On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

**So I'm asking whoever has access to the complete transcript to post it in its entirety or, at least, to identify where it can be located.**

I second Ken's request for I have wondered why only a small fraction of the transcript has been offer so far.

Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

**So I'm asking whoever has access to the complete transcript to post it in its entirety or, at least, to identify where it can be located.**

I second Ken's request for I have wondered why only a small fraction of the transcript has been offer so far.

Bill Miller

Gary Mack has, I believe, the original transcript.

He said he will not release it because of legal issues, although Gary allowed Dale to copy the transcript.

Dale has published the key portions of the transcript, without publishing it in toto, again, perhaps for legal reasons.

Likewise, I am quoting on a fair usage basis, but not in toto, for the same reasons.

I can say that Bowers was not asked by Lane to draw an "X" to show the locus of the two men & did not do so.

You can ask Gary for confirmation.

Also, I believe there is a little unfinished business raised by Duncan:

Miles,

I must say that the moderator that said the following sure had your number ....

"Like I have said before, I am quite sure, Miles' goal here is not to engage in true JFK assassination debate, ............................ (at times he sticks to rather insignificant minute details, and argues about these for pages and pages)."

Bill Miller

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Yesterday, 03:05 PM

Bill, with respect, I don't think it's fair that you should be quoting comments by mods who contact you privately with an opinion of another member's ethics and objectives. It has however brought something to my attention a concern which I think needs addressed. This private opinionated communication by a mod to you, in my opinion, shows a bias in your favour by that particular mod, who has the power to approve or deny any post submited by the discussed member concerned, ie Miles.

FWIW...Duncan

Of course, you are right, Duncan.

I have not thought it worth the time to bother with this petty silliness, this obvious connivance by a moderator with a forum member & the concomitant indecent betrayal by Miller of an apparent confidence shown privately to Miller by this moderator.

Laughably, I considered that Miller had made this up & that this colluding moderator was just a bogus invention of Miller's. Ha!

Now, that you raise the question, Duncan, maybe, since Miller keeps bringing his moderator hireling up more & more frequently, it might be appropriate to pop the obvious question:

Who exactly is this ghost moderator?

Edited November 8, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Gary Mack has, I believe, the original transcript.

He said he will not release it because of legal issues, although Gary allowed Dale to copy the transcript.

Dale has published the key portions of the transcript, without publishing it in toto, again, perhaps for legal reasons.

Likewise, I am quoting on a fair usage basis, but not in toto, for the same reasons.

Miles, there is no honor among thieves they say. Whether one guy infringes on a copyright with one page, two, three, or all of it - its still the same crime.

I have not thought it worth the time to bother with this petty silliness, this obvious connivance by a moderator with a forum member & the concomitant indecent betrayal by Miller of an apparent confidence shown privately to Miller by this moderator.

Laughably, I considered that Miller had made this up & that this colluding moderator was just a bogus invention of Miller's. Ha!

I don't make anything up, unlike a cefrtain forum xxxxx that I know who kept claiming that Bowers said 'red plaid' only to be called on it before being forced that Bowers never used the word 'red'.

Now, that you raise the question, Duncan, maybe, since Miller keeps bringing his moderator hireling up more & more frequently, it might be appropriate to pop the obvious question:

Who exactly is this ghost moderator?

Maybe even more importantly is why it was ever needed to be said in the first place. So far, you are the only person on this forum to be given a thread whereas all the nutty things you said could be read without disrupting other threads. So xxxxx on, Miles.

Bill Miller

Edited November 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Don Bailey]

I know of 4 people that thought it was blood, Coley, Mulkey, Couch and Jean Hill. Although Hill changed her mind, at first she thought it was blood.

I knew Jean Hill personally and she told me that it wasn't blood. I'll explain why I believed her as we go.

What made Hill change her mind? Someone convinced her afterwards that it was Kool-Aid or some red drink. It could have been the Secret Service men she spoke with down at the courthouse that afternoon. How many drinks in 1963 looked like blood? Cherry Kool-Aid is out of the question because it's light red. There is no substitute for the look of blood except fake blood.

So let us re-think what you just said. Jean still claimed there were more than three shots. Jean still maintained that a man fired from the fence. Jean always maintained that someone forced her to go with them to be interviewed and then brow beaten about the number of shots that she had heard. Jean always maintained that there was a conspiracy. And so it is your position that she was scared into not saying that she saw blood ... now do you not see how little sense that makes!

As I said before, for a pool of blood to have gotten as large as the wet spot seen on the walkway, there would have been an enormous amount of blood loss that would have had to take place. The victims clothing would have been noticeable soaked in blood and at least the foot on the wounded side where the blood ran down onto the ground would have been leaving tracks much like someone did at Nicole's Brown Simpson's address in the OJ case.

Were there hoards of people in Dealey Plaza who saw smoke from the GK shooter?

The smoke came through the trees and only hung there for a couple of seconds before dissipating. That is a bit different from a pool of liquid that remained on the sidewalk while half of the plaza paraded passed it.

Were there hoards of people saying there was blood on the back of the limo or in the street behind the limo? No, it was covered up like most everything that happened that day.

I have to question how much thought you actually put into the things you say. Droplets of blood spray on a dark blue limo racing out of Dealey Plaza in your mind is the same as a stationary pool of liquid seen on a light colored sidewalk where people could walk by and observe it for as long as they wished - you must be joking!

It's sad that no independent researcher has ever interviewed Hudson... do you think he was the person that had to clean up the blood since he was the groundskeeper?

If he had to clean any liquid off the sidewalk - his son (William) never mentioned it to me. And Flynn who took the photograph of the park bench just a few feet away didn't mention it either, or take a photo of it.

Bill Miller

I did not say Jean Hill was scared into thinking that it was not blood, someone or something convinced her that it was not blood and I would love to hear the story on what made her change her mind.

And Flynn who took the photograph of the park bench just a few feet away didn't mention it either, or take a photo of it.

Someone else did take a picture of the blood....

"When the two men (Coley and Mulkey) returned to the office they told photographer, Jim Hood, about the blood. He visited the scene and took a photograph of it. The following week, two FBI agents arrived at the office and asked to speak to Coley and Jim Hood. They asked to see the photograph. They took this away plus the negative. The FBI told the two men: “For your benefit, it never happened… Just forget the entire incident; it never happened.”

Why would the FBI take away a photo of the pool of blood? It doesn’t make sense if it was Kool-Aid.

As I said before, for a pool of blood to have gotten as large as the wet spot seen on the walkway, there would have been an enormous amount of blood loss that would have had to take place.

Coley and Mulkey said it was about one pint of blood. A blood donation is one pint.

The victims clothing would have been noticeable soaked in blood and at least the foot on the wounded side where the blood ran down onto the ground would have been leaving tracks much like someone did at Nicole's Brown Simpson's address in the OJ case.

Good question. The couch film only shows the puddle of blood and you cannot see if there were bloody footsteps leading into the parking lot since there was no film of that part of the sidewalk. In 2000, Couch did state... "There was a trail of blood from the spot where the shooting occurred to the entrance of the Texas School Book Depository. I pointed it out to a man with me." Bloody clothing from an injured person can be covered up with a jacket but it will still leave a trail of blood.

Don

[Miles Scull]

Good question.

Don

I have not thought it worth the time to bother with this petty silliness, this obvious connivance by a moderator with a forum member & the concomitant indecent betrayal by Miller of an apparent confidence shown privately to Miller by this moderator.

Laughably, I considered that Miller had made this up & that this colluding moderator was just a bogus invention of Miller's. Ha!

I don't make anything up, unlike a cefrtain forum xxxxx that I know who kept claiming that Bowers said 'red plaid' only to be called on it before being forced that Bowers never used the word 'red'.

Now, that you raise the question, Duncan, maybe, since Miller keeps bringing his moderator hireling up more & more frequently, it might be appropriate to pop the obvious question:

Who exactly is this ghost moderator?

Maybe even more importantly is why it was ever needed to be said in the first place. So far, you are the only person on this forum to be given a thread whereas all the nutty things you said could be read without disrupting other threads. So xxxxx on, Miles.

Bill Miller

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Today, 08:18 AM

Miles,

I must say that the moderator that said the following sure had your number ....

"Like I have said before, I am quite sure, Miles' goal here is not to engage in true JFK assassination debate, ............................ (at times he sticks to rather insignificant minute details, and argues about these for pages and pages)."

Bill Miller

I don't make anything up

Sure you do. If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

(You made up the apocryphal & fictitious "Weitzman Report" that does not exist: that's just one example from many.)

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

I don't make anything up

Sure you do. If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

(You made up the apocryphal & fictitious "Weitzman Report" that does not exist: that's just one example from many.)

Let me share another message I have gotten which touched on that report ...

"Btw, my health condition makes my memory not how it should be,even at the age of 27, but I just wanted to let you know that I KNOW that I too have read that Weitzman report,which some people claim do not exist. My memory fails to remember details within it,but somewhere here on the forum I remember you mentioned it (it was from observations in the parking lot?,and it is no doubt in my mind that I have read it. You say it is in the volumes. Are you 100% certain it cannot be in the City of Dallas Archives?"

So I am not alone, but may have been mistaken as to where I saw it. And so we are clear - there is a difference between misremembering something and making it up. For instance, when you kept saying that Bowers saw the "red plain shirt" ... it to Kathy Beckett to finally ask you where did Bowers use the term 'red' and that was when it was confirmed that Bowers had never said 'red plaid' and that it was you who knowingly made it up. Had you believed you had read where Bowers used the word "red", then that would have been different.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.[/b]

Edited November 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

I don't make anything up

Sure you do. If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

(You made up the apocryphal & fictitious "Weitzman Report" that does not exist: that's just one example from many.)

Let me share another message I have gotten which touched on that report ...

"Btw, my health condition makes my memory not how it should be,even at the age of 27, but I just wanted to let you know that I KNOW that I too have read that Weitzman report,which some people claim do not exist. My memory fails to remember details within it,but somewhere here on the forum I remember you mentioned it (it was from observations in the parking lot?,and it is no doubt in my mind that I have read it. You say it is in the volumes. Are you 100% certain it cannot be in the City of Dallas Archives?"

So I am not alone,

Sure you are. Do you see that you have NOT attributed this quote to anyone? You made this up as well! This is your trick.

but may have been mistaken as to where I saw it. And so we are clear - there is a difference between misremembering something and making it up.

Isn't THAT the truth? You make things up, SUCH AS YOUR, ALLEGED FORUM MODERATOR'S QUOTE.

For instance, when you kept saying that Bowers saw the "red plain shirt"

I never said that. You are making this up, also. Big surprise.

... it to Kathy Beckett to finally ask you where did Bowers use the term 'red' and that was when it was confirmed that Bowers had never said 'red plaid' and that it was you who knowingly made it up.

I never made this up. You are making this up, as usual. Here's why & proof of why, my reply to Kathy, my post # 80 on this thread:

QUOTE(Kathy Beckett @ Sep 17 2007, 04:49 PM)

Miles,

You certainly have put forth some well thought out conclusions!!!!

But I'm still not clear here.

I think Bill said that the man on the bottom steps in a red shirt has no plaid design on it anywhere.

I am trying hard to see the red plaid--did Bowers actually use the words "red plaid" together?

This is kind of confusing, as you can well understand.

Kathy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good point, Kathy.

Yes, Bowers says "plaid shirt."

Bowers does not say "red plaid shirt."

The reasoning is that if you ask yourself the question: "Why did Bowers not say red plaid, if that is what he meant?"

and then ask yourself: "What other colour might Bowers have had in mind when he said "plaid?"

and then answer yourself:

Well, maybe Bowers was saying that he saw one of these:

It's logically possible.

But is it probable?

At 100 yards Bowers says that, as he looked toward the stairs, he saw a young man in his mid-twenties wearing a shirt that he calls plaid.

The photographic evidence shows a young man (whom Hudson said was in his late twenties) wearing a red shirt on the stairs.

The supposition is made that most Americans at the time, including Bowers, thought of a plaid shirt as being a red plaid shirt for the reason that most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s were red in colouration to one degree or another. Other colourations for plaid shirts were not as commonplace as red.

The contention is that Bowers was one person of many who associated plaid shirts with red plaid shirts.

Bowers saw, as what he thought & remembered as a red coloured shirt, something like this:

The point is this:

Bowers says that he saw a man is a white shirt & a man in a Plaid shirt, not in a Blue or Green or Black or a Poka Dot or a Yellow shirt.

Bowers says Plaid.

The preponderance of the evidence is that Bowers saw a young man in a red shirt that Bowers called a plaid shirt.

Of course, it is quite true that Bowers may not have seen, strictly speaking, a plaid shirt.

But, then there was a young man in a red shirt in the exact area where Bowers was looking & he, Bowers, may have mistook this red shirt as a plaid shirt, as a red plaid shirt.

Therefore, to argue that Bowers' use of the word "plaid" strikes down or invalidates Bowers' testimony does not make sense.

Thanks for your enquiry, Kathy. And for your kind words, too.

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Sep 17 2007, 09:46 PM

As is no surprise, you are trying to duck the issue, which is your making up a fictional forum moderator.

If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.

[Ken Rheberg]

I don't make anything up

Sure you do. If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

(You made up the apocryphal & fictitious "Weitzman Report" that does not exist: that's just one example from many.)

Let me share another message I have gotten which touched on that report ...

"Btw, my health condition makes my memory not how it should be,even at the age of 27, but I just wanted to let you know that I KNOW that I too have read that Weitzman report,which some people claim do not exist. My memory fails to remember details within it,but somewhere here on the forum I remember you mentioned it (it was from observations in the parking lot?,and it is no doubt in my mind that I have read it. You say it is in the volumes. Are you 100% certain it cannot be in the City of Dallas Archives?"

So I am not alone,

Sure you are. Do you see that you have NOT attributed this quote to anyone? You made this up as well! This is your trick.

but may have been mistaken as to where I saw it. And so we are clear - there is a difference between misremembering something and making it up.

Isn't THAT the truth? You make things up, SUCH AS YOUR, ALLEGED FORUM MODERATOR'S QUOTE.

For instance, when you kept saying that Bowers saw the "red plain shirt"

I never said that. You are making this up, also. Big surprise.

... it to Kathy Beckett to finally ask you where did Bowers use the term 'red' and that was when it was confirmed that Bowers had never said 'red plaid' and that it was you who knowingly made it up.

I never made this up. You are making this up, as usual. Here's why & proof of why, my reply to Kathy, my post # 80 on this thread:

QUOTE(Kathy Beckett @ Sep 17 2007, 04:49 PM)

Miles,

You certainly have put forth some well thought out conclusions!!!!

But I'm still not clear here.

I think Bill said that the man on the bottom steps in a red shirt has no plaid design on it anywhere.

I am trying hard to see the red plaid--did Bowers actually use the words "red plaid" together?

This is kind of confusing, as you can well understand.

Kathy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good point, Kathy.

Yes, Bowers says "plaid shirt."

Bowers does not say "red plaid shirt."

The reasoning is that if you ask yourself the question: "Why did Bowers not say red plaid, if that is what he meant?"

and then ask yourself: "What other colour might Bowers have had in mind when he said "plaid?"

and then answer yourself:

Well, maybe Bowers was saying that he saw one of these:

It's logically possible.

But is it probable?

At 100 yards Bowers says that, as he looked toward the stairs, he saw a young man in his mid-twenties wearing a shirt that he calls plaid.

The photographic evidence shows a young man (whom Hudson said was in his late twenties) wearing a red shirt on the stairs.

The supposition is made that most Americans at the time, including Bowers, thought of a plaid shirt as being a red plaid shirt for the reason that most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s were red in colouration to one degree or another. Other colourations for plaid shirts were not as commonplace as red.

The contention is that Bowers was one person of many who associated plaid shirts with red plaid shirts.

Bowers saw, as what he thought & remembered as a red coloured shirt, something like this:

The point is this:

Bowers says that he saw a man is a white shirt & a man in a Plaid shirt, not in a Blue or Green or Black or a Poka Dot or a Yellow shirt.

Bowers says Plaid.

The preponderance of the evidence is that Bowers saw a young man in a red shirt that Bowers called a plaid shirt.

Of course, it is quite true that Bowers may not have seen, strictly speaking, a plaid shirt.

But, then there was a young man in a red shirt in the exact area where Bowers was looking & he, Bowers, may have mistook this red shirt as a plaid shirt, as a red plaid shirt.

Therefore, to argue that Bowers' use of the word "plaid" strikes down or invalidates Bowers' testimony does not make sense.

Thanks for your enquiry, Kathy. And for your kind words, too.

This post has been edited by Miles Scull: Sep 17 2007, 09:46 PM

As is no surprise, you are trying to duck the issue, which is your making up a fictional forum moderator.

If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.

Miles said:

“The supposition is made that most Americans at the time, including Bowers, thought of a plaid shirt as being a red plaid shirt for the reason that most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s were red in colouration to one degree or another. Other colourations for plaid shirts were not as commonplace as red. The contention is that Bowers was one person of many who associated plaid shirts with red plaid shirts.”

Miles has now somehow gotten into the minds of most Americans back in the 1960’s, telling us what he supposes and contends that their thoughts were about plaid at that time. Plaid meant red plaid to these people, says Miles. He then cites no supporting statistics for red being the color of “most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s.”

Sorry, Miles. Plaid is nothing more than that. Plaid.

Webster’s Dictionary definition of plaid: Cloth with a checkered or crossbarred pattern.

Nothing about the color red. Plaid is what it is because of the pattern. Not the color.

You just can't seem to accept the fact that you may indeed be wrong about something. Perish the thought.

Ken

[Ken Rheberg]

I asked for someone to post Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" transcript of the entire Lee Bower's interview, or at least identify where it could be found. Bill Miller then followed up and seconded the request. It would be essential for both sides of the Bowers argument to have access to this transcript in order to carry on a meaningful discussion that would no doubt answer many questions.

Miles then responded that Dale Myers made a copy of a transcript in Gary Mack's possession. Miles went on to say:

"I can say that Bowers was not asked by Lane to draw an "X" to show the locus of the two men & did not do so."

It seems that Miles has the transcript. Am I correct, Miles? Did you obtain it from Myers?

Nice to see that one important question has been resolved just by being able to refer to the transcript. And thanks, Miles, for the answer.

So Lane never asked Bowers to indicate where the two men were standing. Not in the finished documentary or anywhere in the interview questions and answers that were not included in the documentary, which is what I've been saying all along. Yet the documentary shows a white "X" at the spot where Simmons indicated (after Lane had asked him) where the smoke had come from. Neither Lane nor his staff had any basis upon which to include that white "X" where they did while Bowers was talking. It appears to have been done to make Lane's case about where the shots came from. It's the spot indicated by both Simmons and Sam Holland. Lane already knew where Bowers' two men were standing. At the west end of the fence, as Bowers said during his WC testimony and which Myers concedes to.

Ken

[Bill Miller]

Miles has now somehow gotten into the minds of most Americans back in the 1960’s, telling us what he supposes and contends that their thoughts were about plaid at that time. Plaid meant red plaid to these people, says Miles. He then cites no supporting statistics for red being the color of “most plaid shirts sold & worn & SEEN in the 1960s.”

Yes, it appears that Miles is no better at understanding the minds of Americans any more than he can his own.

Bill

Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

So Lane never asked Bowers to indicate where the two men were standing. Not in the finished documentary or anywhere in the interview questions and answers that were not included in the documentary, which is what I've been saying all along. Yet the documentary shows a white "X" at the spot where Simmons indicated (after Lane had asked him) where the smoke had come from. Neither Lane nor his staff had any basis upon which to include that white "X" where they did while Bowers was talking. It appears to have been done to make Lane's case about where the shots came from. It's the spot indicated by both Simmons and Sam Holland. Lane already knew where Bowers' two men were standing. At the west end of the fence, as Bowers said during his WC testimony and which Myers concedes to.

Ken

Ken, I wouldn't be cashing any checks that Miles has written when it comes to citing facts because about everything he seems to deposit on the forum seems to bounce! If Miles had the entire transcript, I suspect that he would have posted it just to make him appear right. That 'copyright' garbage he mentioned is BS and is no different that saying I robbed a bank of only half of their money, thus I should be praised for not taking everything.

The one thing that keeps coming to mind is that Lane had no idea who all Bowers had talked to about what he observed that day and his remarks in the film "Rush to Judgment" - along with that "X" at the fence - has never been called into question by a single friend, relative, or interviewer of Lee Bowers. It would seem that had Lane misrepresented the location of the 'X', then someone would surely have talked by now.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

As is no surprise, you are trying to duck the issue, which is your making up a fictional forum moderator.

If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.

Miles, as usual you are just trolling for the name. What is important to me is that the person who sent me that message knows that it was so. Also, a few people who I have shown the message to who also saw the same things about you knows that it was so. And a little while ago I shared the entire page with another researcher so they can confirm the message for you, while not giving up the persons name.

And why are you always wanting to make someone appear as if they have no credibility when you go to such extremes to hold on tight to that title ... thus I am curious as to why you are wanting company.

So keep on trolling big fella'!!!

Bill Miller

Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ken Rheberg]

Miles,

You said this to Bill Miller:

“As is no surprise, you are trying to duck the issue, which is your making up a fictional forum moderator.

If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.”

No, Miles. You're the one with zero credibility. I’ve seen the moderator’s message to Bill. It’s real.

Ken

Edited November 9, 2007 by Ken Rheberg

[Miles Scull]

Miles,

You said this to Bill Miller:

“As is no surprise, you are trying to duck the issue, which is your making up a fictional forum moderator.

If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.”

No, Miles. You're the one with zero credibility. I’ve seen the moderator’s message to Bill. It’s real.

Ken

No, Ken. You're the one with zero credibility. It is not real. Miller made it up.

No rest for the "maker up of fictional & false crutches!"

Miller's ducking the issue:

This is the same quote (See post # 93 on this thread: "If The Hat Don't Fit, An Important New Discovery") that you have attributed to a forum moderator , although here you mask the identity of this forum moderator by using the cloaking language:

"one of the people on this forum"

So, first you say "one of the people on this forum," then you escalate that to a forum moderator.

I say that you made this up.

As usual, you were losing a debate, so, typically, you resorted to your old standby, your defence of desperation: you made up false inventions.

No?

OK, prove it to Duncan & the forum.

What is the name of the forum moderator YOU claim said this?

Then, we will find out if you made this up or not!

As is no surprise, you are trying to duck the issue, which is your making up a fictional forum moderator.

If you are losing an argument, which you are doing most of the time,

you start making things up to support your lost arguments.

Now you have made up a fictional forum moderator to defend your crumbing position.

The reason & proof of your making this up, is the simple glaring fact that you cannot & do not provide the name of this GHOST moderator.

There is no such moderator. You have made him up, obviously.

You have zero credibility.

Pépé le Moko: You know what I like about you?

Inspector Slimane: No, but I am humbly waiting for you to tell me.

Pépé le Moko: Your face, its the perfect face for someone in your work.

Inspector Slimane: How is that Pépé?

Pépé le Moko: To have a face that false is almost the equivalent of being honest.

[Bill Miller]

Pépé le Moko: You know what I like about you?

Inspector Slimane: No, but I am humbly waiting for you to tell me.

Pépé le Moko: Your face, its the perfect face for someone in your work.

Inspector Slimane: How is that Pépé?

Pépé le Moko: To have a face that false is almost the equivalent of being honest.

Another fine outstanding response from the forum xxxxx. Instead of acknowledging that you once again were blowing off about something that you knew nothing about - you give Ken some childish reply ... and to think you were concerned about others credibility. It appears that you will be up for two awards this year in Dallas under the category for making false allegations. One is the '2007 accuser award' and the other will be the '2007 false accuser award'.

Bill Miller

Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller