Jack: I suggest that Colby, Burton, and Lamson be hung by their thumbs...all day

[Len Colby]

Acj, years ago, had some good debates. Now, it is one of the most vile newsgroups I've ever seen...The only thing exposed over there is who has the more vulgar mouth, and all that does it make the poster look bad.

Sounds even worse than the DPF, however unlike the latter it sounds like it allows opposing viewpoints.

[David G. Healy]

Acj, years ago, had some good debates. Now, it is one of the most vile newsgroups I've ever seen...The only thing exposed over there is who has the more vulgar mouth, and all that does it make the poster look bad.

Sounds even worse than the DPF, however unlike the latter it sounds like it allows opposing viewpoints.

at acj it's a known fact CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why xxxxx cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple! Evidently, Ms. Becket seems is under the sophomoric impression that vulgar mouths, tough attitudes have no place in today's society? Yet trashing lone nutter-xxxxx, disinformation deweebs is beyond the pale? Hang tough at Lancer, girl....

btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-xxxxx idea?

Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?

Edited October 14, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Guest]

Acj, years ago, had some good debates. Now, it is one of the most vile newsgroups I've ever seen...The only thing exposed over there is who has the more vulgar mouth, and all that does it make the poster look bad.

Sounds even worse than the DPF, however unlike the latter it sounds like it allows opposing viewpoints.

at acj it's a known fact CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why xxxxx cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple! Evidently, Ms. Becket seems is under the sophomoric impression that vulgar mouths, tough attitudes have no place in today's society? Yet trashing lone nutter-xxxxx, disinformation deweebs is beyond the pale? Hang tough at Lancer, girl....

btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-xxxxx idea?

Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?

Could I have a translation please??

[Guest]

Acj, years ago, had some good debates. Now, it is one of the most vile newsgroups I've ever seen...The only thing exposed over there is who has the more vulgar mouth, and all that does it make the poster look bad.

Sounds even worse than the DPF, however unlike the latter it sounds like it allows opposing viewpoints.

at acj it's a known fact CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why xxxxx cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple! Evidently, Ms. Becket seems is under the sophomoric impression that vulgar mouths, tough attitudes have no place in today's society? Yet trashing lone nutter-xxxxx, disinformation deweebs is beyond the pale? Hang tough at Lancer, girl....

btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-xxxxx idea?

Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?

Could I have a translation please??

at acj it's a known fact CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why xxxxx cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple!

Translation: Mr. Healy asserts that it seems to be the case ("it's a known fact") that certain persons who believe in conspiracies (CTs, conspiracy theorists) routinely win arguments with people whom Mr. Healy doesn't like ("lone nut-trolls") at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup website (acj). And further, that this is the reason people Mr. Healy doesn't like ("xxxxx cowards") stay away from that newsgroup, adding that they don't know the evidence (of conspiracy) and can't debate that evidence. He emphasizes that this is obvious to anyone ("pure and simple!").

Evidently, Ms. Becket seems is under the sophomoric impression that vulgar mouths, tough attitudes have no place in today's society? Yet trashing lone nutter-xxxxx, disinformation deweebs is beyond the pale? Hang tough at Lancer, girl....

Translation: Mr. Healy questions why Ms. Becket(t) thinks it is inappropriate to have vulgarity and bad manners in public discussions wherein people whom Mr. Healy doesn't like ("lone nutter-xxxxx, disinformation deweebs") are "given hell" or "trashed." (And/or why she would think vulgarity and bad manners are inappropriate in society in general?) Mr. Healy seems to take this as a naive attitude on Ms. Becket(t)'s part, and suggests that she is more comfortable in the presumably more genteel atmosphere of the JFKLancer Forum.

btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-xxxxx idea?

Translation: Mr. Healy asks parenthetically why someone would think the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup site is a place for debate. Apparently this is a misunderstanding of what that site is for; and apparently Ms. Becket(t) is a foolish, naive, nutter-xxxxx herself for thinking it was.

Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?

Translation: It seems Mr. Healy either has information that Ms. Becket(t) applied for and was turned down for membership at the Deep Political Farum, or that he is making an assumption that this occurred. He feels that this is a cause of consternation and envy for Ms. Becket(t) ("your bean out of joint"), and suggests that she is now afraid not being able to be a member there means either that she will not be able to rub elbows with the finest top researchers on earth, or alternatively that she will not be able to practice her intelligence agency tradecraft (presumably in spreading "lone-nutter" disinformation?). Mr. Healy then enigmatically asks what a man who's been dead for some time would say about this situation; presumably this is some obscure allusion to the comedian Redd Foxx as having a foul mouth?

This post has been edited by David G. Healy: Today, 08:47 AM

Translation: It seems that Mr. Healy had some reason to edit his post.

Glossary item: lone nut-trolls/lone nutter-trolls/etc = people who don't agree with all conspiracy beliefs held by David Healy, or alternatively just people he doesn't like

Thank you that was most thorough and most helpful especially for those, like me (and I fear you), who are not citizens of the planet Dippy (aka 'lone nutter trolls').

It is now my intention to try and slip the rhythmical phrase 'lone nutter xxxxx disinfo deweeb' more into everyday conversation.

[Len Colby]

Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?

Translation: It seems Mr. Healy either has information that Ms. Becket(t) applied for and was turned down for membership at the Deep Political Farum, or that he is making an assumption that this occurred. He feels that this is a cause of consternation and envy for Ms. Becket(t) ("your bean out of joint"), and suggests that she is now afraid not being able to be a member there means either that she will not be able to rub elbows with the finest top researchers on earth, or alternatively that she will not be able to practice her intelligence agency tradecraft (presumably in spreading "lone-nutter" disinformation?). Mr. Healy then enigmatically asks what a man who's been dead for some time would say about this situation; presumably this is some obscure allusion to the comedian Redd Foxx as having a foul mouth?

Good translation except I think this part was addressed to me. He keeps bringing up Redd Foxx because I caught him plagiarizing the comic here. He'd would have you believe they played poker together (or something like that)

[Evan Burton]

Boy, am I glad I've been on holiday whilst this has been going on. Here is my 2c worth (and that is what it is worth):

- Jack has made many mistakes in various Apollo / 9-11 studies. These have been pointed out to him by many people - including people who have no association with this board.

- Jack has a track record of not addressing the Apollo / 9-11 rebuttals but instead either ignoring them (and repeating his original claims) or claiming the people making the rebuttals are somehow participating in some type of an organised campaign against him / his claims.

- Jack has a track record of claiming those who vigorously rebut his Apollo / 9-11 claims are acting on the behest of governments or secret agencies.

- I'd like to point out I make no claims - and indeed have stated I am but a layman and have shown little, if any interest - in the area of JFK, in which Jack is considered to be an expert by many people.

- The DPF have banned my IP, even though I have not even tried to become a member there. In my opinion, this speaks volumes about the controlling group's idea regarding openness.

- I believe in letting everyone present their own opinions and evidence for their opinions, and allowing others to attack the said opinions (i.e. the opinion, not the person). The resulting debate allows others to determine the veracity of the statements made by the various posters.

- If I make opinions / statements with which other members disagree with, I expect to be taken to task over them and asked to defend them to the best of my ability. To be asked to do so is not an attack on me, but rather an expected trial by which all ideas should be subjected.

- Play the ball, not the person. When the person refuses to defend their posted opinions, however, they should expect that the lack of defence reflects poorly on the poster and their willingness / ability to defend their stated argument. Comment on that unwillingness - in moderation and restraint - should not be considered to be a personal attack.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Daniel, I'd like to help out in this fascinating enterprise, but I'm afraid that I'm on rota today for a bit of the old Grannie killing. And later I'm helping HRH deliever some crytal meth to the local orpanarium.

[Craig Lamson]

Daniel, I'd like to help out in this fascinating enterprise, but I'm afraid that I'm on rota today for a bit of the old Grannie killing. And later I'm helping HRH deliever some crytal meth to the local orpanarium.

Whats the dead granny count at your hospital this month? Meeting the quota from the NHS?

[David G. Healy]

Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?

Translation: It seems Mr. Healy either has information that Ms. Becket(t) applied for and was turned down for membership at the Deep Political Farum, or that he is making an assumption that this occurred. He feels that this is a cause of consternation and envy for Ms. Becket(t) ("your bean out of joint"), and suggests that she is now afraid not being able to be a member there means either that she will not be able to rub elbows with the finest top researchers on earth, or alternatively that she will not be able to practice her intelligence agency tradecraft (presumably in spreading "lone-nutter" disinformation?). Mr. Healy then enigmatically asks what a man who's been dead for some time would say about this situation; presumably this is some obscure allusion to the comedian Redd Foxx as having a foul mouth?

Good translation except I think this part was addressed to me. He keeps bringing up Redd Foxx because I caught him plagiarizing the comic here. He'd would have you believe they played poker together (or something like that)

plagarizing? Redd Foxx? You silly man you, you certainly don't know him or his material as well as you think you do.... and of course that part was for you! What on earth makes you think Ms. Becket is going to waste much of my time (she isn't Wild Bill Millah, ya know - or is she?), you too for that matter?

BTW, NO my Redd Foxx autographs are NOT for sale. See if I impart any more of Redd's poker table witticism to you in the future.

You 'still' shaken from Roland Zavada putting you in your place (concerning an issue on this forum) a few years back? So, how are your thumbs, son? Granted, I felt 'slightly' embarrassed for you, I got over it in 10 seconds though, but thanks for asking.....

and NO Mr. Dunn I'm not a Vegas dealer, spent many, many years there.... and a mighty partake of it's fruits, if you will!... No blushing Ms. Becket(t)!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Yes Craig, its all going according to plan. Soon I will be the only one left AHHA HAA HAA.

[Cigdem Göle]

Yes Craig, its all going according to plan. Soon I will be the only one left AHHA HAA HAA.

Now that you have become a grandpa yourself, someone will take care of you too, won't they?

[Craig Lamson]

Yes Craig, its all going according to plan. Soon I will be the only one left AHHA HAA HAA.

Thanks so much for posting my quote as it illustrates the depth of the denial of the NHS supprters. None of you can refute my statement and that speaks volumes.

[Guest]

Yes Craig, its all going according to plan. Soon I will be the only one left AHHA HAA HAA.

Thanks so much for posting my quote as it illustrates the depth of the denial of the NHS supprters. None of you can refute my statement and that speaks volumes.

Its not 'denial' Craig. You have made unsustained and unsustainable allegations about the NHS and others are laughing at you.

[Craig Lamson]

Yes Craig, its all going according to plan. Soon I will be the only one left AHHA HAA HAA.

Thanks so much for posting my quote as it illustrates the depth of the denial of the NHS supprters. None of you can refute my statement and that speaks volumes.

Its not 'denial' Craig. You have made unsustained and unsustainable allegations about the NHS and others are laughing at you.

Sure its DENIAL Andy, simply because you can't rebut these simple facts:

Lets review:

NHS drs are agents of the British Government,

Of course it is completely true, since dr's except some GP's are employees of the British government, and thus AGENTS of the British Governemt.

groups of these agents get together and decide when a Patient/Subject will die,

Again a completely true statement as outlined by the Liverpool Care pathway. A medical team (a group of govenment agents) gets together and reviews a patients records and DECIDES if the patient will live or die, by either continuing or withdrawing treatment

in the name of the British Government"

Again completely true. As agents of the British government their action are taken in the name of the governemt.

So Andy, why not put your DENIAL away for a moment and tell us all exactly what is "unsustained and unsustainable" in the above?

[Guest]

So Andy, why not put your DENIAL away for a moment and tell us all exactly what is "unsustained and unsustainable" in the above?

As I hope you are intelligent to grasp it is wild conjecture and speculation you are offering us without a smidgeon of evidence to back it up. You are doing it to sustain an extreme right free market position and it is so transparent as to be highly amusing. This is why people here are taking the p**s out of you .