The Colby locked topic...why?

[David G. Healy]

'Kathy Beckett' wrote:

[...]

I am a CT as well. I love(d) President Kennedy, and even thinking about him and what he represented, moves me to tears. Our loss, as a nation, and further of the entire world, of the influence and thoughts of this great man carries on to today, and it is heartbreaking to think what we could've been... What a loss!!!

And yes, I want it solved....

BUT

I believe Mr. Simkin started this Forum to allow all the freedom to debate, and not be quashed for speaking one's mind. I am 100% behind him on this. For allowing one side to have a venue, and not the other, is not freedom.

please, Kathy! C. Drago is correct - A war (pr, disinfo or otherwise) has many faces, none pretty. This JFK assassination related forum, and it's popularity, wasn't built on being kind to alleged "nice" WCR guys...

[Myra Bronstein]

I caught a snippett of something called MEGAPHONE technology that allows groups to know where oppositional rhetoric is being typed on the internet. I read it was being used by Israel against opponents of the Zionazis. Has anyone heard of this MEGAPHONE technology?

Might this in some way be related to the topic of this thread?

By this you mean where the post is origininating from physically? Or other? Doesn't sound like a progam one is going to easily get one's hands on...and where is not the problem...it is the post itself that is....perhaps Charles and Myra are closest to the right answer...ignore...there is only one problem with ignore. For example I post a piece on Guernica being a false-flag op. Colby fires back a 'prove it' post [even though reading the original post would have provided the answer]. A newbee or visitor from the internet will likely go to the last [most recent] post first and seeing Colby's post assume the prior post contained NO information about about it being a false-flag operation and move on without reading the whole thread.....the hatchet-job done and my post much diminished. ...

That's very true.

Ideally the reader will have the attention span and capacity for critical thought to read further and judge for themselves.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

I believe Mr. Simkin started this Forum to allow all the freedom to debate, and not be quashed for speaking one's mind. I am 100% behind him on this. For allowing one side to have a venue, and not the other, is not freedom.

...

Kathy

Kathy, it seems like you've just made the case for maintaining an unmoderated forum.

So, please tell me why there are moderators on this forum if what you say is true.

[Craig Lamson]

...

Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.

I know you can't count them Craig, but can you give at least one example to back up your assertion?

Well I was a bit pressed for time this morning but Len was kind enough to post ONE example of many in post #24 of this thread. It seems Lemkin was not being totally honest when he stated he had never written such things. Perhaps an apology to the forum by Lemkin is in order? If you want further examples I suggest you enploy the search function

[Len Colby]

...

Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.

I know you can't count them Craig, but can you give at least one example to back up your assertion?

You must have missed it I already pointed out two cases actually in post #24. I notice that Craig just ponted it out as well.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Since Peter has repeatedly complained about my posting my reply on his bio thread I moved it here. I did this on my own accord, no moderators asked me to do so. I hope the mods don't consider my right to reply to his provocative BS in violation of any forum rules or unnecessarily provocative. I wasn't very nice in my reply but then again I was justifiably pissed off when I wrote it. I did tone down one sentence.

Questions for who or what parades as Len Colby, presence on this Forum:

A remark not warranting a reply, you’ve now given up any right to accuse others of being ‘provocateurs’.

1] What is your explanation why so many have at one time or another suspected you of being an intelligence / Mockingbird asset?

So far besides you I only remember Jack, Fetzer and Sid saying things along those lines (and I think the later was joking). Perhaps that’s because they like you are intellectually challenged paranoids that resort to ad homs when they can’t otherwise respond to the doubts I cast on their lunatic theories.

2] What is your understanding of the conspiracies that have occured, if any, since WW II? Which...please use your own standards and be exact, with citiations.

I have said repeatedly that I think the JFK (Sr) and MLK (Jr) assassinations, the lack of an October Surprise (1980), the sabotaging of US/Vietnamese peace talks (1968) among other nefarious incidents (esp. here in Brazil) were the results of conspiracies.

Do you see many/most of us as paranoid

Most no, many yes.

3] Why do you feel it incumbant upon youself to [in your own deluded mind] 'debunk' anything along the lines of any hint of US Oligarchy's conspiracy against the People?

Is this your own psychological persuasion against those who question authority or an avocation?

Strawman, I don’t, see above.

4] Why do your posts seem to involve pointless busywork for the respondeee to convince you - rather than you presenting your own difference of opinion, if that is what you really believe?

I have no idea why they seem that way to you, perhaps the mental health professional of your choosing can shed light on that. I don’t consider asking people to document their claims or presenting contrary evidence “pointless busywork for the respondeee”. I guess you’d prefer it you and others could push their theories without a healthy dose of skepticism. There are closed forums where contraire views aren’t allowed, perhaps you’d be happier on one of them. I have convinced the “respondee” on more that one occasion Jack’s admission that he’d misidentified the Pentagon’s point of impact and John’s reversal of his contention Hess was an imposter are cases in point.

5] Did you really go to Antioch and what did you study there?

No I went to Oberlin as stated where I studied American History. I did visit the Antioch campus for a Dead Kennedies show though

Your mind seems remarkably unscientific for someone who claims to have studied science at Yale, did you really do so?

6] Have you ever participated in a public demonstation against authority, war, injustice, or for civil rights, democracy, Contitutional rights?

Yes I was in the ACLU and help refound it at Oberlin, I’ve protested against the 1st Gulf war, nukes, police abuse and investment in South Africa (during apartheid) I’ve also worked with groups promoting the rights of indigenous Brazilians and underground artists cooperatives in Eastern Europe (before the Wall came down).

7] There seems [to me] to be certain persons on your 'list' to try to refute and certain 'topics' a review of which seem [iMO] rather congruous to supporting 'official' positions on how history unfolded.

Certain subjects interest me more than other. I don’t really care much about Princess Di so I haven’t gotten around to responding on that thread, nor am I especially interested in the JFK assassination except for certain aspects of it.

What is your MO for your general philosophical trust in these posts? Are you just a contrarian, reflex conspiracy naysayer or something other? You are always demanding answers to such questions as this of others.....even trying to get me to post on forum if I've ever taken LSD or not today....what is your game?!

I rarely ask people personal questions and normally keep my inquires limited the point(s) under discussion. I’ve dropped acid numerous times and was just curious to know if you had as well. One of the last reasons I would pass judgment on someone would be their drug use (except if their hypocritical about it like Rush Limbaugh or that preacher).

Have some of us just 'got you wrong' and mis-interpreted an obsessive-compulsive cognitive style for something else? Kindly enlighten.

Yes see above, If I were you I wouldn’t toss around words like ‘obsessive-compulsive’ and ‘deluded’ to describe others keep the adage about ‘people who live in glass houses’ in mind.

8] It is clear you think 9-11 happened as [or nearly as] the USG fed to us. How about Dallas? RFK asassination? MLK? Do you have any corner of your being that can acknowledge past lies [bIG lies] on the part of officialdom that might make some of us question it now?!

See above, are there any conspiracy theories (other than the ‘official’ version of 9/11) you don’t believe? If so please list a couple.

[Len Colby]

Friends -- and Others,

They're winning.

Unless ...

If we don't engage in a direct exchange, they huff and puff and choke on their own venom.

Their sounds and furies are performed to empty seats.

We have the most serious business imaginable to conduct. All of this is an immense waste of resources.

Unless ... Let us use them as the enemy attempts to use us: Listen carefully (not respectfully) and attempt to gauge by their behaviors the larger perceptions and fears and goals (of their masters).

Why not create what in political campaigns is called an "opposition research" file on these characters? Copy their posts to a thread so named -- and from which they are banned -- and invite informed analyses of the portions of the larger picture they inadvertently reveal.

For us, it's win/win.

Can we do this? Should we?

Charles Drago

Charles,

I have a great deal of respect for you, and am asking with sincerity:

Why would you want them banned from a thread w/regard to their beliefs, leaving people who disagree the entitlement of posting? Is not the purpose of a public forum a back and forth debate?

Who is doing the "informed analysis"-- the parameters of such a thread would allow anyone to post there who wasn't "them"

As to your statement that "they" are winning I submit to you "they" did not start this thread, nor the one before. Their philosophy(ies) are now one of the major discussions on the PC thread. Perhaps this is what you are saying--that it should not be a personal topic, but done as a group effort, and bringing this into the limelight is not conducive to discrediting their claims.

I think that if you truly want to win, and others as well, that it would be paramount to your quest to "know your enemy". You then have his MO, and can respond or choose not to. The less he is allowed to speak, the less you learn about him.

I agree with you that a non response would stop any further progress in an discussion, but to educate others, this may not be the best way..

Remember, that this is a largely read forum, and its purpose is back and forth debate. It's not just for us, which is why it is critical for both sides to participate.

Someone may counter with "but he is a disinfo agent, blah blah blah." My question is then 'Does everyone who disagrees with the person presenting the argument automatically become a disinfo agent merely because they disagree with the presenter?" You can say "No", but I say from what I've seen here, that many would says "Yes". If our opponent doesn't agree, we can attempt to discredit him personally and get a group of fellow discrediters behind us, and actually, I ask you---who really looks bad when this occurs?

Kathy

Charles has made it abundantly clear that he is one the people on this forum who only pays lip service to the free exchange of ideas, strongly voiced opposing view points should be discouraged.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

I believe Mr. Simkin started this Forum to allow all the freedom to debate, and not be quashed for speaking one's mind. I am 100% behind him on this. For allowing one side to have a venue, and not the other, is not freedom.

...

Kathy

Kathy, it seems like you've just made the case for maintaining an unmoderated forum.

So, please tell me why there are moderators on this forum if what you say is true.

The posting here should be one of position. To attack someone is not debating.

And that had nothing to do with my question.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I appreciate what you do and think the moderators here could be even more active in keeping the forum civil and respectful.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

We cannot be responsible for every post, as we do not read all of them.

On the bottom left of every post is a little button that has an exclamation point and the word "REPORT".

If someone finds a post offensive, he/she should press that button, and that will alert all of the moderators (it sends a PM to all of them and a link to the offending post) and we will then look into it.

Whoever sends it will remain anonymous.

And you know what happens when that "Report" button is hit.

Either every moderator jumps on it or nobody does.

There is no coordination.

I've mentioned this before...

Coordination of a reported post would be easy. All a mod has to do, if they are the first one to respond to a complaint, is post in the mod thread that they are already handling the situation. Then other mods will know it's being handled.

But currently it's chaos.

Regardless, that's a mod issue.

So I'll do as you suggest and report any objectionable post.

And I appreciate that it's anonymous.

Thanks Kathy.

[David G. Healy]

Friends -- and Others,

They're winning.

Unless ...

If we don't engage in a direct exchange, they huff and puff and choke on their own venom.

Their sounds and furies are performed to empty seats.

We have the most serious business imaginable to conduct. All of this is an immense waste of resources.

Unless ... Let us use them as the enemy attempts to use us: Listen carefully (not respectfully) and attempt to gauge by their behaviors the larger perceptions and fears and goals (of their masters).

Why not create what in political campaigns is called an "opposition research" file on these characters? Copy their posts to a thread so named -- and from which they are banned -- and invite informed analyses of the portions of the larger picture they inadvertently reveal.

For us, it's win/win.

Can we do this? Should we?

Charles Drago

Charles,

I have a great deal of respect for you, and am asking with sincerity:

Why would you want them banned from a thread w/regard to their beliefs, leaving people who disagree the entitlement of posting? Is not the purpose of a public forum a back and forth debate?

Who is doing the "informed analysis"-- the parameters of such a thread would allow anyone to post there who wasn't "them"

As to your statement that "they" are winning I submit to you "they" did not start this thread, nor the one before. Their philosophy(ies) are now one of the major discussions on the PC thread. Perhaps this is what you are saying--that it should not be a personal topic, but done as a group effort, and bringing this into the limelight is not conducive to discrediting their claims.

I think that if you truly want to win, and others as well, that it would be paramount to your quest to "know your enemy". You then have his MO, and can respond or choose not to. The less he is allowed to speak, the less you learn about him.

I agree with you that a non response would stop any further progress in an discussion, but to educate others, this may not be the best way..

Remember, that this is a largely read forum, and its purpose is back and forth debate. It's not just for us, which is why it is critical for both sides to participate.

Someone may counter with "but he is a disinfo agent, blah blah blah." My question is then 'Does everyone who disagrees with the person presenting the argument automatically become a disinfo agent merely because they disagree with the presenter?" You can say "No", but I say from what I've seen here, that many would says "Yes". If our opponent doesn't agree, we can attempt to discredit him personally and get a group of fellow discrediters behind us, and actually, I ask you---who really looks bad when this occurs?

Kathy

Charles has made it abundantly clear that he is one the people on this forum who only pays lip service to the free exchange of ideas, strongly voiced opposing view points should be discouraged.

You're sounding liker the forum's chief Lone Nut/WCR supporting whiner to me...

[Evan Burton]

People!

[rant]

Anyone who is a member here has a right to post within the rules.

It does not matter if they are a patriot, a disinfo agent, just plain crazy, or anything in between. They can still post - within the rules.

Address the content of their posts, not the poster.

IMO the occasional barb such as "Another hoorah from the Apollogists" or "Predictable right-wing stance from the man who considered Genghis Khan a liberal..." etc is okay; just don't make a habit of it and don't make it too personal.

We are grown-ups here, and I see no reason not to expect everyone to act that way.

[end rant]

[Guest David Guyatt]

Banning agitators can sometimes work - I've seen it work - but only in individual nuisance case, because more than likely they'll be replaced by others anyway.

I know its hard to just ignore them because they do interrupt the flow of a thread. That's all they have to do, in fact... transfer the focus or just lower the temperature a notch.

But I'm not sure banning would ultimately work. Know thy enemy seems appropriate enough to me.

Besides, I'm in love with Craig and want to marry him and have his children and have them grow up as Republican Catholic zealots too --- Kisses Craig.

David

****

Edit:

Kathy has smacked me on the wrist (again) and told me I must remove the final sentence of this post in which I disgracefully said "...and THEN teach them the true value of an outstretched stiff right arm." She is concerned that I might be implying a nazi attitude to Craig and his posts and because others (that would be you Peter Lemkin - nabbed again!) have implied similar traits already -- and since complaints have been sent about this name calling (that'll be you Craig, I imagine) -- then in deference to the sweet Kathy I've removed said offensive sentence completely. Happy to do it, too.

And I wish to add of my own volition that if I ever (errorenously) implied that Craig was of a political persuasion close to or similar (or even de facto) nazis, fascists, klan, opus dei, jesuit or any other of those fookin raving cruel b'Stard murderers, then I do absolutely and unreservedly apologise to him. I did not mean to imply that at all.

So, no hard feeling Craig-boy -- I still love you. They'll be no more Heig Seil's from me. No sir.

Hey, maybe we can exchange more open views in the SS Memorabilia website instead (www.thirdreich.ca)? Whaddyasay? They have a luvvely presentation set of the SS Totenkopf honour ring (honestly it's called an "honour" ring -- weird eh). I also think the Society of Distraught Wewelsburg Castle Widows are are about to launch a bulletin board arrangement so that is also an option, too. They have a luvvely authentic mosiac of the Schwarze Sunne in the North Tower at Wewelsburg. Delightful.

David

Edited August 28, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

There should be a PM about the post on your bio.

My rant is directed towards everyone. Play the ball, not the man.

Call them on the content of the posts - question the source, its accuracy, any perceived bias in the material, etc, etc.

Yes, we lose our temper or get frustrated and make comments we shouldn't - but that should be a one-time thing, not a thread, not habit.

[Len Colby]

PETER WROTE:

“It is hardly a post by LC that isn't a criticism of the intellectual or research or posting abilities of the person he is responding to [or attacking, I would more often say]. I'd ask anyone to review the record on this.”

- You, Myra, Mark etc keep saying that but I’ve yet to see any examples cited. Let’s try the following look at the last (or 1st or what ever) 3 or so pages of my posts and see how many offensive ones you can find. I’ve made over 1700 posts here and I’m not a saint so I’m sure if one went over all my posts they could find more than a few that I wouldn’t be proud of.

“I'd also point out there was/is a thread on Gratz's Forum behavior and find the reponse to my post on LC's Forum behavior rather different in character”

- 1 – Your thread was far more confrontational than the one John started about Tim.

2- In case you forgot John is the owner of this forum and if he feels that a member’s behavior is a problem he (with in reason) has the right to deal with it the way he sees fit.

“And many of us have long objected to the truculant, adversarial responses trying to impose the burden of proof on us...often repeatedly if not endlessly. Also full of denegration of our research skills and ability to make arguements that convince YOU.”

- The burden of proof is on the claimant, if you say (for example) intercepts of stray civilian planes were routine before 9/11, it’s up to you to back it up. This is clearly spelled out in the forum rules.

Ditto what I said above, find examples my “responses… full of denegration [sic] of [y]our research skills”

“Many, myself included, find it hard to reconcile if you believe there was a conspiracy in JFK and MLK [you didn't comment on RFK] can't even explore the idea that the same forces could be involved in 911, Watergate et al., ad nauseum. “

- Strawman I never said they couldn’t “be involved in 911, Watergate et al., ad nauseum” a matter of fact I’ve said the contrary. I think they could, just that the evidence in the case of 911 indicates otherwise.

For the record I haven’t looked into the RFK and Watergate CT’s enough to come to an informed opinion but from the little I know I don’t think they hold water.

“Further, that they wouldn't have thought or attempted to alter evidence to cover-up their conspiracy in your mind, apparently?”

- Strawman, see above

“You think is was Oswald and his best friend, alone? As Mark said, 'something doesn't smell right here.' The coincidence of your undertanding of how things happened and the official versions are nearly totally in sync. coincidence or ?”

- Strawman, see above. “The coincidence of your undertanding [sic] of how things happened and the Alex Jones etc versions are nearly totally in sync. coincidence or ?”

Also note that I’m in good company neither John Judge nor Josiah Thompson buy the “inside job” BS nor apparently do John Simkin, Steve Turner, Martin Shackleford (sp?) or Barb Junkkarinen.

“I agree with Myra, one doesn't get the feeling Len is here to learn, but to subject others to some slave-labor.”

- John wrote the reasonable rule that posters are expected to back their claims, perhaps if you find it too onerous you should take it up with him.

“Right, and someone please review the record of attacks some [who shall here be nameless] have made prior, to being called to task for it.”

- I assume you are referring to the post where you labeled Craig a Nazi. Yes people should take a look at that thread, though Craig is often rude he had done nothing to earn that vile slander there, nor had Steve Ulman when you insinuated the same about him

PETER WROTE: "It is interesting that many find certain persons more than slightly annoying - and not for the content of their posts, but the methodology, more often than not."

I REPLIED: Yes most people don't like having their pet notions challenged.

PETER RESPONDED: Well, you sure seem to have found a technique/methodology that has annoyed more than just I.

- Note that by “most people” I meant more people than ‘just you’. I’m am the most prolific anti - CT on this forum that seems to annoy the hell out of several people as I noted in my reply above.

I WROTE: No you never answered that question [about Guernica being a false flag], go ahead prove me wrong, point out where you answered it. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9864

PETER REPLIED: posts four anf five and six, had you taken the time to read them and comprehend what they contained.

Wrong again Peter do you “comprehend what they contained”?

Post #4 was made by Sid agreeing that I had asked you good questions (imagine that!)

Post #5 made no reference to the bombing being a false-flag attack

Post# 6 was very lengthy the only thing along those lines was an account from a NY Time reporter that a PR person for the fascists told her it was the “Reds” but every one in the town told her it was the Germans even fascist militiamen.

If one does minimal research into the attack you’ll discover readily recognizable German and Italian planes were used and remnants of exploded German made munitions were found in the village and the Germans admitted to doing it.* Generally two motives are ascribed to the attack 1) to demoralize/terrorize the Basques into surrender 2) to test the ability of bombers to lay wake to entire town (which would be done to demoralize an enemy) obviously the 1st motive wouldn’t work if they thought it was the Republicans.

I don’t know why you found it necessary to post 8 links broken links to the thread when there already was a working one from where you quoted me.

* See for example John’s excellent page on the subject consisting mostly of primary source material. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPguernica.htm

PETER WROTE: "I further object that the same person has posted on my biography and would ask that his post on my biography be removed or moved. He is not entitled [nor as far as I'm concerned welcome] to add, subtract or try to discredit my biography."

Myra replied: "I agree, Peter, that attacking someone's bio is over the line. I consider it harassment. Do the mods agree?"

- I didn’t “attack” “add, subtract or try to discredit” Peter’s bio, if you’d bother to take a look you would have seen that. I merely posted my replies to his questions there since the thread had been locked. Apparently no moderators agreed with Peter because despite his constant complaints none of them 1) removed my post, 2) contacted me about it or 3) said anything about it.

You don’t think Peter’s thread constituted “over the line” “harassment”? Two moderators indicated they did.

MYRA WROTE:

”And from what I've seen Len's posts fall into one of two categories:

1) Demanding citation on every word no matter how casual or irrelevant.”

A bit of exaggeration on your part, I normally only ask for documentation of people’s main points, that I find suspect. Occasionally if I find a tangential point curious (and suspicious) I ask as well.

"2) Rejecting the citation as insufficiently authoritative."

- This normally comes in the same posts as above. You seem to belong to the “this site says what I believe it must be true school” of documentation one so disposed could find sites backing ideas such as: the Holocaust and moon landings were hoaxes, creationism, the universe is geocentric etc. One thing you learn if you study history is that you have to judge the credibility of sources, personal websites run by anonymous and/or unknown people don’t quite cut it.

”Once "authoritative" citations are provided he goes invisible.”

- Don’t kid yourself look at the Wellstone, Z-film, Liberty or 9/11 threads for example where people often cited “authoritative” sources that didn’t prove their claims and I called them on it. The only example of me going “invisble” was the Lady Di thread that was due to a lack of interest/time, perhaps one day if the forum gets slow I’ll get back to you.

“I see no evolution of perspective or incorporation of new information into his framework of beliefs or attempt at meeting of minds or processing of new information.”

- I.E. I don’t come around to your POV. I could say about the people I debate with. At first I doubted John’s contention Churchill was negotiating with Hitler till 1941 now I think there’s a good chance it’s true. Steve (Turner) started a thread pointing out that Bush lied about seeing flt 11 hit the North Tower before entering the classroom. At first I though “W” might have been mistaken but Steve convinced me otherwise.

You left out one of my main types of post, the ones where say why I think something is or isn’t true and offer research to back my contentions.

[Craig Lamson]

Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.

Perhaps you can't even begin to count them because they never happened. Talk about one who shouldn't speak on this topic.....only wish they'd allow a poll of who agrees with your characterization, Mr Politeness.

either you are the one uniformed or you were just shining your hob nail boots and ironing your brownshirt....more upon my return Herr Ulman

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...s&pid=77728

Lamson, you hate all but money and authority...I don't even read your posts....to get out of the impending fascism I don't try to convert a fascist....you don't work here or on JFK posts toward anything...you'd just like everyone to be a couch potato, drink their beer, eat their junkfood and watch the TV circus - AND NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY OR Halliburton etc.....if this is all such bull then why are you here?!..I think because you don't think it is bull**** - and you or those who you 'salute' are worried about it.....last you'll get a direct reply from me Herr Lamson. I don't like brown as a color for shirts, nor people who don't try to make the world a better place and who worship the powerful and greed, and don't help those in need and without power....and try to turn those seeking the truth away from the scent. Heil and farewell!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...s&pid=72225

I invite anyone to read the entire threads. To see that Lamson was calling me Lemming, others repeatedly loosers and baiting everyone. If this forum followed its own rules he would have long ago been reprimanded for his behavior and disregard for most humans, both on and off the Forum. Yes, he got me upset and that was a single not very tasteful post on my part...but look what led to it....and I invite anyone not familiar with

Len's techniques to research them as well. 

Both these persons are actually IMO trying to stir up just the very event we hav

 here.

To provoke - the work of provocateurs.

Sad attempt to deflect Peter. The issue here is your false statement that you did not say these things. You clearly did.

And yes I suggest everyone go back and read the threads. Lemkin is not giving the correct facts again. In BOTH threads Lemkin started the provocations and vile name calling. BOTH THREADS! I'm not blameless, I did call him Lemming, but it was in REPLY to his vile post to me. It is NOT as he is now claiming. In fact its the exact opposite.

Lemkin, we can go back even further in these past threads to see more of your provocation. Shall we? You may not want to go there because your attempt to look pristine is sure to fail. Shall we search further for the real truth?

Edited August 28, 2007 by Craig Lamson