Mark Stapleton Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly..... Peter, I agree with you about the difficulties involved in conducting debates with marine life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Myra,I would like to take responsibility for Len's posting on Peter's bio. I locked that thread because of a complaint. I assume,not wanting to start a new thread, Len went to the biography section to answer the questions Peter asked. I did not even think about him wanting to respond openly when I locked it. I believe somewhere Len said he moved it, but the content was only copied. We moderators cannot move posts from the bio section, That can only be done by the administrators. It is my fault. I'm sorry for all the problems concerned with it. I would like to apologize to both Peter and Len. I certainly meant no ill will. Kathy Beckett Oh I see. Thank you for putting it in context. That's what I lacked. My apologies to Len then; wasn't aware of that back story. And Kathy I really appreciate the fact that you work to improve the forum, and make decisions that need to be made in order to do your job. You do a boffo job. Myra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly..... Peter, I agree with you about the difficulties involved in conducting debates with marine life. A microcosm of the polarity in society today. But I just love being given orders to produce more proofs!....aren't we all free to offer what we want?....Pardon me for being passionate about saving the planet from the impending fascism..... By the way Mark did you catch this great post by David G.?! A real on target classic. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116467 Peter, I just read it--missed it last night. I agree it's a classic, David absolutely nailed the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 About 90% of you posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations mixed wth an over-inflated ego. You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing it, why don't you back up that claim with some examples? Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly..... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116476 I read that entire thread. What it sounds like to me is that you guys can't back up all this crap about Len. Saying 'go read his posts' is the equivilent of saying "I'm right and I don't have to show any evidence because it's so obvious". It doesn't work that way, back up your claims or stop making them. Speaking of goading, Duane, did you notice how Peter insinuated that I'm slow and don't catch on quickly? But it's ok if he does it, right? Since you insist on playing this silly game , here are two of many examples of Len's GOADING TACTICS . I don't have the time right now , but just to satisify you , I will find the time later to quote more examples of Len's behavior which seems to be upsetting several of the members here . ................................. Posted on: Yesterday, 01:26 PM Super Member Group: Members Posts: 1770 Joined: 5-September 05 From: Brazil Member No.: 3442 OK so you want us to believe that when you wrote: - there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11" you really meant: - "there hadn't been "any HONEST formal INDEPENDENT government investigation into INSIDER TRADING RELATED TO 9/11"? Is that the story you wanna run with? Are people supposed to divine what you really mean when you say or write something else? What exactly did you mean by an “independent” “government” investigation? Aren’t the words in quotes antonyms in your lexicon? That’s neat trick. When shown to be wrong you say, “I didn't really mean what I said, I obviously meant something else”. Sorry but I’m not buying it. Also how do you know the SEC’s investigation was a pretense? Can you back this with information other than some articles written more than a few weeks after the fact or anything from someone with expertise in financial matters? Anything that refutes the information in the links I posted? No, you assume it was a pretense because it did come to same uninformed conclusion you did. Your logic seems circular. 1) There was insider trading related to 9/11 2) The SEC said they did uncover any 3) Therefore their investigation was a sham 4) They would only do that if they were covering for the culprits in or tied to the government. 5) Therefore there was an inside job 6) Therefore there was insider training “your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything” Oh yeah Duane there lots of people out to get you. I “always try to prove [you] wrong”? Let’s try a reality check now why don’t we? Why don’t you take a look and see how many of your posts I reply to and see how many of my posts are at all related to anything you’ve said. .............................................. Posted on: Today, 12:41 AM Super Member Group: Members Posts: 1770 Joined: 5-September 05 From: Brazil Member No.: 3442 I've replied to the 'side show' above on "my" thread. I was wondering if any more evidence of insider trading will be forth coming? ........................... More to come later . So the thread dedicated to showing what an asshole I am is up to 8 pages. I've made nearly 1800 posts and this the worst anyone can come up with? Perhaps I'm a bit slow can some explain to me anything wrong with the 2nd post. The 1st could have been a bit politer but is certainly tamer than many posts on this forum including several from Duane and my other detractors. Perhaps Duane should take a look a the post of his that I was replying. I didn't believe what he was saying and called him on it, Peter and Mark directed similar posts at me on this very thread. Unless someone can come up with examples of posts that are as bad my nemesi make out the continuation of this thread is pointless. My biggest sin apperently is being a heretic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) About 90% of you posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations mixed wth an over-inflated ego. You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing it, why don't you back up that claim with some examples? Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly..... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116476 How ironic that Peter insults the person who politely asked him to back his claim that my "posts ..are inflaminatory and provocations ". Perhaps he should look in a mirror. Peter RE: your reply to Kevin the forum rules clearly indicate the claimant is expected to document his (or her) claims, asking you to do so is not "provocation". EDIT typo Edited August 31, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Damn it! Enough is enough! Stop this ludicruous exchange. They're winning. Colby is a waste of time. Ask yourselves: Who does he influence? No f***ing one at all! His mission is not to influence, but to distract. All he can do is distract you. Think of all the other ways your energy devoted to this nonsense could have been put to use. He and his ilk can win only if we concede that they're in the game. Colby and his ilk are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Peter especially -- Stop it. All others, too. Unless, of course, you believe that all the serious work is done. Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Colby is a waste of time. Ask yourselves: Who does he influence? No f***ing one at all! His mission is not to influence, but to distract. All he can do is distract you. Think of all the other ways your energy devoted to this nonsense could have been put to use. He and his ilk can win only if we concede that they're in the game. Colby and his ilk are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Thanks Charles for making a prime example of the type provocative and insulting post you and the other are constantly accusing me of making Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Damn it! Enough is enough!Stop this ludicruous exchange. They're winning. Colby is a waste of time. Ask yourselves: Who does he influence? No f***ing one at all! His mission is not to influence, but to distract. All he can do is distract you. Think of all the other ways your energy devoted to this nonsense could have been put to use. He and his ilk can win only if we concede that they're in the game. Colby and his ilk are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Peter especially -- Stop it. All others, too. Unless, of course, you believe that all the serious work is done. Charles Drago Thanks Charles. I think you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 You're welcome, Myra. Everyone: Please, for the love of everything we hold dear, let's devote ourselves to the truth -- its discovery and its dissemination. Yes, those whose mission is to deny the truth will have to be dealt with. BUT: IF YOU ENGAGE THEM AS IF THEY WERE WORTHY OF RESPECT ... THEY WIN. AND THE TRUTH LOSES. So ... How about those Red Sox??? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Chapman Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) The frustration, Peter, is born of the level playing field afforded to the enemies of truth. What I'm suggesting is anything but fair and balanced. Those in a position to know the historical truth of conspiracy in the death of JFK who nonetheless wilfully deny it are nothing more or less than targets of opportunity for us. I include in this category the sappers who, in order to infiltrate our lines, falsely claim to acknowledge conspiracy. You know who I mean: the "mob did it" and "Castro did it" squads. Et tu Drago? Another great mind befuddled by all that serge and patria o muerte rhetoric. I just love it. Whenever I fret over my shrinking hippocampus, world class presumption like the above is welcome proof that my genius is real and not mere narcissistic self delusion. PS Shame we can't post pics anymore (you mods are always trying to spoil my fun). I've always maintained that a good photo is a better aid for spotting frauds than trawling through the small print of a socialist manifesto. Edited August 31, 2007 by Michael Chapman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 31, 2007 Author Share Posted August 31, 2007 Damn it! Enough is enough!Stop this ludicruous exchange. They're winning. Colby is a waste of time. Ask yourselves: Who does he influence? No f***ing one at all! His mission is not to influence, but to distract. All he can do is distract you. Think of all the other ways your energy devoted to this nonsense could have been put to use. He and his ilk can win only if we concede that they're in the game. Colby and his ilk are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Peter especially -- Stop it. All others, too. Unless, of course, you believe that all the serious work is done. Charles Drago Charles, It happened originally because I know the serious work is not done and was annoyed [to put it mildly] that certain persons seem to try only to stop any completion of such work. Also, unknown to you there has been backtraffic and one moderator had me yesterday one post from not being not allowed to post again - for something I typed when this began as you-know-who was still 'reporting' me. I'm finished and I think what needed to be exposed is. On to the Solution and Revolution! I have heard what happened to Peter, and the perpetrator should be barred from the forum. It involved information privy only to a snitch and was used to threaten Peter. It had nothing to do with JFK research. Righteous indignation is proper in this case. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Look, this is just my opinion, but this is getting beyond a joke. I'm going to lock this thread. This is my own decision, not taken in consultation with other Mods or John or Andy. I'm recommending we just delete the thread. If you have any opinions, address them to Mods OTHER than me. Now, until this matter is settled: TAKE WARNING - NO NEW THREADS ON THIS MATTER ARE TO BE STARTED. If you agree / disagree with the locking, tell the other Mods and John / Andy. DO NOT START ANOTHER THREAD. If the Mods / John / Andy disagree with my opinion, the thread will be re-opened. Once more: DO NOT START A NEW THREAD COMPLAINING / COMMENTING ON THE LOCKING OF THIS THREAD. I will NOT give any warning for breaking this direction. Address any concerns you have to Moderators other than me. THEY will decide whether the action I have taken is correct or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts