Jump to content
The Education Forum

O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie


Recommended Posts

Okay, for starters I've never even contemplated another human being eating excrement let alone voiced some sort of pleasure from the thought of it. That would be you.

I don't for one second enjoy the thought that other people may be afraid of me or that I generate fear in them. If anybody on here is willing to tell me that they are fearful of what I have to say then I will apologise for it. Like I apologised to Martin less than an hour ago for my behaviour last week. For you, it is the opposite, you continually voice how pleasurable it makes you feel that other people are afraid and the fear you think they have. You continually voice how pleasurable it makes you feel that you are symbolically "destroying" other members. And you continually use terminology that creates the impression that the destruction of people and things arouses you in some perverse way.

Now, again here is a difference between you and I. I enjoy banter. I enjoy getting the odd dig in every now and again. Some people will find them funny and some people won't. David Von Pein gives as good as he gets. I did once tell him to go get a handful of chicken fat and shove his copy of Reclaiming History up his hoop. Obviously I didn't mean literally and it was done in good jest to his very thoughtful and respectful responses to me, both here on the EF and on his own blog that I have no right to reply on. Likewise, I can take a good dig on the chin and some people's insults toward me have been hilariously funny.

I know when I am getting out of hand and I know when I am getting too emotionally involved in matters here on this forum. That is usually when I take a sabbatical. If my efforts at humour have seriously hurt anybody's feelings and I am made aware of it then I will apologise. No question.

LOL! I see you still are living in your fantasy world. Again no surprise.

Well find me a post where I've said I've enjoyed watching another member eat excrement and I'll even give you an apology.

Find me a post where I've said another member's "fear is palpable" and I'll buy you an AR-15 before they are banned.

Are you getting me being a smart arse and obnoxious piss taker mixed up with what I've accused you of?

So its all about specific phrases is it? You want me to dredge up your gems?

You can try and characterize your failing any way you choose. it won't however absolve you of the actual deeds.

Live with it.

BTW, I would LOVE to see where I told another member I enjoyed watching another member eat crap. Have it it.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW, I would LOVE to see where I told another member I enjoyed watching another member eat crap. Have it it.

Time for you to eat your turd sandwich. Hope you enjoy it. I sure enjoyed watching you make it.

"Have it it"?

You "hoped" the other member "enjoyed" eating it. You just "enjoyed" watching it being made.

Sorry if my small mistake made you look bad.

Oh no, I'm really quite happy with that quote...thanks for finding it.

Yours are similarly colorful, just not very original nor witty.

But my you do seem you have an affinity for male rear ends....and that's just from this thread.

"Now, because you live inside your own bum hole when it comes to trying to understand the rest of the world..."

"You have had your arse handed to you on a plate."

BTW, thanks for digging back into that wonderful thread about LHO's chin in the backyard photos. What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

Not unlike how this thread transpired and your inability to deal directly with the facts. Surprise surprise.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

That's rich coming from Craig Lamson, the man who has repeatedly claimed that the predominant fabric folds in these photos are similar in size, shape, and location.

weaverspecial.jpg

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

That's rich coming from Craig Lamson, the man who has repeatedly claimed that the predominant fabric folds in these photos are similar in size, shape, and location.

weaverspecial.jpg

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

And they are. Another varnell holy grail exposed as a scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the paranoid. I took my Mom to the doctor. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Now you do also now the overall crime figures include a host of lesser crimes for the US numbers as well That however won't fit well for the false narrative you are trying to portray. I'll be happy to continue you show you the folly of your position. But you said you were done. Which is it, or are you simply blowing more smoke?

But hey I can spot the UK a 50% reduction of the overall crime rate if it makes you feel better....but you still won't do any better in the end....

Craig,

I'm done. I'll leave with a polite and respectful response.

i) The reason I said it was a "convenient trip" was because for 20 minutes after you said you were departing your name was still logged into the thread before logging out. As someone who obviously has a strong opinion on this I'd have thought you'd know the figures and would have posted them in your last reply. No paranoia on my part - just an expectation that you already had the information.

ii) As I have pointed out to Jim earlier today. This is not about whether it is safer in the U.K. or the U.S. from my perspective. This is about you wanting to present an argument that an armed society is a safer one, so you are trying to use the U.K. violent crime figures to support your argument.

iii) We live in completely different worlds and have grown up in different cultures. You have grown up with a second amendment and a right to bear arms and do not want to ever give up your right to own them. I have grown up with no such right and do not ever want to own one. Ever.

iv) If someone breaks into my house the likelihood that they will have a firearm is remote at best. If they have a hammer, great. I've got one too and I fancy my chances against someone with a hammer than I would if they had a .357 Magnum. If I also had a .357 Magnum then I guess things are going to get messy.

v) The problems of weekend drink related violence is a real one and I am not over exaggerating. It is a huge problem that you simply do not have. All you have to do is google it.

As far as I'm concerned you can continue to believe that it is safer to live in the U.S. than in the U.K. but I suppose that depends upon where you live. If you live in Sametown USA, population 546 then I'm guessing the crime figures aren't going to be huge. If you live in Chicago or D.C. then I'm guessing it's a different story.

The fact that I brought bing-drinking into it is no different than the pro-gun lobby saying the biggest cause of gun murder is gang-related shootings. I'm not asking you to disregard the drinking culture issue, I'm asking you to consider it. The same way we cannot dismiss the fact that many of the murders in your country are committed by gang members. It doesn't become confined - the violence spreads out into the wider society.

A final question I'd like you to answer though is this; do you believe Pakistan is safer than both the U.K. and the United States?

I had a complete reply to this all typed up and I swiped my two fingers over the surface of my magic mouse and I lost it. And quite frankly I don't feel like retyping it so you get the last word.

But to answer your question, I don't know, never looked but my guess is it depends where and how you live....familiar tune eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

That's rich coming from Craig Lamson, the man who has repeatedly claimed that the predominant fabric folds in these photos are similar in size, shape, and location.

weaverspecial.jpg

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

And they are. Another varnell holy grail exposed as a scam.

Again, if one cannot discern the difference between a concave curve and a convex curve one shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

That's rich coming from Craig Lamson, the man who has repeatedly claimed that the predominant fabric folds in these photos are similar in size, shape, and location.

weaverspecial.jpg

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

And they are. Another varnell holy grail exposed as a scam.

Again, if one cannot discern the difference between a concave curve and a convex curve one shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms.

Do it for us Cliff, show us the differences. Lets expose this nonsense once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

That's rich coming from Craig Lamson, the man who has repeatedly claimed that the predominant fabric folds in these photos are similar in size, shape, and location.

weaverspecial.jpg

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

And they are. Another varnell holy grail exposed as a scam.

Again, if one cannot discern the difference between a concave curve and a convex curve one shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms.

Do it for us Cliff, show us the differences. Lets expose this nonsense once and for all.

No, Craig, you're not a "once and for all" type of guy. You're doubling down on spew, as you will always do.

Anyone who cannot visually discern the difference between a concave curve and a convex curve should not be allowed to possess firearms.

Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we get back to a bit about what this was about?

I thought this was about the physical evidence, among other things. Both Baker and Von Pein raised the subject. Neither of them comment on the clothing evidence, however, and all Lamson does is playground stuff they can't use.

The most efficient evidence is that which draws no reasoned counter-argument.

As Salandria noted in his lunch with Specter, the clothing evidence establishes the certainty of multiple shooters.

This salient fact is often lost in the deluge of minutia, Jim.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on now varnell, what is it you are afraid of? Roflmao!

Cliff the cluck cluck...

As I pointed out, nothing will stop you from spewing, Craig. It's all you do.

Vintage chicken varnell...cluck, cluck, cluck

Ever figure out how the sun works?

Lmao...again

JFK wasn't sitting in the sun on the airplane.

The bulge in his shirt at the back of his neck fits the definition of a convex curve.

The fold was above the bottom of his collar.

In the Weaver photo the sun shines on the trough of the indentation, which shows a smooth surface underneath. The fold was below the bottom of the collar at the corner of Main and Houston.

An indentation fits the definition of a concave curve.

You don't grasp the difference between convex and concave, Craig. The State of Indiana is remiss allowing you to possess a firearm, much less carry it concealed.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on now varnell, what is it you are afraid of? Roflmao!

Cliff the cluck cluck...

As I pointed out, nothing will stop you from spewing, Craig. It's all you do.

Vintage chicken varnell...cluck, cluck, cluck

Ever figure out how the sun works?

Lmao...again

JFK wasn't sitting in the sun on the airplane.

The bulge in his shirt at the back of his neck fits the definition of a convex curve.

The fold was above the bottom of his collar.

In the Weaver photo the sun shines on the trough of the indentation, which shows a smooth surface underneath. The fold was below the bottom of the collar at the corner of Main and Houston.

An indentation fits the definition of a concave curve.

You don't grasp the difference between convex and concave, Craig. The State of Indiana is remiss allowing you to possess a firearm, much less carry it concealed.

Lmao! Just show us chicken little cliffy.

What are you afraid of?

That the world will see they are the same types of folds and you are wrong once again?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on now varnell, what is it you are afraid of? Roflmao!

Cliff the cluck cluck...

As I pointed out, nothing will stop you from spewing, Craig. It's all you do.

Vintage chicken varnell...cluck, cluck, cluck

Ever figure out how the sun works?

Lmao...again

JFK wasn't sitting in the sun on the airplane.

The bulge in his shirt at the back of his neck fits the definition of a convex curve.

The fold was above the bottom of his collar.

In the Weaver photo the sun shines on the trough of the indentation, which shows a smooth surface underneath. The fold was below the bottom of the collar at the corner of Main and Houston.

An indentation fits the definition of a concave curve.

You don't grasp the difference between convex and concave, Craig. The State of Indiana is remiss allowing you to possess a firearm, much less carry it concealed.

Lmao! Just show us chicken little cliffy.

What are you afraid of?

That the world will see they are the same types of folds and you are wrong once again?

David Von Pein and Paul Baker can't see it.

Otherwise, they would incorporate your talking points.

Instead, they say nothing when directly challenged on the issue.

Your claim is a priori idiotic.

weaverspecial.jpg

LoweJFKphoto.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...