doesn't
>prove that this particular plan was implemented"
>
>So there is no evidence that socks and slippers were actually
>manufactured out of human hair.
>
>Obviously its is impossible to prove that they didnt just as its
>impossible to prove that the Queen doesnt stick peacock feathers up her
>arse.
But, we do know what Sara sticks up her arse.
>But there is no EVIDENCE to suggest that human hair socks or slippers
>were ever manufactured (desperately trying to pin down the slippery
>eel).
Like nailing jelly to the wall.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Schopenhauer
Joe Bruno
sc...@free.info wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2005 17:41:08 -0800, colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> >Sorry Sergey let me quote you exactly
> >"I think I have already said once that this document in itself
doesn't
> >prove that this particular plan was implemented"
> >
> >So there is no evidence that socks and slippers were actually
> >manufactured out of human hair.
> >
> >Obviously its is impossible to prove that they didnt just as its
> >impossible to prove that the Queen doesnt stick peacock feathers up
her
> >arse.
>
> But, we do know what Sara sticks up her arse.
Proof??????????????????????????
>
>
sc...@free.info
>
>Some negatives CAN be proven.
>
>(1)I can prove I did not kill anyone in 1943 by showing you my birth
>certificate which proves I was born in 1945.
Could be forged.
>(2)I can prove I never joined the Air Force by searching Air Force
>personnel records looking for my name. You won't find it.
Could have changed your name.
>Your logic is full of holes.
Your brain is full of holes.
Joe Bruno
sc...@free.info wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2005 18:44:45 -0800, "Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com>
wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Some negatives CAN be proven.
> >
> >(1)I can prove I did not kill anyone in 1943 by showing you my birth
> >certificate which proves I was born in 1945.
>
> Could be forged.
It would be your responsibility to prove forgery if you make that
claim.
>
> >(2)I can prove I never joined the Air Force by searching Air Force
> >personnel records looking for my name. You won't find it.
>
> Could have changed your name.
If you make that claim, you'd have to prove it. Before the Armed
Services accept you, they require documentation and references to prove
your identity. The FBI does a background investigation.
You're not very well versed in the rules of evidence.
>
>
> >Your logic is full of holes.
>
> Your brain is full of holes.
You're just a stupid troll.
> --
>
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
Can you prove you dont drink blood in secret rituals?
No
Just as its impossible to prove that the Germans manufactured human
hair socks and human hair felt slippers.
All we can say is that there is no evidence that you use blood for
ritualistic purposes and no evidence that the Germans manufactured
human hair socks.
And if the 2nd case it would be extremely easy to provide evidence - a
sock. In the absence of which we are fairly safe in assuming it never
happened.
Comprenez?
sc...@free.info
>> But, we do know what Sara sticks up her arse.
>
>Proof??????????????????????????
My Master Holds The Ropes Just So
by Sara Salzman
My Master holds the rope just so.
He knows me. Knows my moods. Knows the fear behind my eyes, both real
and imagined.
Those eyes widen as he gently lays the rope down, as he carefully,
methodically, systematically, lays the toys down on the bed.
Soft moans escape from behind gagged lips. I have been told to watch.
To see each and know that soon each will touch me.
He looks up briefly as he lays each down on the bed. Checking
reactions.
Watching.
The short whip. A sigh.
The deerskin. The suede.
The small braided thong, the one that stings. A short moan.
The horsehair that stings but never marks.
The canes. The paddles. A pause.
I wait, knowing.
The small velvet bag that holds clamps. Clamps too severe for my
breasts, yet applied anyway.
A gasp. And then his smile.
He knows me. He knows I will take the pain to please him. He knows the
sacrifice I make to his Gods of Pain. He sees the torment in my eyes.
The desire to please. The love. The fear of the pain.
My Master holds the rope just so.
Through his fingers, around my wrists, making delicate rings softer
than steel. Stronger than steel. One on each wrist, a gentle bracelet
that
is soon pulled tight, stretched to the bedposts and wrapped tightly.
One
on each ankle. No matter how I tighten my muscles as he wraps the
rope,
still it is perfectly tight. The circulation moves.
The ankle does not.
I lie face-up on the bed, my body a perfect X. Face up. Oh, Goddess,
he's going to whip my breasts.
But first, two small wooden clothespins bob before my eyes. I turn my
head, remember I am instructed to watch, turn back. The clothespins
bite the delicate flesh of each nipple. Grasp. Sting. Burn. He waits.
My Master knows me. Knows he can whip me, clothespins and all. Knows
the pain, where it will hurt the most, what I can and cannot take.
He waits.
The burning increases as the pins are removed. Ah, he will not whip me
with clothespins in place. But the moment when I was unsure, when the
blood pounded in my temples and the fear covered me like a shroud,
then he watched my eyes.
The whip falls. Which one is it now? I cannot turn my head to see
which he reaches for. But I know them all. I arch my back, try to stay
still.
My Master knows me. Knows I will hold position as long as possible,
before the pain forces me to writhe, to turn, to try in vain to shield
my
breasts. Knows the moment when I can no longer stay still. And
precisely then, says gently, "Don't move."
My Master holds the rope just so. Gently tugging at the knots, to
release arms and legs from bondage. Gently unwraps each wrist, each
ankle.
Rubs each, and kisses the places where the rope has left its mark. The
gag
is removed. I swallow.
"Kneel."
I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the bed behind
me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly,
quickly,
his hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure
as he
will enter me. But not yet. First a gentle tapping, soft touch, as he
marks the place the cane will fall. I brace myself, plead with myself
to hold position, knowing each stroke brings a fire hotter than any
flame.
Five strokes. Six. I have not moved. As the pain from each begins to
subside, a soft, half-sob. "Thank you, Master."
Eight. Nine. My knees give out, and I fall to the bed, sobbing. But
immediately back on my knees again. "Thank you, Master."
Ten. I am aware of nothing, save the pain. And his voice, as I am
commanded to orgasm, not from stimulation, not from his fingers or his
cock, but from pain alone. My body responds without hesitation. My
pleasure is screamed out for his pleasure.
Later, I will feel his cock inside me. I will feel the force as he
thrusts deep into me, bruising the tender flesh with his strength.
Later I
will come, and come, and come, but only by his command. Later, we will
lie
back, exhausted, as he cradles me in his arms, strokes me gently,
whispers in my ear.
But not yet.
Now he rises from the bed, returns to the toys so carefully laid out
before me.
My Master holds the rope just so.
The End
----------------------------------------
Wanna read about the duck position, Joe?
Joe Bruno
I don't agree with your "2nd case" conclusion. The Holocaust ended in
1945, 60 years ago. It is possible that hair socks were made and
destroyed or lost in that long period. I've never had a sock that
lasted even 10 years.
I disputed your generalization that "a negative cannot be proven" by
showing you some examples of negative that are provable.
I didn't say some negatives cannot be proven.
You jump to conclusions very quickly.
Ron Jacobson
Chris Carpenter <sc...@free.info> wrote:
(snip)
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//bergen-belsen/images/belsen01.jpg
http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/EG1.jpg
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//bergen-belsen/images/belsen02.jpg
http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/EG4.jpg
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//bergen-belsen/images/belsen05.jpg
http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Furnace.jpg
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//buchenwald/images/buchenwald01.jpg
http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Krema4.jpg
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//nordhausen/images/nordhausen-01.jpg
http://www.holocaust-history.org/19411025-wetzel-no365/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//nordhausen/images/nordhausen02.jpg
http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/intro000.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//dachau/images/dachau01.jpg
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//maidanek/images/Maidanek_Crematorium.jpg
RJ.
Ron Jacobson
<colonel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
(snip)
You are the only denier foolish enough to continue
with this silliness, "colonel".
Other deniers acknowledge that the Nazis collected and
neatly packed tons of hair in Auschwitz. Now, why would
they do that?
You want lies? Look at this:
http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/terrorbombing.htm
<quote>
Cologne with a population greater than Glasgow's was turned
into a moonscape. As Hamburg burned the winds feeding the
three-mile high flames reached twice hurricane speed to exceed
150 miles per hour. On the outskirts of the city trees three
feet in diameter were sucked from the ground by the supernatural
forces of these winds and hurled miles into the city-inferno, as
were vehicles, men, women and children.
VOLCANIC FLAMES 5,000 FEET HIGH
The volcanic flames ensuing were thrown five times the height of
New York's Empire State Building, with gases as high again caused
meteorological reaction as high as the stratosphere.
</quote>
My dear, dear "colonel": what do you think?
I am simply speechless.
"three-mile high flames"?
"sucked from the ground by the supernatural forces of these
winds"?
When will it ever end? Please, Please, PLEASE, you have
to help us understand these testimonies.
Sincerely, RJ.
-- Ross Cummins (aka "Gassen Burnham <gasenburn...@dodo.com.au>"),
declared that Germans are liars who have fabricated the stories about the
bombing of German cities: "The salient point, Ronnie, is that we, being
well adapted persons of the world, freely admit these patently outrageous
stories wrt Dresden, were pure wartime propaganda." -- posted to the
alt.revisionism forum, 2004-03-18 06:30:59 PST.
Ron Jacobson
<colonel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
(snip)
"colonel", what do you think about the following?
Fred Leuchter is a major Holocaust denier, who is often
quoted by other deniers as an authority.
Now have a look at
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report4/ch8000.html
To see how Freddy deals with a daily construction report that
mentions a "gas chamber" in crematorium 5 in Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Here is how he "explains" it:
<quote>
It, however, may be a joke. This foreman and his crew had been
working here for a number of days and perhaps he or someone in his
crew was flatulent during that period. I'm sure these people
were no different than most construction workers and he may have
put this in the daily report as a joke.
</quote>
"A joke"? The foreman wrote down "gas chamber" in his work
report as a "joke"?
How stupid and crazy must a human being be, in order to
assert something like this?
And how stupid and crazy must the followers of such a
person be?
RJ.
-- Ross Cummins (aka "Gassen Burnham <gasenburn...@dodo.com.au>"),
declared that Germans are liars who have fabricated the stories about the
bombing of German cities: "The salient point, Ronnie, is that we, being
well adapted persons of the world, freely admit these patently outrageous
stories wrt Dresden, were pure wartime propaganda." -- posted to the
alt.revisionism forum, 2004-03-18 06:30:59 PST.
-- "I have no interest in promoting or perpetuating false legends,
and I feel it is important that in this respect the record should be
set straight." -- David Irving, on the "Dresden bombing".
Ron Jacobson
<colonel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Joe,
>Can you prove you dont drink blood in secret rituals?
>No
>Just as its impossible to prove that the Germans manufactured human
>hair socks and human hair felt slippers.
We do know that they collected and neatly packed tons
of hair, which was found in Auschwitz.
They must have had a reason to do that -- right, "colonel"?
RJ.
phil...@aol.com
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> Most people would agree that the Nazis collected hair at Auschwitz
and
> Majdanek - personally I dont, because I am quite aware of the extents
> that Soviet propaganda would extend to.
Unfortunately for you, Colonel, what you claim to be aware of is not
evidence.
It is merely an excuse for denying inconvenient evidence.
If you weren't so stupid, you'd recognize that you lost the hair debate
days ago.
--
Philip Mathews
phil...@aol.com
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> Apparantly if there is document that says "Please send us all hair
> clippings from all camps so that we can make felt slippers and human
> hair socks"
> In order to prove this a fabrication it is not enough to point out
> a) their only two camps where they is "evidence" of hair collection
are
This is a lie. Hair was found at other camps.
> the two camps liberated by the Soviets.
The other camps were not.
> b) there are no hair socks or human hair felt slippers.
Another misrepresentation. The Colonel doesn't know if this is true or
not.
> Apparantly it is necessary to prove a negative.
No, it is necessary to prove your positive assertion, that the document
is forged.
None of you assertions, even if true, would offer any evidence at all
of forgery.
The typical ignorant argument of a denier.
--
Philip Mathews
Gord McFee
> Joe,
> Can you prove you dont drink blood in secret rituals?
Can you prove you're not Ewan Jackson?
No.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Gord McFee
> On 6 Feb 2005 19:26:09 -0800, "Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
>>>But, we do know what Sara sticks up her arse.
>>
>>Proof??????????????????????????
Chris Carpenter likes to say he is not antisemitic. Judge for yourself.
(1)
<quote>
ASAP = Anti-Semite And Proud
Chris Message-ID: <39b2eb37...@netnews.att.net>
</quote>
(2)
<quote>
What's wrong with anti-Semitism?
Is that so bad?
</quote> Message-ID: <39bae4cf...@netnews.att.net>
(3)
<quote>
If I want ant shit out of you I'll squeeze your kikus nosicus
</quote> Message-ID: <39bbc01f...@netnews.att.net>
(4)
<quote>
The motivation of the dirty Jew Keren ...
</quote> Message-ID: <39c293bc...@netnews.att.net>
(5)
<quote>
Wanna see what started me on the road to anti-Semitism?
</quote> Message-ID: <s69qtsk8u8ik0qmnp...@4ax.com>
(6)
<quote>
It's Zionists and kikes like you I don't like.
</quote> Message-ID: <sh7stsssusccg9u95...@4ax.com>
(7)
<quote>
>I'd label you an
>anti-Semite in a second.
Yes, I am.
</quote> Message-ID: <esv4usghpdeueqkg0...@4ax.com>
(8)
<quote>
I'm an anti-Semite
</quote> Message-ID: <9sg7usodpm7171vdd...@4ax.com>
(9)
<quote>
>"Sigfried" <sigf...@nomail.org> wrote in message
news:<414d61a0$0$10349$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>> Get a life!
>
>Nazis don't have lives. They have cesspits
Speak to the post or bite your tongue, jew dog.
</quote> Message-ID: <e8urk0hkvafsff6if...@4ax.com>
(10)
<quote>
Don't forget the proboscus - the kikus nosicus
</quote> Message-ID: <qs8pl0loct5oqef2l...@4ax.com>
(11)
<quote>
Slimey limey hymie.
</quote> Message-ID: <2otvp0dl87rvqbtj0...@4ax.com>
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
>No.
Of course I can. For example I post from a certain computer in a
certain location. This is all kept in the service provider's cache.
Gordo, I notice you are very silent about the fraud you and
holocaust-history.org have been caught palming off on the Journal of
Genocide Studies, does your organisation intend to issue a
clarification to the Journal. Not to would be academic fraud - not
that any of the authors were academics.
Phil, get therapy.
There are no hair socks or human hair felt slippers.
Most people would be pleased about this, you seem positively
disappointed and personally outraged. But you are going to have to
accept it. These hair socks exist only in your mind. If you wish to
believe in them do, but dont force your deformity on others.
phil...@aol.com
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> >Can you prove you're not Ewan Jackson?
>
> >No.
>
> Of course I can. For example I post from a certain computer in a
> certain location. This is all kept in the service provider's cache.
>
> Gordo, I notice you are very silent about the fraud you and
> holocaust-history.org have been caught palming off on the Journal of
> Genocide Studies, does your organisation intend to issue a
> clarification to the Journal. Not to would be academic fraud - not
> that any of the authors were academics.
>
> Phil, get therapy.
> There are no hair socks or human hair felt slippers.
You're responding to Gord, moron.
And you don't know whether such items exist or not.
--
Philip Mathews
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
Correct, there is the same level of doubt over whether Jews drink human
blood in secret rituals.
There are wild rumours but a complete lack of concrete proof.
The two cases are analogous, each should be required to reach the same
evidential standard.
phil...@aol.com
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
colonel_bland...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> >Can you prove you're not Ewan Jackson?
> >No.
> Of course I can. For example I post from a certain computer in a
> certain location. This is all kept in the service provider's cache.
> Gordo, I notice you are very silent about the fraud you and
> holocaust-history.org have been caught palming off on the Journal of
> Genocide Studies, does your organisation intend to issue a
> clarification to the Journal. Not to would be academic fraud - not
> that any of the authors were academics.
>>> Phil, get therapy.
>>> There are no hair socks or human hair felt slippers.
>>You're responding to Gord, moron.
> >And you don't know whether such items exist or not.
>
> Correct,
So when you claim that there are none, you are lying.
Thanks for the admission.
>there is the same level of doubt over whether Jews drink human
> blood in secret rituals.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
> There are wild rumours but a complete lack of concrete proof.
You don't know whether there is any such lack.
You're merely lying again, Colonel.
You won't get away with that here.
--
Philip Mathews
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
>Thanks for the admission.
Errr, how does that follow?
You could equally claim that Jews are lying when they say there are no
Jewish blood drinking rituals.
Simply there is no positive evidence that either have existed.
There are unverifiable reports that both have existed.
Personally I take the view until concrete proof of Jewish blood ritual
is shown it is a libel.
And until concrete proof of a human hair sock and a human hair felt
slipper is shown it is a libel.
Is this really so difficult for you to understand?
philip...@comcast.net
<colonel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1107994510.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
colonel_bland...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> >Can you prove you're not Ewan Jackson?
> >No.
> Of course I can. For example I post from a certain computer in a
> certain location. This is all kept in the service provider's cache.
> Gordo, I notice you are very silent about the fraud you and
> holocaust-history.org have been caught palming off on the Journal of
> Genocide Studies, does your organisation intend to issue a
> clarification to the Journal. Not to would be academic fraud - not
> that any of the authors were academics.
>>> Phil, get therapy.
>>> There are no hair socks or human hair felt slippers.
>>You're responding to Gord, moron.
> >And you don't know whether such items exist or not.
>
> Correct,
So when you claim that there are none, you are lying.
Thanks for the admission.
>there is the same level of doubt over whether Jews drink human
> blood in secret rituals.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
> There are wild rumours but a complete lack of concrete proof.
You don't know whether there is any such lack.
You're merely lying again, Colonel.
You won't get away with that here.
============================
> >So when you claim that there are none, you are lying.
>>Thanks for the admission.
> Errr, how does that follow?
Oh come now Colonel, as anyone reading the above, which you
conveniently snipped, can tell, you cannot admit that you do not know
whether such items exist, while also claiming, as you did, that they
do not.
You lied.
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even
supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be
content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to
acquire it."
Samuel Johnson
Gord McFee
>>Can you prove you're not Ewan Jackson?
>
>>No.
>
> Of course I can. For example I post from a certain computer in a
> certain location. This is all kept in the service provider's cache.
You just proved you are.
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
Gord McFee wrote:
> On 2/8/2005 9:49 PM, colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> >>Can you prove you're not Ewan Jackson?
> >
> >>No.
> >
> > Of course I can. For example I post from a certain computer in a
> > certain location. This is all kept in the service provider's
cache.
>
> You just proved you are.
>
signs himself as Euan Jackson are one and the same by all means do so.
I have informed you a couple of times I am not and I repeat again now.
But if it gives you any personel satisfaction not to believe this then
who am I to restrain you?
After all, you claim to believe a lot of things that are a lot more
stupider and bizarre.
(although, in both cases, I suspect you secretly agree with what I say)
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
>
> Oh come now Colonel, as anyone reading the above, which you
> conveniently snipped, can tell, you cannot admit that you do not know
> whether such items exist, while also claiming, as you did, that they
> do not.
>
> You lied.
>
"you cannot admit that you do not know whether such items exist, while
also claiming, as you did, that they do not."
Can anyone offer a translation on this?
By this logic nobody can say for sure if:
America manufactured human hair socks
Canada manufactures human hair socks
Switzerland manufactures human hair socks
Israel manufactures human hair socks
Martians are probably manufacturing human hair socks.
By any normal standards of proof there is absolutely no evidence that
anyone can point to of the existence of human hair socks and human hair
felt slippers.
We can take a number of corrolaries from this:
1) To prove the manufacture of a human hair sock or a human hair felt
slipper would be very easy: simply produce one.
2) No one appears to have knowledge of any such items. Nor can anyone
point to their existence in any holocaust or WW2 musuem. Nor can
anyone point to any records of any of the Allies of them finding any
human hair socks or felt slippers during both the invasion and
occupation of Germany. Nor can anyone point to any testimony from
ex-Uboat sailors or railway workers (the intended recipients) of
receiving or wearing such items (Ive got to admit thats something
Exterminationists would be able to fix very quickly).
3) No such items were ever presented as evidence in any war crime
trial.
4) Until such time as a sock or slipper is produced it is safe to
conclude they have never existed.
5) This, under normal rules of historical, legal or any other kinds of
evidence, is as close to definitive proof that one can get. The only
way to get absolute and definitive proof would be to forensically
examine every sock and slipper that exists or has existed.
Funny, this is a thread that sums up so much of the techniques of
Holocaust "History".
I think the title: Exterminationists pevert the rules of historical
evidence, is extremely well chosen.
philip...@comcast.net
<colonel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108008716.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >No.
Thanks for the admission.
>>Thanks for the admission.
========================
>> Oh come now Colonel, as anyone reading the above, which you
>> conveniently snipped, can tell, you cannot admit that you do not
>> know
>> whether such items exist, while also claiming, as you did, that
>> they
>> do not.
>> You lied.
> "you cannot admit that you do not know whether such items exist,
> while
> also claiming, as you did, that they do not."
> Can anyone offer a translation on this?
You need a translation?
Just how stupid are you?
Obviously, deluded Colonel, you cannot agree to the proposition that
you do not know whether such items exist without contradicting your
outright claim that they do not, in fact, exist.
So running through your illogical sequence again suggests you are
indeed that stupid.
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
See it here.
Ron Jacobson
<colonel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
(snip)
>By this logic nobody can say for sure if:
>America manufactured human hair socks
(...)
Bad analogy, "colonel".
No one found tons of hair, neatly packed, in American
concentration camps.
You want lies, "colonel"? Here are the lies you're running
away from for weeks now: look at this amazing testimony about
Darmstadt's bombing.
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg1999/zg9902/990213.html
(which is, as you must know, the web site of that major
Holocaust denier, Ernst Zundel):
<quote>
A reporter, Melitta Maschman, wrote of what happened in
the City of Darmstadt:
"There was not a house anywhere in the street which had not turned
into a blazing firebrand. Above the sea of flames, a glowing cyclone
raged over the town, and whenever it caught the bodies of people in
flight, it shriveled them in a second to the size of a child, and the
next day they lay all over the streets, hardly burnt, but like
mummified children."
</quote>
My dear, dear "colonel": I stand in awe of this er, ah,
incredible testimony.
Can you please explain how these unfortunate folks were
"shriveled" in a SECOND "to the size of a child"? And how they
were not burnt, but "mummified"? It is truly beyond my
understanding. Why didn't they just "melt", or "glow bright
orange and blue" -- as we're told the Dresdeners did, when their
city was bombed? Is there reliable evidence to some major
difference in the physical composition of Dresdeners and
Darmstadtners, which could perhaps explain this great
discrepancy in how they react to heat?
Or, at least, is there some "mummified" Darmstadtner
around?
RJ.
colonel_...@yahoo.com.au
Ive done extensive research and I have only found the name of one Jew
that has been documented as being gassed during WW2.
Samuel Zygelbojm.
Joe Bruno
You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
Joe Bruno
I get a big laugh when Louis Farrakhan insists he is not anti-Semitic.
Kenneth McVay OBC
White trash ng expunged, followup set.
In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
[Sara's story flushed down the grosvenor]
>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
She isn't describing anything SHE was doing, either. It was a story.
(Too bad the neuron-deficient brigade is too dumb to figure that out.)
--
"In the final analysis, one does not refute a closed system, a total
lie that is not refutable to the extent that its conclusions has
preceded any evidence." (Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. Assassins of Memory,
New York: Columbia University Press. p.81)
Sara Salzman
kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
> White trash ng expunged, followup set.
>
> In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> [Sara's story flushed down the grosvenor]
>
> >You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
>
> She isn't describing anything SHE was doing, either. It was a story.
>
> (Too bad the neuron-deficient brigade is too dumb to figure that out.)
And yet they still believe that Scott Bradbury is alive, after he
himself posted the details of his own death.
It boggles the mind.
Sara
--
I'm not a denier..Some Jews died of typhus and stuff, I will acknowledge
that..
--- Little Child Tommie
Doc Tavish
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.revisionism
Subject: Scratch a Holocaust denier, find a lame-brained racist twit.
Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:32:08 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <110ms38...@corp.supernews.com>
References: <1107729722.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<1107746769.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<rhqd01lg1b2it81ae...@4ax.com>
Links to the above referenced post for verification:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/36e317df0698e9bc
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem1)
Original format:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/36e317df0698e9bc?dmode=source
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem2)
<1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.nationalism.white/msg/ecf65570ee128821
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem3)
Original format:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.nationalism.white/msg/ecf65570ee128821?dmode=source
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem4)
Arthur J. Tandy aka Joe Bruno certainly doesn't deny Sara Salzman authored the
"My Master Holds The Ropes Just So" poem either!
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Originator: kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:32:08 -0000, <110ms38...@corp.supernews.com>
kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>White trash ng expunged, followup set.
>
>In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
>[Sara's story flushed down the grosvenor]
So now you, Ken McVay now go on record as publicly stating what was posted was
as you put it "Sara's story." I thought that poem was never authored by Sara
Salzman who went by Sara Schwartz at the time of the posting! See how easy it is
to catch you vermin in your lies!
>>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
<<Tavish comment February 10, 2005: If it isn't anal sex then what do you call
her words "I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the bed behind
me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly, quickly, his
hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure as he will
enter me" as describing? Not oral sex for sure!>>
>
>She isn't describing anything SHE was doing, either. It was a story.
<END>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/e8393c3bb89b94a5
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem5)
Original format:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/e8393c3bb89b94a5?dmode=source
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem6)
From: kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.revisionism
Subject: Scratch a Holocaust denier, find a lame-brained racist twit.
Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:32:08 -0000
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <110ms38...@corp.supernews.com>
References: <1107729722.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<1107746769.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<rhqd01lg1b2it81ae...@4ax.com>
<1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Hey Ken, Sara Salzman has been trying to convince everyone:
1) That the post never existed and that we made it up
2) That she didn't author the famous piece of S&M
And there you go on public record as stating the following is "Sara's story":
Watching.
I wait, knowing.
"Kneel."
But not yet.
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Schopenhauer
<END>
BTW McVay for once you were right when you made the claim you made higher up
stating "She isn't describing anything SHE was doing, either." Sara Salzman
wasn't doing anything seeing how she was the recipient to what The Master was
doing!!
Everyone see how "Sara's story" contributed to her making perjurious and
libelous accusations against me in a civil lawsuit at this link:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/3b72f880c1b7eee4
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem7)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/3b72f880c1b7eee4?dmode=source
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem8)
Subject: Sara Salzman's S&M Bondage-Torture Fantasies Result in Perjury!...
Message-ID: <3rjn01ltdsm4lh74f...@4ax.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2005 23:16:32 GMT
Need I say more?
Tavish
Sara Salzman being the evasive liar she is and a perjurer who defends fellow
perjurers keeps evading from the simple questions concerning "the discrepancies
of Yale's "exhibits" to other people's posts being used against me with "Doc
Tavish" forged as a signature" and how it isn't perjury to forge my NYM to posts
I did not make and submit them as evidence against me in a court of law.
THE INITIAL CHALLENGE:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/acda85e273a2262f
Subject: Re: "jack" forges again, apmply demonstrating the dishonesty required
of a racist bigot.
Message-ID: <ousi01lqn19maf3v1...@4ax.com>
Date: 9 Feb 2005 02:29:14 GMT
(Archived locally as: SDSevasiveLiar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Salzman's evasive reply (her only words too I might add) which did not
address the issue of Yale forging "Doc Tavish" to other people's posts and using
them as evidence against me:
"For the last time, you decrepit moron, Yale said You AND YOUR ASSOCIATES."
-Subject: Re: "jack" forges again, apmply demonstrating the dishonesty required
-of a racist bigot.
-References: <ousi01lqn19maf3v1...@4ax.com>
-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:30:24 -0700
-Message-ID: <catamont-6BD50C...@news.giganews.com>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/082a4c82c783bd2a
(Archived locally as: SDSevasiveLiar_1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer to the above evasion (and slight review):
>> >> Yale Edeiken forged Tavish thus amply demonstrating his dishonesty and he
>> >> even had the nerve to submit the forgeries as evidence to a civil court.
>> >
>> >Nope. Never happened.
The above was substantiated again by your evasiveness! Yale did submit forgeries
to a civil court and that is fact! Anyone looking at his "exhibits" and the
GOOGLE archives can see so!
>> CARE TO EXPLAIN HOW OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS WERE SUBMITTED TO A CIVIL COURT AND
>> SIGNED AS "DOC TAVISH" IN A KOOK LAWSUIT AGAINST ME? I AM DYING TO READ YOUR
>> EXPLANATION AND THERE ARE MANY MORE EXAMPLES TOO!
Notice once again that Sara Salzman would not explain how other people's posts
were used as evidence against me in a lawsuit after Yale F. Edeiken forged "Doc
Tavish" to them!
>For the last time, you decrepit moron, Yale said You AND YOUR ASSOCIATES.
How does that answer the discrepancies of Yale's "exhibits" to other people's
posts being used against me with "Doc Tavish" forged as a signature? I don't
have any "ASSOCIATES" named Earl Turner or Pee Kitty! The point being Yale
signed those posts "Doc Tavish" and submitted them as evidence against me!
What is that called Sara? If I would have been given my legal right to defend
myself I would have had Yale F. Edeiken exposed for the filthy lying perjurer he
truly is! You support perjurers because you are a liar and perjurer yourself!
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/f304abf7830c3de8
-Subject: Re: "jack" forges again, apmply demonstrating the dishonesty required
-of a racist bigot.
-Message-ID: <7fuk01t3ljo5ibacs...@4ax.com>
-References: <catamont-6BD50C...@news.giganews.com>
-Date: 9 Feb 2005 21:11:15 GMT
(Archived locally as: SDSevasiveLiar_2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of this time and date (February 10, 2005; 2:36 PM CST) Sara still hasn't
explained the discrepancies of other people's posts being signed off as "Doc
Tavish" and used as evidence against me by Yale F. Edeiken!
Also as of this date Sara Salzman has yet to show the e-mail or USENET post in
which I allegedly said I was going to "skin her alive" etc. and which she swore
under oath that I did such in a court of law as detailed in this archive:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/3b72f880c1b7eee4
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem7)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/3b72f880c1b7eee4?dmode=source
(Archived locally as: SDSmasterPoem8)
Subject: Sara Salzman's S&M Bondage-Torture Fantasies Result in Perjury!...
Message-ID: <3rjn01ltdsm4lh74f...@4ax.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2005 23:16:32 GMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When are you going to show the document Sara along with all headers etc. You
swore under oath I had done such so present the "slam dunk" evidence to prove
so! SARA, YOU AND YOURS CREDIBILTY IS GOING DOWN!!!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Doc Tavish
<catamont-3E9303...@news.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <110ms38...@corp.supernews.com>,
> kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>> White trash ng expunged, followup set.
>>
>> In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>>
>> [Sara's story flushed down the grosvenor]
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> >You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
>>
>> She isn't describing anything SHE was doing, either. It was a story.
>>
>> (Too bad the neuron-deficient brigade is too dumb to figure that out.)
>
>And yet they still believe that Scott Bradbury is alive, after he
>himself posted the details of his own death.
My event was to deter stalkers seeking my identity and where I live BUT your
event was perjury to a court of law! You are too dumb to discern the difference
and too stupid to see that Ken McVay claimed above that "My Master Holds The
Ropes Just So" is "Sara's story!"
>It boggles the mind.
It does boggle the mind that you would dare compare my trying to throw stalkers
off my trail is anything like your and Yale's perjury!
>Sara
Gord McFee
> Gord McFee wrote:
>
>>On 2/8/2005 9:49 PM, colonel_...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Can you prove you're not Ewan Jackson?
>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>Of course I can. For example I post from a certain computer in a
>>>certain location. This is all kept in the service provider's
>
> cache.
>
>>You just proved you are.
>
> Gordo, if it makes it easier for you to believe me and the person who
> signs himself as Euan Jackson are one and the same by all means do so.
It is not a question of belief.
Gord McFee
>>In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
>
> <<Tavish comment February 10, 2005: If it isn't anal sex then what do you call
> her words "I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the bed behind
> me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly, quickly, his
> hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure as he will
> enter me" as describing? Not oral sex for sure!>>
I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women) is
required.
Sara Salzman
Doc Tavish <Doc_T...@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:16:41 -0700,
> <catamont-3E9303...@news.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
> <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <110ms38...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
> >
> >> White trash ng expunged, followup set.
> >>
> >> In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [Sara's story flushed down the grosvenor]
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> >You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
> >>
> >> She isn't describing anything SHE was doing, either. It was a story.
> >>
> >> (Too bad the neuron-deficient brigade is too dumb to figure that out.)
> >
> >And yet they still believe that Scott Bradbury is alive, after he
> >himself posted the details of his own death.
>
> My event was to deter stalkers seeking my identity and where I live BUT your
> event was perjury to a court of law!
Nope. Haven't been charged with perjury, haven't been found guilty of
perjury, haven't committed perjury. No matter how many times you say it,
it isn't true. It never happened, and you're too much of a chickenshit
coward to admit it. Or, for that matter, to bring charges against me.
Perjury, by the way, is CRIMINAL, not civil. You don't need to spend one
cent. You just need to convince a justice official to press charges.
But you won't. Because you're an impotent little man.
[rest of Bradbury drivel flushed down the Tavish]
Sara Salzman
Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> wrote:
> On 2/10/2005 7:18 PM, Doc Tavish wrote:
>
> >>In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >>Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
> >
> > <<Tavish comment February 10, 2005: If it isn't anal sex then what do you
> > call
> > her words "I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the bed
> > behind
> > me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly, quickly,
> > his
> > hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure as he will
> > enter me" as describing? Not oral sex for sure!>>
>
> I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women) is
> required.
Nicely said.
Darius Just
> Ive done extensive research
You've never done any research, asswipe. Your lies haven't required any
research -- just an utter lack of moral sense.
--- dj
Joe Bruno
purity.
Judge:Sustained
William Daffer
> On 2/10/2005 7:18 PM, Doc Tavish wrote:
>
>>>In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
>> <<Tavish comment February 10, 2005: If it isn't anal sex then what
>> do you call
>> her words "I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the bed behind
>> me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly, quickly, his
>> hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure as he will
>> enter me" as describing? Not oral sex for sure!>>
>
> I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women)
> is required.
Euuuuuuwwwww! Please Gord!
whd
--
Werner Knoll, describing his purpose in alt.revisionism
Pissing in the swimming pool when you are in the water will get you
nowhere. Do it from from a 10 meter springboard and everybody will
notice you!
steve wolk
"William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:9tGdnbLTEJv...@giganews.com...
> Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/10/2005 7:18 PM, Doc Tavish wrote:
>>
>>>>In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
>>> <<Tavish comment February 10, 2005: If it isn't anal sex then what
>>> do you call
>>> her words "I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the bed
>>> behind
>>> me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly, quickly,
>>> his
>>> hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure as he
>>> will
>>> enter me" as describing? Not oral sex for sure!>>
>>
>> I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women)
>> is required.
>
> Euuuuuuwwwww! Please Gord!
ROTFL! Ya gotta be careful with those mental pictures, Bill. You can make
yourself puke. :-)
William Daffer
[snip]
>>> I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women)
>>> is required.
>>
>> Euuuuuuwwwww! Please Gord!
>
>
>
> ROTFL! Ya gotta be careful with those mental pictures, Bill. You can make
> yourself puke. :-)
Exactly my complaint!
whd
--
The DEM unit commenting on the harassment campaign against Sara
Salzman which has been going on for *years*.
Looks to me like a harmless bit of fun at the expense of a rather
unpleasant person.
Joe Bruno
>Perjury is lying UNDER OATH. In order for a lie to be perjury, you
have to be sworn in as a witness first.
That means the only place YOU could have committed it was while
testifying or giving a deposition at Yale's lawsuit.
In some cases, when you sign a form for the government, like a tax
return, you are held to the same standards. If that is the case, it
will be clearly spelled out in the instructions for the form.
Fatboy labels anything anyone says he doesn't like as "Perjury". It's
nonsense.
Joe Bruno
I don't deny it because I have no information or interest in the
subject, you fucking idiot.
Kenneth McVay OBC
Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
[Bradbury vomit flushed down the grosvenor]
>I don't deny it because I have no information or interest in the
>subject, you fucking idiot.
I doubt that Mr. Bradbury is a fucking idiot. What self-respecting female would get within a mile of
him?
He's a bloated idiot, an ignoramus, in fact, but "fucking idiot" he ain't.
...unless his bodyguard Bruno is a ewe, that is.
Archive/File: people/b/bradbury.scott/Edeiken-v-Bradbury-RA.01
Last-Modified: 2001/02/14
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
NOW COMES Plaintiff Yale F. Edeiken and demands that, pursuant to Rule
4014, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Scott Bradbury
admit or deny the truth of the following within thirty (30) days of service
or, by failing to do so, admit the truth of the matters asserted:
1. Defendant Scott Bradbury publishes material on the Internet under
the pseudonym "Doc Tavish."
2. Defendant Scott Bradbury has in the past and continues in the
present to use various services to publish his material in a manner in
which it cannot be traced back to its source.
3. Defendant Scott Bradbury has published material on the Internet
under the pseudonym "Nazihunter."
4. Defendant Scott Bradbury has created and published on the
Internet under the name of "Nazihunter" a website which gives his own
address and telephone number.
5. Defendant Scott Bradbury has thereafter falsely claimed that said
website was created by others in an attempt to harass him.
6. Defendant Scott Bradbury has, at various times, published his own
address and telephone number under the name of "Nazihunter" together with
various threats of violence.
7. Defendant Scott Bradbury has thereafter made the false claim,
based upon such publications, that he is being harassed and threatened by
others.
8. Defendant Scott Bradbury has at various times contacted various
internet service providers and, using the false pretense that he was the
author, cancelled the published work of others.
9. Defendant Scott Bradbury has participated in campaigns of
threats, defamation, forgery, and harassment in order to intimidate and
harass his opponent and prevent them from exercising their rights of free
speech.
10. Defendant Scott Bradbury has assisted and/or obtained the
assistance of others in said campaigns, including but not limited to David
E. Michael, Donald Ellis, and "Pat Blakely."
11. That Donald Ellis has published material under the pseudonyms
"Mike Kalvatis," "Pat Blakely," "RevWhite" and "Rabbi Brimstone."
12. That at all times relevant hereto Defendant Scott Bradbury was
aware of the use of those pseudonyms by Donald Ellis.
13. The targets of said campaigns of harassment have included, inter
alia, Plaintiff, Sara Salzman, Jeffrey G. Brown, Ken McVey, Scott Murphy,
David Gehrig, Andrew Skolnick, Steven Wolk, Mike Curtis, Andrew Mathis, and
all others named in "The Nizkor Phonebook."
14. Defendant Scott Bradbury has forged material which he claimed
originated from Jeffrey G. Brown and published said material on the
Internet falsely claiming that it originated from Jeffrey G. Brown.
15. Defendant Scott Bradbury has forged material which he claimed
originated from Andrew Skolnick and published said material on the Internet
falsely claiming that it originated from Andrew Skolnick.
16. Defendant Scott Bradbury has forged material which he claimed
originated from Plaintiff and published said material on the Internet
falsely claiming that it originated from Plaintiff.
17. Said forgeries have included forgeries making unwanted sexual
advances to Defendant Scott Bradbury.
18. That no such unwanted sexual advances were ever made.
19. That notwithstanding the fact that said communications were
forgeries and known to be such by Defendant Scott Bradbury, Defendant Scott
Bradbury forwarded them to third persons claiming that they were true and
accurate.
20. That the purpose of Defendant Scott Bradbury in distributing said
forgeries was to injure the reputation of Plaintiff and to induce others to
terminate a business contract with Plaintiff.
21. Defendant Scott Bradbury has published the statement that he has
been threatened with homosexual rape by Plaintiff, Jeffrey G. Brown and
Kenneth McVay.
22. Said claim was published despite the fact that no such threat had
ever been made to Defendant Scott Bradbury.
23. Defendant Scott Bradbury has published the claim that Andrew
Mathis, Ph. D., had solicited minor boys by offering them alcoholic
beverages.
24. Said claim was made despite the fact that Defendant Scott
Bradbury knew that no such offer or solicitation had ever been made.
25. Since the filing of this lawsuit Defendant Scott Bradbury
increased his efforts to harass and threaten Plaintiff and to distribute
false and defamatory information about him in an effort to intimidate
Plaintiff.
26. Defendant has been assisted in this effort by David E. Michael
and Donald Ellis publishing material either under their own names,
pseudonyms, or anonymously.
27. Defendant Scott Bradbury, either personally and/or acting through
others who were, then and there, acting with his knowledge assistance and
consent have attempted to disrupt Plaintiff's internet service by
"mailbombing" him by sending gigantic files to him as electronic
communications.
28. Defendant Scott Bradbury, either personally and/or acting through
others who were, then and there, acting with his knowledge assistance and
consent have attempted to disrupt Plaintiff's internet service by asking
various commercial services to send him electronic communications thereby
overwhelming his service provider with "spam."
29. Defendant Scott Bradbury, either personally and/or acting through
others who were, then and there, acting with his knowledge assistance and
consent have attempted to disrupt the internet service of others by send
them "mailbombs" in Plaintiff's name and using Plaintiff's name to spam
such persons.
30. On or about July 2, 2000, Defendant Scott Bradbury either
personally or acting through his associates acting then and there with the
knowledge, consent, approval and assistance of Defendant Scott Bradbury
published personal information about Plaintiff's family including his
father, mother, sister and brother including their names addresses,
telephone numbers with instructions to call and harass them. Said
publication is attached hereto and made part hereof as "Exhibit "A."
31. The purpose of said publication was to threaten, harass, and/or
intimidate Plaintiff and to encourage others to commit acts of violence
against him and his family.
32. Said purpose was at all times known to Defendant Scott Bradbury.
33. On or about July 7, 2000, Defendant Scott Bradbury either
personally or acting through his associates a ting then and there with the
knowledge, consent, approval and assistance of Defendant Scott Bradbury
published four threats of violence against Defendant Scott Bradbury. One
such publication is attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit "B."
34. The purpose of such forgeries was to harass Plaintiff with false
charges.
35. Notwithstanding that he was aware said publications were
forgeries, Defendant Scott Bradbury forwarded copies of said publications
to Plaintiff's internet provider claiming that Plaintiff had published said
material.
36. That Donald Ellis a/k/a "Pat Blakely" a/k/a "RevWhite" forwarded
said publications to the law firm of Todd S. Miller & Associates
notwithstanding the fact that said publications were known to him to be
forgeries.
37. The purpose of said action was to adversely affect the
professional standing of Plaintiff.
38. That such distribution was done with the approval, consent, and
knowledge of Defendant Scott Bradbury who was at all times aware of the
forgery.
39. Said publication was made with the consent, approval, and
knowledge of Defendant Scott Bradbury who had, at that time, a full
understanding of the purpose and intent of that publication.
40. That Donald Ellis a/k/a "Pat Blakely" a/k/a "RevWhite" forwarded
said publications to Plaintiff's internet service provider and to various
law enforcement agencies notwithstanding the fact that said publications
were known to him to be forgeries.
41. The purpose of said action was to adversely affect the
professional standing of Plaintiff and to have fraudulent criminal charges
brought against him.
42. That such distribution was done with the approval, consent, and
knowledge of Defendant Scott Bradbury who was at all times aware of the
forgery.
43. On or about July 10, 2000, a forgery was published under the name
of Plaintiff making a death threat against the Woman's Center of Allentown.
Said publication is attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit " C."
44. Said publication was made by Donald Ellis a/k/a "Pat Blakely"
a/k/a "RevWhite" a/k/a "Rabbi Brimstone" with the purpose of harassing,
threatening, and intimidating the persons named on said list.
45. Said publication was made with the assistance, consent, approval,
and knowledge of Defendant Scott Bradbury who had, at that time, a full
understanding of the purpose and intent of that publication.
46. On or about July 14, 2000, a forgery was published under the name
of "Wendy Edeiken" making a death threat against Plaintiff. Said
publication is attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit " D."
47. Said publication was made by Donald Ellis a/k/a "Pat Blakely"
a/k/a 'RevWhite" a/k/a 'Rabbi Brimstone" with the purpose of harassing,
threatening, and intimidating the persons named on said list.
48. Said publication was made with the assistance, consent, approval,
and knowledge of Defendant Scott Bradbury who had, at that time, a full
understanding of the purpose and intent of that publication.
49. On or about July 22, 2000, Defendant Scott Bradbury published a
direct threat of violence against Plaintiff. Saud threat is attached
hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit 'E."
50. Defendant Scott Bradbury has contributed to, participated in
and/or cooperated with the establishment on the Internet of a site known as
"The Nizkor Phonebook."
51. The purpose of "The Nizkor Phonebook" is to threaten, harass,
and/or intimidate Jews and others who disagree with Defendant Scott
Bradbury and his accomplices.
52. The purpose of 'The Nizkor Phonebook" was at all times known to
Defendant Scott Bradbury.
53. On or about July 24, 2000, "The Nizkor Phonebook" was edited to
display a picture of an automatic pistol above personal information about
Plaintiff and his wife including their names addresses, telephone numbers,
and a map whereby they could be located.
54. The purpose of said publication was to threaten, harass, and/or
intimidate Plaintiff and to encourage others to commit acts of violence
against him.
55. Said purpose was at all times known to Defendant Scott Bradbury.
56. On or about July 25, 2000, "The Nizkor Phonebook" was edited to
display personal information about Plaintiff and his wife including their
names addresses, telephone numbers, and a map whereby they could be located
surrounded by images of dripping blood.
57. The purpose of said publication was to threaten, harass, and/or
intimidate Plaintiff and to encourage others to commit acts of violence
against him.
58. Said purpose was at all times known to Defendant Scott Bradbury.
59. On or about July 29, 2000, "The Nizkor Phonebook" was edited to
display personal information about Plaintiff's father, mother, sister, and
brother including their names addresses, telephone numbers, and a map
whereby they could be located surrounded by images of dripping blood.
60. The purpose of said publication was to threaten, harass, and/or
intimidate Plaintiff and to encourage others to commit acts of violence
against them.
61. Said purpose was at all times known to Defendant Scott Bradbury.
62. On or about July 14, 2000, a publication called "The Dead Pool"
was made by Donald Ellis under the pseudonym "Rabbi Brimstone" which named
various opponents of Defendant Scott Bradbury and his associates asking for
wagers as to which would die first. Said publication is attached hereto
and made
part hereof as Exhibit "F."
63. Said publication was made by Donald Ellis a/k/a "Pat Blakely,"
a/k/a "RevWhite" a/k/a "Rabbi Brimstone" with the purpose of harassing,
threatening, and intimidating the persons named on said list.
64. The title of said publication was intended as a reference to a
list of death threats in a motion picture of the same title, and in said
motion picture members of the "Dead Pool" list were murdered.
65. In subsequent publications on the topic, Donald Ellis a/k/a "Pat
Blakely" demonstrated that he was familiar with this significance of the
title, and therefore the "Dead Pool" post can reasonably be construed as a
series of death threats against the individuals listed therein.
66. Defendant Scott Bradbury was aware of the threatening nature of
the publication at the time that it was made.
67. Defendant Scott Bradbury advocates that Jews be deprived of the
civil, political, and human rights in the United States.
68. Defendant Scott Bradbury endorses the stereotype of Jews as
depicted in the propaganda of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis as true and
accurate.
69. Defendant Scott Bradbury has claimed that the Holocaust
did not occur.
70. Defendant Scott Bradbury has endorsed the positions of William
Pierce and the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi and violently anti-Semitic
organization which teaches that Jews are "mud people" who should be
murdered in a nationwide pogrom.
Gord McFee
> Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> writes:
>
>
>>On 2/10/2005 7:18 PM, Doc Tavish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>>>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
>>>
>>><<Tavish comment February 10, 2005: If it isn't anal sex then what
>>>do you call
>>>her words "I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the bed behind
>>>me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly, quickly, his
>>>hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure as he will
>>>enter me" as describing? Not oral sex for sure!>>
>>
>>I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women)
>>is required.
>
> Euuuuuuwwwww! Please Gord!
Sorry, Bill, the truth must be told.
Joe Bruno
Kenneth McVay OBC wrote:
> In article <1108224818.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> [Bradbury vomit flushed down the grosvenor]
>
> >I don't deny it because I have no information or interest in the
> >subject, you fucking idiot.
>
> I doubt that Mr. Bradbury is a fucking idiot. What self-respecting
female would get within a mile of
> him?
>
> He's a bloated idiot, an ignoramus, in fact, but "fucking idiot" he
ain't.
>
> ...unless his bodyguard Bruno is a ewe, that is.
>
>
I used the word as an expletive, not literally, just as someone would
say: "Where is the fucking money you owe me?" Money has no genitalia,
Mr McVay.
Joe Bruno
Kenneth McVay OBC wrote:
> In article <1108224818.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> [Bradbury vomit flushed down the grosvenor]
>
> >I don't deny it because I have no information or interest in the
> >subject, you fucking idiot.
>
> I doubt that Mr. Bradbury is a fucking idiot. What self-respecting
female would get within a mile of
> him?
>
> He's a bloated idiot, an ignoramus, in fact, but "fucking idiot" he
ain't.
>
> ...unless his bodyguard Bruno is a ewe, that is.
I used to work with a Polish guy named Casimir Sarnecki. He would say
this about Bradbury: "That guy has more loose screws than a fucking
hardware store."
>
>
William Daffer
[snip]
>>>I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women)
>>>is required.
>> Euuuuuuwwwww! Please Gord!
>
> Sorry, Bill, the truth must be told.
Aye, I guess so. In this case, not only will the truth set me free,
it will make me ill as well!
whd
--
There was no genocide of European Jews, no.
Seneca: <7kR4a.42067$rq4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
derek_...@yahoo.com
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:16:41 -0700,
throw stalkers
> off my trail is anything like your and Yale's perjury!
Her testimony was accepted as fact. Deal with it.
Derek
Patrick Lee Humphrey
That's as likely to happen as a sunrise in the west. (Maybe he can kill
himself again this May 15th...after all, it's only been eight years since he
last tried that scam in this newsgroup.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Chicago 4 (SO) (February 12)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 18 vs. Chicago, 7:35
derek_...@yahoo.com
Patrick Lee Humphrey wrote:
> derek_...@yahoo.com writes:
> >Doc Tavish wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:16:41 -0700,
> >> It does boggle the mind that you would dare compare my trying to
throw
> >> stalkers off my trail is anything like your and Yale's perjury!
>
> >Her testimony was accepted as fact. Deal with it.
>
> That's as likely to happen as a sunrise in the west.
True, though I find it hard to resist giving Bradbury the old "stick it
in your pipe and smoke it"!
> (Maybe he can kill himself again this May 15th...after all, it's only
been
> eight years since he last tried that scam in this newsgroup.)
It's about the only stupid thing he *hasn't* tried twice - maybe this
time he could vary it and pretend to be his whole family rather than,
say, just his own "brother".
Derek
derek_...@yahoo.com
> On 2/10/2005 7:18 PM, Doc Tavish wrote:
> >>In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >>Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
> >>>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
> >
> > <<Tavish comment February 10, 2005: If it isn't anal sex then what
do you call
> > her words "I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the
bed behind
> > me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly,
quickly, his
> > hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure as
he will
> > enter me" as describing? Not oral sex for sure!>>
>
> I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women)
is
> required.
ROTFLMAO!!! Do you think he needs something to (Alex) Comfort him? ;-)
Derek
Gord McFee
Probably already has it.
Derek Bell
> On 2/18/2005 1:03 PM, derek_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > ROTFLMAO!!! Do you think he needs something to (Alex) Comfort him? ;-)
>
> Probably already has it.
Does he understand it or maybe he's just hypnotised by the title - it
doesn't seem to bring him much joy...
Derek
Doc Tavish
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:14:15 -0700,
<catamont-710234...@news.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <kqun01ds55ue05snt...@4ax.com>,
> Doc Tavish <Doc_T...@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:16:41 -0700,
>> <catamont-3E9303...@news.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
>> <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <110ms38...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> > kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
>> >
>> >> White trash ng expunged, followup set.
>> >>
>> >> In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [Sara's story flushed down the grosvenor]
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>
>> >> >You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
>> >>
>> >> She isn't describing anything SHE was doing, either. It was a story.
>> >>
>> >> (Too bad the neuron-deficient brigade is too dumb to figure that out.)
>> >
>> >And yet they still believe that Scott Bradbury is alive, after he
>> >himself posted the details of his own death.
>>
>> My event was to deter stalkers seeking my identity and where I live BUT your
>> event was perjury to a court of law!
>
>Nope. Haven't been charged with perjury, haven't been found guilty of
>perjury,
You would have been if I was allowed my day in court to challenge your
affidavit! Care to deny it? Care to deny I was NOT served in order to
grant me my right to challenge any accusations made against me?
For a fact Yale F. Edeiken had not served his "complaints" on neither my
attorney NOR myself. This was submitted to a civil court of law:
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A." Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable
to attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was
opened pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant... When attorney
Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of the complaint when he first becomes
involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You" via e-mail. In plain English, this
is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never
met. The court should not be a party to this."
Respectfully submitted Daylin B. Leach Esquire <END>
==========================================================================
Full version of the above: The "RETURN TO STALKER" Myth Debunked
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=u498o0l1ogkcqga2q1dc5k700m0dgd4mgi%404ax.com&rnum=1
>Nope. Haven't been charged with perjury, haven't been found guilty of
>perjury, haven't committed perjury. No matter how many times you say it,
>it isn't true. It never happened, and you're too much of a chickenshit
>coward to admit it.
YOU ARE IN VERY DEEP DENIAL!!!
>Or, for that matter, to bring charges against me.
OH BUT I HAVE TRIED!! It seems two DAs don't want to spend time on something
that won't get them headlines or votes!
>Perjury, by the way, is CRIMINAL, not civil. You don't need to spend one
>cent. You just need to convince a justice official to press charges.
>
>But you won't. Because you're an impotent little man.
IOW you can't refute my claims so you resort to hurling insults!
>[rest of Bradbury drivel flushed down the Tavish]
What you "flushed down the old Edeiken":
Doc Tavish
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:19:26 -0700,
<catamont-FDEB0E...@news.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <Us2dncEbnrq...@rogers.com>,
> Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/2005 7:18 PM, Doc Tavish wrote:
>>
>> >>In article <1108042896.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>Joe Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >>>You can't read. She is not describing anal sex.
Actually anal and vaginal sex can be accomplished by such rear entry and if
vaginal sex were the mission then I can understand why Sara's partner would
prefer to do such. http://www.westword.com/issues/2000-08-10/news/feature3_4.gif
A picture is worth a thousand words although I can't conceive her posterior
would be anywhere remotely agreeable to view than her anterior view!
>> > <<Tavish comment February 10, 2005: If it isn't anal sex then what do you
>> > call her words "I crouch on the bed, head down, ass up, as he mounts the bed
>> > behind me. His hands caress my ass softly, then spank sharply. Slowly, quickly,
>> > his hand falls upon my ass. I wait for the moment, the pain/pleasure as he will
>> > enter me" as describing? Not oral sex for sure!>>
>>
>> I guess no further proof of Scotty's virginity (at least with women) is
>> required.
Are insults all you people have when you are caught in your lies? The point
being-- Ken McVay confirmed Sara wrote the epic "My Master Holds the Rope Just
So" and after Sara has been pathetically trying to deny ever authoring much less
posting her masterpiece!
>Nicely said.
I noticed you dodged the issue that McVay proved you lied about the source of
such work!
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/eed8a94c0cac521e
Subject: Ken McVay Agrees With Us That "My Master Holds The Ropes Just So" is
"Sara's story"... Message-ID: <qjtn01dbb9pgck7g7...@4ax.com>
Date: 11 Feb 2005 00:18:26 GMT
Care to tell all of us again that you didn't write the poem mentioned thus
calling your accomplice a liar!?
Tavish
>Sara
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>BLTN = Better Late Than Never
With you, Doc Trash of Bellville, "never" is the default.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Utah 2, Houston 1 (SO) (February 21)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 23 at Utah, 8:05
Sara Salzman
Doc Tavish <Doc_T...@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote:
Yep. I deny it. You had your day in court, only you came up with some
bullshit about being "too ill to travel" to PA. So your lawyer did the
talking for you. He WAS your lawyer, wasn't he? He represented YOU in
court. That's called "Your Day In Court."
[crap snipped]
>
> >Nope. Haven't been charged with perjury, haven't been found guilty of
> >perjury, haven't committed perjury. No matter how many times you say it,
> >it isn't true. It never happened, and you're too much of a chickenshit
> >coward to admit it.
>
> YOU ARE IN VERY DEEP DENIAL!!!
Really? When was I charged? When was I found guilty in a court of law?
Your delusions are getting the best of you, Mr. Bradbury.
>
> >Or, for that matter, to bring charges against me.
>
> OH BUT I HAVE TRIED!! It seems two DAs don't want to spend time on something
> that won't get them headlines or votes!
Well, thanks for finally admitting that you "tried." Your DA didn't want
to take your case because it's a farce and he knows it. It has nothing
to do with headlines or votes. It has to do with your personal insanity.
>
> >Perjury, by the way, is CRIMINAL, not civil. You don't need to spend one
> >cent. You just need to convince a justice official to press charges.
> >
> >But you won't. Because you're an impotent little man.
>
> IOW you can't refute my claims so you resort to hurling insults!
No, in other words, you're an impotent little man.
[more crap snipped]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> When are you going to show the document Sara along with all headers etc. You
> swore under oath I had done such so present the "slam dunk" evidence to prove
> so! SARA, YOU AND YOURS CREDIBILTY IS GOING DOWN!!!
>
Once again, I owe you NOTHING. This isn't a court of law, it's USENET,
you moron.
Doc Tavish
<catamont-EB9156...@news.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
That was secondary to the fact that Yale never served to complaints in the first
place and that Yale had already gotten his ill fated judgment against me BEFORE
my attorney did my talking for me with his Petition for Relief from Judgment!
Why should I have traveled at my expense not ever having been served the
complaints? My but you are stupid!
>He represented YOU in court. That's called "Your Day In Court."
He did not have a chance to challenge the false accusations made against me and
you know it!!
>[crap snipped]
Can't refute it can you!?
For a fact Yale F. Edeiken had not served his "complaints" on neither my
attorney NOR myself. This was submitted to a civil court of law:
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A." Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable
to attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was
opened pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant... When attorney
Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of the complaint when he first becomes
involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You" via e-mail. In plain English, this
is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never
met. The court should not be a party to this."
Respectfully submitted Daylin B. Leach Esquire <END>
==========================================================================
Full version of the above: The "RETURN TO STALKER" Myth Debunked
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=u498o0l1ogkcqga2q1dc5k700m0dgd4mgi%404ax.com&rnum=1
>> >Nope. Haven't been charged with perjury, haven't been found guilty of
>> >perjury, haven't committed perjury. No matter how many times you say it,
>> >it isn't true. It never happened, and you're too much of a chickenshit
>> >coward to admit it.
>>
>> YOU ARE IN VERY DEEP DENIAL!!!
>
>Really? When was I charged?
Where have I said you were charged? Show where I have claimed such!
>When was I found guilty in a court of law?
Where have I made that claim? Show where I have claimed such!
>Your delusions are getting the best of you, Mr. Bradbury.
You're the one who is delusional! You keep saying I did this and I did that but
you won't substantiate your claims and if I would have had my day in court you
and Yale would have had your perjury exposed!
>> >Or, for that matter, to bring charges against me.
>>
>> OH BUT I HAVE TRIED!! It seems two DAs don't want to spend time on something
>> that won't get them headlines or votes!
>
>Well, thanks for finally admitting that you "tried." Your DA didn't want
>to take your case because it's a farce and he knows it.
I was not referring to my DA at all! What does he have to do with criminals
living in Colorado and Pennsylvania!? My but you are stupid!
>It has nothing to do with headlines or votes. It has to do with your personal insanity.
All you can do is call other people insane or hurl insults or act hostile when
they point out the lies they catch you in!
I.E.
~~Sara Salzman even lies about her being a liar!~~
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/defaec4891d9856a
(Archived locally as: SaraLiedNOTlies1)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/defaec4891d9856a?dmode=source
(Archived locally as: SaraLiedNOTlies2)
From: Sara Salzman <catam...@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Who Are the Liars? aka Re: Yo, idiotchild...
References: <64ZLMZDN3836...@reece.net.au>
<b1h4u0hhl8s12nkd0...@4ax.com> <1399201.Wv2jNBreAV@FreeBSD>
<catamont-51677D...@news.giganews.com> <3234985.QlDWmdziny@FreeBSD>
<catamont-AF4706...@news.giganews.com>
<052av0him6mg7kr15...@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:50:03 -0700
Message-ID: <catamont-B21D13...@news.giganews.com>
In article <052av0him6mg7kr1531hrqaqbr3qcb9...@4ax.com>,
Doc Tavish <Doc_Tav...@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:51:01 -0700,
> <catamont-AF4706.14510110012...@news.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
> <catam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >And what proof do you have (other than the word of Scott Bradbury,
> >admitted liar...
>
> Care to show where I ever made such an admission?
<<Tavish comment: Notice Sara doesn't provide any proof when I openly challenged
her to do so yet she claims to have never lied!!>>
> YOU ARE THE LIAR AS WELL AS YOU ARE A PERJURER!! Now count all of the lies I have caught you
> and your fellow offspring of the father of lies in!
[snip over 900 lines of unadulterated drivel]
<<Tavish comment: What Sara won't address and dodges may be seen here as further
proof she is a pathological liar in denial (as referenced by her headers above):
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/82107dc1999226b2
Just count all the lies I have caught the devils in!! Fully documented too!!>>
...You can scream in caps all you want, but I have never lied, and I have
never committed perjury...
Sara
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
Some examples of Sara's lies:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/10f2f3ea0a5d53dc
(Archived locally as: Sara=PathologicalLiar1)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/10f2f3ea0a5d53dc?dmode=source
(Archived locally as: Sara=PathologicalLiar2)
Subject: Sara Salzman=Pathological Liar aka Re: A ditty for Sara Salzman
Message-ID: <tm4i90tg5ub3qq5nt...@4ax.com>
Date: 5 May 2004 16:10:07 GMT
>> >Perjury, by the way, is CRIMINAL, not civil. You don't need to spend one
>> >cent. You just need to convince a justice official to press charges.
>> >
>> >But you won't. Because you're an impotent little man.
>>
>> IOW you can't refute my claims so you resort to hurling insults!
>
>No, in other words, you're an impotent little man.
IOW you can't refute me!
>[more crap snipped]
Can't stand to be proven a vicious and malicious lying pig can you Sara?
What you deleted restored to your shame:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> When are you going to show the document Sara along with all headers etc. You
>> swore under oath I had done such so present the "slam dunk" evidence to prove
>> so! SARA, YOU AND YOURS CREDIBILTY IS GOING DOWN!!!
>>
>
>Once again, I owe you NOTHING. This isn't a court of law, it's USENET,
>you moron.
You just can't stand to be exposed for the filth you are can you? Now go roll in
your mire you liar!
>Sara
Tavish
~~~Sara D.Salzman (Nizkor Project volunteer) doesn't mind lying:
"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy." - Sara Salzman sig line
Message-ID: <schwartz-ya023180...@news.infinet.com>
(Archived locally as: SaraSplainsAll_1 and SaraSplainsAll_2)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Salzman is a "volunteer with the Nizkor Holocaust archives":
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-2305980759150001%40ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net&rnum=2
(Archived locally as: Sara Schwartz_Perrrfect_Salzman)
From: cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman)
Subject: Re: THE JEWISH BIBLE-JUSTIFIES SCREWING OVER NON-JEWS
Date: 1998/05/23
Message-ID: <catamont-230...@ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net>
In December of 1996, this same screed was posted in alt.revisionism. I
contacted a Talmudic scholar and asked him to respond to these lies. Here
is his response:
Sara,
Deja vu...
On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:48:19 -0500 schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
wrote:
>
>Dear Sir:
>
>I am a volunteer with the Nizkor Holocaust archives...
>
>Thank you and shalom,
>
>Sara Schwartz
>schw...@infinet.com
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit2001/audit2001-03.html
(Archived locally as: BBsmearsME)
2001 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents
ANTISEMITIC ACTIVITY ON THE INTERNET
Kenneth McVay, Director, The Nizkor Project
"....American anti-racist Sara Salzman of Aurora, Colorado... Salzman, a
volunteer for the Canadian-based Nizkor Project"... she has volunteered hundreds
— if not thousands — of hours of her time to produce reams of information for
the Nizkor Project... <END>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many people want to trust Sara Salzman's "reams of information for the
Nizkor Project" after she is on record as admitting: "I do not mind lying, but I
hate inaccuracy."?