Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Understanding the anus -- i.e. Attorney Sienkiewicz, that is

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Ed Conrad

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 8:17:33 AM8/1/03

Even a blind man -- hell, even a second-grader -- knows these
aren't rocks.

But not Attorney David Sienkiewicz nor 13,635,167 zombie
rats dancing to the tune of the Psuedoscientific Establishment
Pied Piper..

In Sienkiewicz' case, you can't recognize truth if you're handsomely
paid to ignore and make a mockery out of physical evidence,
to character assassinateg the discoverer, and to perpetuate the
uprighteousess (nonsense) of members of the Scientific Establishment.

As Clayton Lennon, that great philsopher (1900-1996, RIP),
would've said if he were here to say it and not pushing up daisies:

"You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
people all of the time but you sure as bloomin' heck can't pull wool
over Ed Conrad."

Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com

Man as Old as Coal
(all of the above specimens originated from between anthracite
veins)

Ed Conrad

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 8:21:14 AM8/1/03

I don't think this question is really as complicated as it sounds.

You see, Attorney David Sienkiewicz loves money. Hell,
he has even admitted on talk.origins that he's worth several
million dollars (although I don't know for sure whether he was
bragging or complaining).

In any event, Attorney Sienkiewicz LOVES money.

And, because of it, he has become a whore for money, sort
of like Judas Iscariot.

Money, Money, Money, Money, Money.

That's why, now in semi-retirement, Attorney Sienkiewicz
has latched on to a $uper-paying job as a hit man for the Scientirfic
Establishment. (Ain't that just great, your tax dollars are funding
his effort!.)
Anyway, his job nowadays is to spend 18 hours at his computer
attempting -- rather unsuccessfully, in my case -- defending factless,
facetious theories with a character assassination campaign
against me that has been without reproach against one person
in the entire history of the Internet, and doubtfully will ever be
topped.

Attorney Sienkiewicz is not acting like a moron, an imbecile,
a fool, an a--hole because of his desire for truth. I'm sure he
couldn't care less. ;You see, he damn well knows which $ide his bread
is buttered on.

It is a shame, really, that he keeps making an a--hole of himself --
with all his education -- but there is no question he has, and he
keeps doing it.

HIS CHARGES AGAINST ME ON EACH AND EVERY POINT
ARE TOTALLY UNFOUNDED.

Attorney Sienkiewicz has never examined any of the petrified boens,
teeth or soft organs -- some human -- discovered between anthraciote
veins. He has NOTHING to based his unfounded cjharges on.

He keeps screaming that the testing that was done was fraudulent
but this is sheer crap.

Poor Attorney Sienkiewicz' despicable campaign of character
assassination -- visting countless news groups to attack my
integrity -- is a sad, sad tale in this David vs. Goliath battle that
I assure you I am going to win.

You'd think at least one lawyer out there would post one message and
inform him that his actions are an insult to the legal profession.

Last but not least, I salute the person who wrote the header to
discuss Attorney David Sienkiewicz and the fool he has been making
out of himself. At least there's one person with some intestinal
fortitude.

Had he not pursed a legal career, I'm sure Attorney Sienkiewicz
could've made a pile of money elsewhere -- like in a traveling
carnival. He'd have been a hit of the show. Here's a picture to prove
it.

> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrifiedx/MVC-004S.JPG

Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com

Man as Old as Coal

and
Proof of Life After Death

DrPostman

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 2:01:07 PM8/1/03

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:17:33 GMT, edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad)
wrote:

>
>
>
>Even a blind man -- hell, even a second-grader -- knows these
>aren't rocks.

Are you admitting to being a blind second grader?

--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

David Sienkiewicz

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 6:47:03 PM8/1/03

edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message news:<3f2a5a01...@news.shenhgts.net>...

In fact, Ed, anyone with an ounce of sense - or an ounce of integrity
- can see that they ARE rocks.

It's interesting, Ed, that I challenged you yesterday and I continue
to challenge you to testing and you refuse to even acknowledge those
challenges.

After your pathetic little charade on eBay, I am convinced that you
are nothing more than a pathological liar.

> But not Attorney David Sienkiewicz nor 13,635,167 zombie
> rats dancing to the tune of the Psuedoscientific Establishment
> Pied Piper..

That reminds me, Ed, where's that evidence that I work for the
"Scientific Establishment?"

Did you ever contact the GAO about that?

(For those who don't remember, Ed was going to write the GAO and
demand an accounting of the money I am allegedly paid; but all
evidence indicates that this was just another Conrad bluff - if not an
outright lie.)

> In Sienkiewicz' case, you can't recognize truth if you're handsomely
> paid to ignore and make a mockery out of physical evidence,

You don't have any physical evidence, Ed, and you have yet to provide
any evidence that I am paid by anyone.

You made the whole thing up. That's intent, Ed. It means you're a
liar.

> to character assassinateg the discoverer,

No, to EXPOSE the FRAUD.

> and to perpetuate the
> uprighteousess (nonsense) of members of the Scientific Establishment.

What nonsense is that, Ed? That man is part of a reasonably
well-understood evolutionary process?

Care to debate that, Ed?

> As Clayton Lennon, that great philsopher (1900-1996, RIP),

Clayton Lennon was just an old man whom you happened to know, Ed. You
made up this "great philsopher" business.

> would've said if he were here to say it and not pushing up daisies:
>
> "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
> people all of the time but you sure as bloomin' heck can't pull wool
> over Ed Conrad."

I think it might be better said that it is Ed Conrad who is doing the
pulling of the wool, because Ed Conrad is a liar and a fraud.

< snip vested-interest web site advertising >

Hokey Wolf

unread,

Aug 1, 2003, 10:23:50 PM8/1/03

edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message news:<3f2a5a01...@news.shenhgts.net>...

> Even a blind man -- hell, even a second-grader -- knows these
> aren't rocks.

Even a blind man -- hell, even a second-grader -- knows you to be the
most simple dingbat on Usenet (at this particular moment)

> But not Attorney David Sienkiewicz nor 13,635,167 zombie
> rats dancing to the tune of the Psuedoscientific Establishment
> Pied Piper..

I assume you prefer they march off the cliff in your name, like good
little hypnotized lemmings?

> In Sienkiewicz' case, you can't recognize truth if you're handsomely
> paid to ignore and make a mockery out of physical evidence,
> to character assassinateg the discoverer, and to perpetuate the
> uprighteousess (nonsense) of members of the Scientific Establishment.

You make a mockery of yourself, but then we are always glad to jump in
and give you a hand.

> As Clayton Lennon, that great philsopher (1900-1996, RIP),
> would've said if he were here to say it and not pushing up daisies:

Clayton Lennon never dug up a rock and called it a bone.

> "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
> people all of the time but you sure as bloomin' heck can't pull wool
> over Ed Conrad."

Such obscene buffoonery doesn't merit the plethora of sarcasm I could
easily bring to bear against this.

> Ed Conrad
> > http://www.edconrad.com
>
> Man as Old as Coal
> (all of the above specimens originated from between anthracite
> veins)

Your ignorance is unforgivable. I mean, I have seen some truly
colossal demonstrations of ignorance before, but yours has reached
monumentally epic proportions.

Grand Inspector of the K00kfinder General
Skepticult Member 518-27581-876

"For Entertainment Purposes Only." - Disclaimer

"We're not laughing with you." - Skepticult Creed

"In my life, I have prayed only one prayer in asking
for divine favor: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.'
And God granted it." - Voltaire

"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in
vain." - The Postman Syndrome, Volume Fact

David Sienkiewicz

unread,

Aug 4, 2003, 5:21:05 AM8/4/03

edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message news:<3f2a5736...@news.shenhgts.net>...

> I don't think this question is really as complicated as it sounds.

Nothing is too complicated when all one has to do is make up a whole
lot of lies and hope that one of them "sticks," eh, Ed?

> You see, Attorney David Sienkiewicz loves money. Hell,
> he has even admitted on talk.origins that he's worth several
> million dollars (although I don't know for sure whether he was
> bragging or complaining).
>
> In any event, Attorney Sienkiewicz LOVES money.
>
> And, because of it, he has become a whore for money, sort
> of like Judas Iscariot.
>
> Money, Money, Money, Money, Money.

What was that about "ridicule is the argument of the mob," Ed?

> That's why, now in semi-retirement, Attorney Sienkiewicz
> has latched on to a $uper-paying job as a hit man for the Scientirfic
> Establishment. (Ain't that just great, your tax dollars are funding
> his effort!.)

Okay, we have two assertions here.

One is that I am working for the "Scientific Establishment," whatever
THAT is.

The other is that I am paid with tax dollars.

We HAVE seen these claims before, Ed, but they are more than just
claims, really. They are ASSERTIONS. You pointedly make them as if
they are facts.

You certainly want people to believe them.

But you have made these assertions before, Ed, and each time you have
been asked to provide evidence.

When THAT happens, you skedaddle like the vermin you are, tail between
your legs.

And why do you do that, Ed Conrad?

It's because you're a liar, Ed. You made it up. You hope that, at
worst, most will simply blow it off as part of your delusion; but your
actions show intent to deceive.

When you make things up and pass them off as facts with intent to
deceive, Ed, that's lying.

Didn't your mother ever teach you that?

> Anyway, his job nowadays is to spend 18 hours at his computer
> attempting -- rather unsuccessfully, in my case -- defending factless,
> facetious theories with a character assassination campaign
> against me that has been without reproach against one person
> in the entire history of the Internet, and doubtfully will ever be
> topped.

That's quite a claim, Ed. But do you really think anyone buys you as
a martyr?

You're a con man, Ed, and a liar.

> Attorney Sienkiewicz is not acting like a moron, an imbecile,
> a fool, an a--hole because of his desire for truth. I'm sure he
> couldn't care less. ;You see, he damn well knows which $ide his bread
> is buttered on.

In fact, Ed, it's truth that is my most direct concern.

> It is a shame, really, that he keeps making an a--hole of himself --
> with all his education -- but there is no question he has, and he
> keeps doing it.
>
> HIS CHARGES AGAINST ME ON EACH AND EVERY POINT
> ARE TOTALLY UNFOUNDED.

Oh, no. They are all TRUE.

Completely founded on fact and evidence.

> Attorney Sienkiewicz has never examined any of the petrified boens,
> teeth or soft organs -- some human -- discovered between anthraciote
> veins.

Nor would you permit it when asked; and you completely ignored my more
specific challenges in which I even offered to split the costs of
expert testing THAT WOULD BE RECORDED AND CERTIFIED.

> He has NOTHING to based his unfounded cjharges on.

Oh, but I do.

I have the recorded results of qualified examination of your
"evidence." I have the testimonies of those who know you and knew
Krogman. I have your own admission that you have lied about some
things. I have your own photographic copies of letters that you claim
to have received as well as those that you have displayed that were
likely not intended for you. I also have your evasions, your
ignorance and your hypocrisy. I have more indications of intent to
deceive by you.

I have more than enough to get you convincted in any court of law, Ed
Conrad.

> He keeps screaming that the testing that was done was fraudulent
> but this is sheer crap.

Oh, I'm sure the testing was quite legitimate - on a kidney stone.

But the "results" that you have been showing us were NOT tests done on
your rocks.

And you KNOW that.

> Poor Attorney Sienkiewicz' despicable campaign of character
> assassination -- visting countless news groups to attack my
> integrity

You have no integrity, Ed, and the visiting of other groups is to help
expose your spam and your lies.

> -- is a sad, sad tale in this David vs. Goliath battle that
> I assure you I am going to win.

Ah, that would explain why we see your backside so much.

> You'd think at least one lawyer out there would post one message and
> inform him that his actions are an insult to the legal profession.

Why would you think that, Ed?

> Last but not least, I salute the person who wrote the header to
> discuss Attorney David Sienkiewicz and the fool he has been making
> out of himself. At least there's one person with some intestinal
> fortitude.

I seem to have missed that one, Ed. Who was that?

The closest thing to which you might refer were Sharon's rantings; and
that could hardly be called an impeccable and unimpeachable source;
but it does show how desparate you have become.

> Had he not pursed a legal career, I'm sure Attorney Sienkiewicz
> could've made a pile of money elsewhere -- like in a traveling
> carnival.

Yes, but then I'd have been competition for you, Ed, eh, Ed?

> He'd have been a hit of the show. Here's a picture to prove
> it.
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrifiedx/MVC-004S.JPG

What's comical about this is that it was first used as an indicator of
YOU, Ed, and not by me.

It's an amusing photo to be sure; but...what was that about "ridicule"
and the "argument of the mob," Ed?

< snip vested interest web site advertising >

So tell me, Ed, whatever happened to that boulder that YOU say has a
skull embedded in it?

The letter YOU posted in these groups says that it was just clay, that
the clay was washed off in front of you, and you were satisfied at the
time that there was no bone.

So why are you claiming there's bone? Why can't we see a RECENT photo
of that bone?

WPC

unread,

Aug 5, 2003, 5:11:54 AM8/5/03

I am at a loss to see what possible relevance this thread has to a pathology
newgroup.

0 new messages