Glenn Nall

Actually, Jim, I really appreciate this pithy summary of the Harvey & Lee theory. Nevertheless, these ten arguments are insufficient to convince me that the Harvey & Lee theory has a firm grasp on reality, because most of these ten can easily be viewed as simple cases of mistaken identity. Nobody here doubts that the FBI obsessively stomped on any data that might suggest anything other than a "Lone Nut" in the JFK assassination. However, it is more likely that the FBI decided on the "Lone Nut" obsession on 11/22/1963 in the interest of National Security (as they said), than that they planned every detail of the JFK murder and Coverup so many months ahead of time. Regards, --Paul Trejo I'm sure, Paul, that reading and understanding was a task you mastered more than a few years ago. I asked for some "points." I didn't ask for definitive, convincing proof. They responded with points, and in no way attempted to prove a thing. So maybe you've once again put the cart before the horse. As well, i'm certain that these two particular fellows are not sitting around wondering how they can convince Paul Trejo of anything. i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up. everyone did their job.

Those of us who are old enough to remember those dark and incomprehensible days of November 1963 have never thought of this subject as merely a crime. Something profound changed in our country as a consequence of JFK's murder---and that something has never been made right. Subsequent developments including the murders of RFK and MLK only deepened our depression and the sense that we had lost our way as a nation. Then the Vietnam War, the racial riots, Watergate, and the resignation of Nixon made it impossible to believe that we could ever believe in ourselves and our future potential again. Given this background, it comes as no surprise that 52 years later we still want to find some indisputable answer and some unmistakable villain(s) who were clearly responsible for taking our innocence from us. And I am absolutely certain that on the 100-year anniversary of JFK's murder, a new generation will still be arguing about whom was responsible. Mr Lazar, i like the first two paragraphs so much that i would ask your permission to quote them, for the most part, on another website i'm beginning. with proper credit, of course. well said. well focused. on another website i'm beginning. What's that about? I'm a professional, contractual web developer and programmer. I haven't wanted to work all that much for a while, and so I've been puttering about with two or three of my own projects, one (my most energetic by far, of course) being a "JFK" site mainly catering to the uninformed by way of 1) the more pertinent, tangible and understandable data, and 2) more logically organized data. i'm about to go lay up in the VA hospital for a considerable length of time, and I very fully look forward to getting a lot done and getting on some of your nerves. a lot. just kidding. mostly.

Well, Kenneth, this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, provides a focus on the American right wing in the murder of JFK -- and in 1963 that featured the Confederate Flag. Granted, there have been few who have proposed that JFK was killed first and foremost over Civil Rights. Yet Medgar Evers was slaughtered in his own driveway in Mississippi on the very night that JFK made his 11 June 1963 speech on Civil Rights. (Medgar Evers was the NAACP officer who helped James Meredith become the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University in 1962). Yet I suspect that Dr. Caufield will name the members of the "Old South" conspiracy who killed JFK, including the resigned General Walker, along with Guy Banister and the White Citizens' Councils of Texas and Louisiana. Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks Paul, I'm one of those old guys from the old south, being originally from Georgia. I certainly have no specific knowledge of who did or did not kill JFK, but I'm gonna suggest that if there were an 'old southerner' that might have been more responsible than any other, it likely was LBJ. But, that's just a guess Interestingly, the man who created Cointelpro i'm pretty sure was not from the South and waved no rebel flag, yet created an counter insurgency intel program to stifle, first and foremost, the Civil Rights movement. Oh, and he was in a most advantageous position to assist in a presidential assassination. Oh, and he had one of the most convincing motives as any one man can have. Oh, and his best bud singularly owned, next to the loss of life, the world's two most motivating motives, the loss of career and the loss of freedom. I'm not debating, i'm just saying. The fear of and the animosity toward the Civil Rights movement was fairly pervasive - it was probably just well costumed.

1 - can someonedescribe THE one, or maybe two, most powerful item(s) that support(s) thistheory? Like proving Oswald a Patsy, it’s the aggregation of these small conflicts which proves the point. Some thoughts though: John Pic picking Lee from Harvey in every photo Lee in Japan while Harvey is in Ping Tung The FBI ignoring everyone who interacted with Lee and only gathering info from Harvey witnesses Gorsky claiming Lee left the Marines in March 1959, not September The boy with a NORTHERN accent sitting next to negroes in New Orleans and Texas and not knowing any better (the same boy the FBI’shousekeeper Robertson claims called her a n###er) Anna Lewis claiming more than once to see Lee in New Orleans in Feb 1962 with JVB in the room and not correcting her. One man is 5’11”, the other barely 5’9”. Not a single one of Lee’s letters when in the Marines to his mother is in evidence even though she claims he wrote once or twice a week from theMarines. Marg could not produce a singleone for the WC… (hint for Parker… thisis where 3830 W. 6th comes into play) Red Cross records inFort Worth show that (the tall, nice looking) Marguerite Oswald wasinterviewed at their office on November 18, 1957: "She (Marguerite Oswald)stated that the serviceman (Lee Oswald) has always been good about writing to them,writing at least once a week, and often twice. However they last heard October10." Two days later Red Cross records show that Marguerite Oswald telephoned theiroffices and advised, "She received two letters from the serviceman today." So you see Glenn, taken alone it is difficult to say that there is one or two things, there are hundreds which add up, like Oswald's innocence of the crimes. and 2 - in as much of anutshell as possible: in a given that that there are 2 Oswalds and 2 Marg.s, in what direction would this likely take the investigative focus? more toward theCIA? more away from the Secret Service (of course...)? how about the anti-Castros?what about the Russians (pre-war and post-war)? this would obviously put the Mafia into a much lesser 'role'... the theory couldexplain a lot of curiosities. and it proposes an enormous amount of - issues -with our US Government. it's very interesting. There is nothing much to do but speculate on that answer Glenn… there can’t be a right or wrong answer . The investigation did in fact come acrossquite a bit related to two Oswalds… Hoover himself even says that it was notOswald in Mexico based on the evidence but someone impersonating him, a “second man down there”. Yet he did not dismiss Oswald from being there. (I think fromthe available evidence that Hoover knew Oswald was at Odio’s and not in Mexico) Even in the face of conflicting evidence as to his location,the FBI et al simply did not acknowledge the possibility that these impersonations were something more nefarious… or they KNEW it was more and madesure not to stir the pot. The investigation would always find Oswald guilty and alone,regardless. Even in the face of painfully obvious evidence to the contrary. The Evidence IS the Conspiracy, not an explanation of whathappened and will always be. I do not think there is anything left which could accurately describe what happenedother than the witnesses who were there. The very thing counted upon to make “proof” impossible and doubt run rampant. Thanks, DJ - I'm just getting round to getting some Forum time in, and i appreciate yours and Jim's and Steven's replies. This is some of the more interesting study - whether I end up buying into it or not. A lot more interesting than reading WC liner notes.

and this is what someone ignoring someone else looks like. which i'm enjoying.

IMO, as it has progressed through study and experience, there's very little I would put past the US Government.

This is so absolutely fascinating in its possibility... I look forward to delving into this in depth. I feel i can give you guys the benefit of the doubt and assume that ya'll have decided that most of these are things are not easily explained by a simple imposter or "other person" incognito. As well, as far as #10 goes, the bit of information that eludes me is what is it that's portending that this "Harvey at Youth House" is the same LHO in NO and Dallas and is not just some other "Harvey Oswald," AND is claiming that the "Lee Oswald" in NYC is the same? The testimonies that i read about the two persons in the Theater are very convincing; it was my understanding that there's this Billy Seymour cat who was presented to appear to be LHO and then was in some way disposed of... I admit that the Seymour story has no more legitimacy than the "Story of the 2 O's". this thought is admittedly much more interesting. my interests in the cracking of this case lie in other areas, but one of the great things about researching something of this size is, obviously, the not knowing of what lies just around the corner. The Two O's, as it's perused, could go any which ol' way. yay.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Louis%20Stokes%22&src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A633984981552005120

following some brief peeks at some of the supporting evidence, I'm beginning to take an interest in this theory - just an "openness," mind you... I plan on looking through this long thread and I hope to at least discover something convincing of either its legitimacy or of ya'lls lunacy. preferably the former... 2 quick questions, with hopefully quick answers: 1 - can someone describe THE one, or maybe two, most powerful item(s) that support(s) this theory? and 2 - in as much of a nutshell as possible: in a given that that there are 2 Oswalds and 2 Marg.s, in what direction would this likely take the investigative focus? more toward the CIA? more away from the Secret Service (of course...)? how about the anti-Castros? what about the Russians (pre-war and post-war)? this would obviously put the Mafia into a much lesser 'role'... the theory could explain a lot of curiosities. and it proposes an enormous amount of - issues - with our US Government. it's very interesting.

right - Jon, the limit of the number of cards, and therefore the scope of the proposition, was established immediately by the introduction, "Four cards are laid out as below" - i'm not sure what the reason would be to assume that that statement was just fodder, without point...? It's the same as "given these four cards" would introduce a test... "this is the test: four cards..." - "you will be asked to decide whether, within these four cards,..." - "Consider these four cards..." "You will travel to a universe far, far away - a land where nothing exists, a land where Rod Serling plays a short version of solitaire - a Land of Four, and Only Four, Cards..." you are about to enter... ok i got carried away. I'm back...

Dear John, We can reasonably assume that the question applied to only the four cards mentioned in the exercise itself. How could / would he have worded the exercise if he'd wanted us to consider all possible cards in the universe that had a rational number on one side and an upper-case letter from the Modern English alphabet on the other? Does the fact that he didn't do this suggest that he wanted us to infer that that was what he had intended? "Which of the infinite number of cards in the universe would you have to turn over...." LOL Or then again, we can unreasonably quibble, split hairs, and apply "if, then" "then, if" logic like so many of us do in our JFK assassination "research" and "analysis." A perfect microcosm (or is it macrocosm?). Solution for an infinite number of cards: Turn over all of the cards showing a vowel, and turn over all of the cards showing an odd number. If any of the former have an odd number on the other side, or if any of the latter have a vowel on the other side, then God is either messing with you or has made an honest mistake. --Tommy edited and bumped Solution for an infinite number of cards (OR the four-cards corollary): Turn over all of the cards showing a vowel, and turn over all of the cards showing an odd number. If any of the former have an odd number on the other side, or if any of the latter have a vowel on the other side, then God is either messing with you or has made an honest mistake. For an infinite number of cards, the options change. the falseness of the antecedent can be proved, but its accuracy can never be. This is why the solution is stated to be the "least" number of turns that need to be made in order to prove true or false. with an infinite number of cards, as soon as a vowel is turned with no even #, or as soon as an even # is turned with no vowel, falseness occurs. and to the contrary, the trueness of the problem can never be proved.

and guys (and ladies) i couldn't be more grateful for the participation - all of it. utterly dynamic when i expected so much less. huge thanks, there's so much to learn about learning (which is what we're doing, investigating a crime, right?).

right. this is i think the crux of the exercise, the practice of entering into a thing (a religion, a date, a murder investigation, a clue in the investigation) with no presupposition - and the awareness of the human tendency to do so... I am ABSOLUTELY amazed at all that i've learned in what i thought was going to be a brief and boring and easily guessed little ol' test. i've always been fascinated with the human mind, and in a very Nonjudgmental way I've seen INTO the many ways different people can see the same thing. I have had to send my 'main squeeze' - my dutiful and loyal laptop - to the shop for a week and I'm stuck with this sadistic PC with its merciless keyboard; it's like spreading ice cold butter on fresh bread trying to type a sentence with this damn thing. when i can get in front of a keyboard that was manufactured in the twentieth century I look forward to adding my comments - in keeping with the JFK theme and our different approaches to a single piece of evidence. I'd encourage everyone, whether they contributed to the test or not, to read through the discourse and observe all that can be observed. it's pretty illuminating in how problems get solved, individually, as groups (the DPD, the HSCA, etc); and how they don't get solved. wow. too much fun. i had no idea...

Please explain how this is wrong. The proposition is "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side." If you turn the K over and it has a vowel on the other side, then this card has a vowel on one side and something other than an even number on the other side (a K). The proposition would be proved false. Edit: I see that Glenn corrected himself in a later post. It does change the answer if you stipulate that the cards must have a letter on one side and a number on the other. yes, i did. thanks,

http://changingminds.org/explanations/decision/conditional_reasoning.htm If...then... Conditional reasoning is based on an 'if A then B' construct that posits B to be true if A is true. Note that this leaves open the question of what happens when A is false, which means that in this case, B can logically be either true or false. Conditional traps A couple of definitions: In the statement 'If A then B', A is the antecedent and B is the consequent. You can affirm or deny either the antecedent or consequent, which may lead to error. Denying the consequent Denying the consequent means going backwards, saying 'If B is false, then A must also be false.' Thus if you say 'If it is raining, I will get wet', then the trap is to assume that if I am not getting wet then it is not raining. Denying the antecedent Denying the antecedent is making assumptions about what will happen if A is false. Thus if you say 'If it is raining, I will get wet' and is not raining, I might assume that I will not get wet. But then I could fall in the lake. Affirming the consequent This is making assumptions about A if B is shown to be true. Thus if I make the statement 'If it is raining, I will get wet', then if I am getting wet it does not mean that it is raining. The card trap A classic trap was used by Wason and Johnson-Laird (1972) to show how Four cards are laid out as below: E K 4 7 The conditional statement is now given: 'If a card has one vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' The question is to decide which are the minimum cards that need to be turned over to prove that the conditional statement is true. More than half of people questioned said E and 4. To affirm the antecedent, E is correct. E is a vowel and thus should have an even number on the other side. If there was an odd number on the other side, the statement would be false, so E must be turned over to check for this. But choosing 4 is affirming the consequent. Even though 4 is even, it can have a vowel or consonant on the other side and the statement is not falsified. Only 4% said E and 7. The 7 could deny the consequent and hence must be checked. If there was a vowel on the other side, the statement would be false. So what? Be careful about if-then statements, both in your own use and in those that others use. It does, of course also mean that you can make statements that are logically false and few people will challenge you. ///// https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task Wason Selection Task Each card has a number on one side, and a patch of color on the other. Which card(s) must be turned over to test the idea that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red? The Wason selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by Peter Cathcart Wason in 1966.[1][2][3] It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning.[4] An example of the puzzle is: You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red? A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants). The importance of the experiment is not in justifying one answer of the ambiguous problem, but in demonstrating the inconsistency of applying the logical rules by the people when the problem is set in two different contexts but with very similar connection between the facts.

The "K" could have a vowel on the other side. No it can't. Vowels have even numbers on the back side, not other letters. this is one of the errors that some people are making, and the point of the exercise: Vowels have even numbers on the back side, not other letters. the condition is simply this: if it's a vowel, then the other side is an even number. and nothing else. there is nothing that states, or implies, that: consonants cannot have an even number, or another consonant, or an odd number, or a naked - goat - on the other side. there is nothing that states, or implies, that: a person cannot turn over any card unless it shows X or until the "if" is satisfied. turning E over does one of two things: it proves the statement TRUE - SO FAR - if the other side is an EVEN #, --- OR --- it proves it false right away if there is NOT an EVEN number there. the mission is to prove the statement true or false with the least amount of turns with the given set of cards. so if you turn E and there's a 2, -> so far, the statement is true. if you turn K, then you have to ask yourself what is proven under the ensuing situation. if there's a 3, then what? if there's a 4, then what? if there's a Z, then what? if there's a nude goat, then what? so is it necessary to turn K? and so on and so forth... the condition is simply this: if it's a vowel, then the other side is an even number. and nothing else. Ok.there is nothing that states, or implies, that: Yes there is: the very first condition is If it's a vowel it has an even number on the back side. Remember this sentence from post 1: The condition is now established (true): 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' There is a colon after 'nothing that state or imiles that:' meaning that what follows is the object of the sentence. The sentence doesn't end with 'that:'. There's nothing that states that consonants cannot have ... There's nothing that states that a person cannot turn over... The condition, WHICH IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVED TRUE OR FALSE, is now established that... Did you forget about the challenge part of this?

I'm flat tired of defending myself to you, Ken. I was trying to have a little intellectual fun and stimulate some thinking, and you've taken all the fun out of this.And that's the way I've taken it. I have not intended to get you all bent out of shape just because of a game. I have tried to take it all as fun. I will be interested to see the 'official' answer because obviously i'm not gonna agree with it. Apparently IF and THEN, means something different to me than to the puzzle writer. I believe that it is likely that the problem is going to be that the meaning of IS is something orther than IS. Again ... you'll note that no one else had problems with the wording or design of the test. Only you. The other questions were legitimate concerns of clarity. Yours, not so much. You never once wondered who got it right, or how they did. You've failed to reply to my questions. Your test does not remotely resemble this exercise in logic (yours is a test of reading and comprehension). Start your own thread. I'll answer it later, but to answer it now would be to allow you to change direction from the solution to this - these - problems.

in fact, i think that it IS the case that each card contains both letter and number - in another version of this it so states. but this would not effect (affect?) the answer. if you turn over K, you learn the same thing regardless what's on the other side - even or odd, letter or number, it neither proves nor disproves the postulate. It most certainly matters if you state beforehand that each card must have a letter on one side and a number on the other. If that is not a given, then you have to turn over the K because it might have a vowel on the other side. If that is a given then you only have to turn over the E and the 7. Also, some people are making the mistake of thinking that the puzzle makes a distinction between the top side and the bottom side. The postulate is "if a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side", it doesn't say "if a card has a vowel on the top side, then it has an even number on the bottom side". So you can't just check the card that has a vowel on the top. You know what, you're right. I'm going to post the test in its entirety along with the links to it and it's other brother further... They are both the same test, with a variation, and I may have been mistaken in saying that it doesn't matter. Either way, THIS ONE does NOT say that one side has to be a letter and one side a number. It's posted in its original form, and I think I told someone else that I may have been mistaken in saying that that's not a safe assumption, but it turns out that you are right. That's not a safe assumption. Good catch. No harm with this test, tho. It stands fine as its presented.

The other side of the K card could be a vowel. There's nothing in Glenn's problem statement that excludes this possibility. If there is a vowel on the other side of the K card, then the proposition is proved false. You cannot discard the K card. If there is a vowel on the other side of the K card, then the proposition is proved false. If there is a vowel on the reverse side you wouldn't know it because you have not seen it since you can't turn over a card that does not fit the first qualifier, If a vowel......then I asked once before - now again. WHERE DO YOU GET THIS IDEA? That is NOT how if, then works. IF you would open your mind to the possibility of being incorrect, THEN you might learn something. IF I bang my knee - knowing that there's a statement following, this means WHEN I bang my knee, whenever I bang my knee, at any point in time that I bang my knee - (that is the condition; UNDER THE CONDITION being that I bang my knee), THEN I will scream. at that time I will scream - the RESPONSE to the stimulus of me having banged my knee is my scream. It is not open to debate, there's no maybe I will scream, it does not imply that a scream, or a whimper, is a possibility. It is stated as an absolute that IF I bang my knee THEN I will scream. according to this fundamental precept, it also goes that I will always scream if I bang my knee. And if the rule is that there is an even number on the reverse (the word side is implied. In the English language, many words in a sentence are left to implication, or they are 'understood') of a vowel, then, YES, there will ALWAYS be an even number opposite a lvowel.

The other side of the K card could be a vowel. RIGHT. There's nothing in Glenn's problem statement that excludes this possibility. RIGHT. If there is a vowel on the other side of the K card, then the proposition is proved false. WRONG. You cannot discard the K card.

You have not understand what if, then means, if you said earlier, if or then. That's not how it works. I'm flat tired of defending myself to you, Ken. I was trying to have a little intellectual fun and stimulate some thinking, and you've taken all the fun out of this. The irony is that NO ONE else has had any cognitive problems with the wording, or the conditions, or anything. Only you. TWO people have got the right answer already, Mark is as close as he can be, John's reasoning is perfect, Jon's almost there, others have bounced all around the answer - NONE OF THEM seem to have been confused about very much and decided to blame the test. I'm gonna go address your insinuations and assertions, then I'm going to post the answer to the tests.

John, have you ever seen this (Torbitt File - I'm sure you have): http://www.whale.to/b/torbitt.html (very long, but very interesting) "The principal financiers of Permindex were a number of U.S. oil companies, H. L. Hunt of Dallas, Clint Murchison of Dallas, John DeMenil, Solidarist director of Houston, John Connally as executor of the Sid Richardson estate, Haliburton Oil Co., Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma, Troy Post of Dallas, Lloyd Cobb of New Orleans, Dr. Oschner* of New Orleans, George and Herman Brown of Brown and Root, Houston, Attorney Roy M. Cohn, Chairman of the Board for Lionel Corporation, New York City, Schenley Industries of New York City, Walter Dohrnberger, ex-Nazi General and his company, Bell Aerospace, Pan American World Airways, its subsidiary, Intercontinental Hotel Corporation, Paul Raigorodsky of Dallas through his company, Claiborne Oil of New Orleans, Credit Suisse of Canada, Heineken's Brewery of Canada and a host of other munition makers and NASA contractors directed by the Defense Industrial Security Command." "Fred Korth, Lyndon Johnson's protégée from Fort Worth,Texas, was revealed by the Warren Commission to have been sendingmoney orders and instructions to one of the men impersonatingOswald in Dallas over a period of a few weeks immediately prior tothe assassination. The manager of the Western Union office in Dallas and one of the assistant managers definitely tied Korth to the cabal." [...] "On November 22, Osborne and about ten of his riflemen were living at 3126 Harlendale in Oak Cliff, a section of Dallas. Three of his professionals were at Tammie True's house in Fort Worth and Leon Oswald, alias William Seymour ... ... At the top was JOHNSON, HOOVER, BLOOMFIELD, NAGY, DeMENIL,PRIO, JENKINS, HUNT, BAKER, JONES, McWILLIE, VON BRAUN,COHN, KORTH, CONNALLY and MURCHISON. ... The second layer of participants with supervisory and working assignments under Bloomfield and the first group were Walter Dornberger, ex-Nazi General, Guy Bannister, Albert Osborne of A.C.C.C., E.E. Bradley of A.C.C.C., Morris Dalitz of Las Vegas, Major General John B. Medaris, Robert McKeown, Igor Voshinin, George Bouhe, Peter Gregory, Maurice Gatlin, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Lee Harvey Oswald, William Seymour, David Ferrie, T. Gonzales, Manuel Garcia Gonzales, Layton Martens, Gordon Novel, Walter Sheridan, William Dalzell, Paul Raigorodsky, Joe Bonanno, Dimitri Royster of A.C.C.C., Alex Carlson, George Mandel, Breck Wall, Clay Shaw, Joe Cody, Jake Kosloff, Mike McLaney, Ruth and Mike Paine, Igor Vagonov, Jack Bowen, Mike Ryan, Tammie True, Max Cherry, Patrick Hoy, David Hoy, James Powell and a number of others with limited assignments informed only enough to carry out the assignments with dispatch."

What a back-assward way to approach the evidence. Mark, it would be one thing for Pat Speer to declare that even with their own fraudulent evidence the WC conclusions are untenable -- but Pat insists the improperly prepared autopsy evidence is infallible! How many violations of autopsy protocol were involved in the BOH photo and the written-in-pen "measurements"? More than a half-dozen! Does it make sense to declare such evidence infallible when it is repeatedly contradicted by the physical evidence, the witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documents? Please explain the logic here, Mark, because I know Pat can't. Mark, this is another waste of air. You gave it an admirable attempt, but to no avail. He'll be insulting Pat's family next... don't waste your time. The only person on this thread who has tried to make this personal is YOU. If you can't argue a fact why do you post at all? YOU are the type of person this Forum tried to lose -- all you do is xxxxx personalities. fabulously untrue. I simply speak my mind to arguers. Mark tried to inject some civility into your discourse, to no avail. You couldn't see it. i don't tr*ll, i block arguers and rude people. I boycotted and then blocked Mr Von Pein because he didn't know how to be civil and still argue, as neither do you. If this had been me you're attacking, i'd have already blocked you, too. I didn't make it personal. it was personal when you began your attack A WEEK AGO.

so then you must have an even plumber on your front side.