1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • Re: I Want Back On To The ROKC Forum

    From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to Brian Doyle on Mon Oct 2 08:42:21 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
    Kinaski is obviously reading my proof and poorly translating it...
    I want to be let back on to the ROKC Forum to argue my own proof...

    You're being peer reviewed. Get over it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Doyle@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 2 08:25:10 2023
    Kinaski is obviously reading my proof and poorly translating it...

    I want to be let back on to the ROKC Forum to argue my own proof...

    As Kinaski correctly pointed-out, the Prayer Man people are getting away with the murder of suggesting that Oswald said he went outside to watch the presidential parade...The best analyses of the notes from the 3pm Interrogation show that any of its
    content is highly suspect...The best research now shows that Oswald really told them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room alone during the assassination, as was admitted by Fritz and Hosty...So the "went outside to watch presidential parade" part was
    probably a fabrication by Hosty and wasn't really said by Oswald...That quote has been presented in a brainwashing manner as being a direct quote of Oswald when in fact he probably never even said it and its true context is it was fabricated to get
    around Oswald telling them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...The people presenting that quote have dominated and censored criticism of it with banning...In light of the rest of the evidence they are ignoring, Oswald never said it and its true purpose
    was to cover-up his true location he revealed and the 3pm Interrogation covered-up...

    Nice to know that because of that asshole Gordon people are now stealing my material uncredited...And doing so in a way that doesn't translate its best impact...And doing so in a way that gives UK moderation credit it doesn't deserve...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Doyle@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Mon Oct 2 08:47:52 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:42:23 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:



    You're being peer reviewed. Get over it.


    You're a piece of shit Gil and an intellectual low life...

    Show me the "Peer Review" of Davidson's Scoop Neckline on Prayer Man in Darnell that gives me Game, Set, and Match...

    You call for evidence but then troll when shown...

    Rotten Double Standard that has seriously damaged the credible JFK research community...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to Brian Doyle on Mon Oct 2 09:23:28 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:47:54 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
    You're a piece of shit Gil and an intellectual low life...

    Show me the "Peer Review" of Davidson's Scoop Neckline on Prayer Man in Darnell that gives me Game, Set, and Match...

    Peer review of Davidson's "scoop neckline" comes from Sarah Stanton's relatives.
    They told you that the woman in Davidson's picture was NOT Stanton.

    It's right here at the 21:00 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU

    Her relatives know what she looked like.
    But you refuse to accept it, just like you refuse to accept any evidence you don't like.
    Just like a lone nutter. You have your truth and nothing's gonna shake that.

    Now you're crying to get back onto a forum that you spend all day, every day trashing and
    whose members you constantly attack saying the most terrible things about.
    Do you think they don't read this newsgroup ?
    Do you think they don't know what you're saying about them ?

    If anyone has a reputation of being a piece of shit, it's you.
    Why should they let you back on there, so you can do the same thing you do here ?
    Forget it. No one in their right mind would let you back on their forum.

    You burned those bridges years ago.

    I'll put my reputation against yours any day of the week.
    I might not always be right, but I'M ON THE EDUCATION FORUM AND YOU'RE NOT. Because:
    I produce evidence.
    I produce documents.
    I produce testimony.
    I produce official records
    I produce witness videos.
    I produce links.

    You produce comments and insults. You expect people to believe what you say because you said it.

    You lie about things like saying Buell Frazier saw a half-eaten chesse sandwich and an apple in the second floor lunch room.
    Or the lie that Sarah Stanton said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.
    Neither one of those witnesses ever said those things.
    The difference between us is that when I cite a witness, I can provide proof. You can't.
    That makes you the intellectual low life.

    Every day, you come on line and lament how you're the victim and it's everybody else's fault. < yawn >
    You're the worst researcher in the world.
    And every day you prove it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Mon Oct 2 09:17:31 2023
    On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 08:42:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:25:12?AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
    Kinaski is obviously reading my proof and poorly translating it...
    I want to be let back on to the ROKC Forum to argue my own proof...

    You're being peer reviewed. Get over it.

    If a "proof" is so poorly written that you need to argue it, perhaps
    the time would have been better spent writing it...

    Peer review - something that believers just HATE...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Doyle@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Mon Oct 2 09:38:35 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:17:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 08:42:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus



    If a "proof" is so poorly written that you need to argue it, perhaps
    the time would have been better spent writing it...

    Peer review - something that believers just HATE...


    Because Ben has me on block he doesn't realize how stupid he makes himself look...

    And dirty Gil isn't going to tell him...

    It is good to see poetic justice turn Ben's idiotic blocking in to condemnation of Gil because Ben has blinded himself to realizing he is arguing my case for me and doing so against Gil...

    That's the beautiful thing about truth...Eventually it rounds up the knuckleheads and makes them look like the fools they are...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Mon Oct 2 09:37:44 2023
    On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:23:28 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:47:54?AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
    You're a piece of shit Gil and an intellectual low life...

    Show me the "Peer Review" of Davidson's Scoop Neckline on Prayer Man in Darnell that gives me Game, Set, and Match...

    Peer review of Davidson's "scoop neckline" comes from Sarah Stanton's relatives.
    They told you that the woman in Davidson's picture was NOT Stanton.

    It's right here at the 21:00 minute mark: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU

    Her relatives know what she looked like.
    But you refuse to accept it, just like you refuse to accept any evidence you don't like.
    Just like a lone nutter. You have your truth and nothing's gonna shake that.

    Now you're crying to get back onto a forum that you spend all day, every day trashing and
    whose members you constantly attack saying the most terrible things about.
    Do you think they don't read this newsgroup ?
    Do you think they don't know what you're saying about them ?

    If anyone has a reputation of being a piece of shit, it's you.
    Why should they let you back on there, so you can do the same thing you do here ?
    Forget it. No one in their right mind would let you back on their forum.

    You burned those bridges years ago.

    I'll put my reputation against yours any day of the week.
    I might not always be right, but I'M ON THE EDUCATION FORUM AND YOU'RE NOT. >Because:
    I produce evidence.
    I produce documents.
    I produce testimony.
    I produce official records
    I produce witness videos.
    I produce links.

    You produce comments and insults. You expect people to believe what you say because you said it.

    You lie about things like saying Buell Frazier saw a half-eaten chesse sandwich and an apple in the second floor lunch room.
    Or the lie that Sarah Stanton said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.
    Neither one of those witnesses ever said those things.
    The difference between us is that when I cite a witness, I can provide proof. >You can't.
    That makes you the intellectual low life.

    Every day, you come on line and lament how you're the victim and it's everybody else's fault. < yawn >
    You're the worst researcher in the world.
    And every day you prove it.


    Don't worry Gil - I can't recall when you were wrong. I certainly
    wouldn't bet against you unless I did as careful a study of the
    relevant evidence as you do.

    And Chickenshit does not.
    And Corbutt does not.
    And Davy Von Penis does not.
    And Chuckles does not.

    And the troll you're spanking does not...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Doyle@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Mon Oct 2 09:56:25 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:47:54 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:


    You're a piece of shit Gil and an intellectual low life...

    Show me the "Peer Review" of Davidson's Scoop Neckline on Prayer Man in Darnell that gives me Game, Set, and Match...

    Peer review of Davidson's "scoop neckline" comes from Sarah Stanton's relatives.
    They told you that the woman in Davidson's picture was NOT Stanton.

    It's right here at the 21:00 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU




    You're an idiot Gil and only a person lacking in intelligence would make the argument you do and not realize how it made him look...

    Photo proof comes before spoken testimony...You are comparing apples to oranges and trying to pretend you don't notice the difference...You are like a dope who goes to the counter and argues that he has enough money when a count of the money in his hand
    shows he doesn't...It is pretty dumb...

    Photo proof trumps everything else and you can see a woman's dress Scoop Neckline in Davidson...If you bothered to pay intelligent attention to the evidence I have been posting for years - once you prove Prayer Man is a woman then she has to be Stanton
    by the Prayer Man group's own evidence...Admit it Gil...You clique member assholes don't even read my posts that prove this...

    What you clique member assholes do is enter stupidly inadequate arguments like you do here...Then you go back to your Prayer Man-hijacked websites where you ban everyone who disagrees, and then you vote it as valid...This is a good microcosm of how that
    Greg Parker-originating crap theory came about in the first place and has been maintained despite years of evidence that disproves it...You can literally show indisputable proof to these assholes and it isn't good enough...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Greg Parker@21:1/5 to Brian Doyle on Mon Oct 2 19:06:46 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:56:27 AM UTC+11, Brian Doyle wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:47:54 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:


    You're a piece of shit Gil and an intellectual low life...

    Show me the "Peer Review" of Davidson's Scoop Neckline on Prayer Man in Darnell that gives me Game, Set, and Match...

    Peer review of Davidson's "scoop neckline" comes from Sarah Stanton's relatives.
    They told you that the woman in Davidson's picture was NOT Stanton.

    It's right here at the 21:00 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU

    You're an idiot Gil and only a person lacking in intelligence would make the argument you do and not realize how it made him look...

    Photo proof comes before spoken testimony...

    And yet you have long been claiming that your interview is the greatest research ever conducted.

    Now you are saying that was a lie, and actually Davidson's heavily-messed-with image is the greatest thing ever done on the case.

    You are comparing apples to oranges and trying to pretend you don't notice the difference...You are like a dope who goes to the counter and argues that he has enough money when a count of the money in his hand shows he doesn't...It is pretty dumb...

    Photo proof trumps everything else and you can see a woman's dress Scoop Neckline in Davidson...

    'Ceptin' po' ol' missah D done gone and forgot to add in some boobies. Scoop neckline and no cleavage on a 300 pounder? PT Barnum wouldn't even try and sell that polished turd.

    If you bothered to pay intelligent attention to the evidence I have been posting for years - once you prove Prayer Man is a woman then she has to be Stanton by the Prayer Man group's own evidence...Admit it Gil...You clique member assholes don't even
    read my posts that prove this...

    How can an idiot pay "intelligent attention", Brian? Only an idiot would expect that.

    What you clique member assholes do is enter stupidly inadequate arguments like you do here...Then you go back to your Prayer Man-hijacked websites where you ban everyone who disagrees, and then you vote it as valid...This is a good microcosm of how
    that Greg Parker-originating crap theory came about in the first place and has been maintained despite years of evidence that disproves it...You can literally show indisputable proof to these assholes and it isn't good enough...

    Brian, I recently had a discussion around what your reaction will be when PM is shown to be Oswald. I took the view that it will make no difference to you. Sure, you may disappear for a little while, but I think you will return and either try and
    discredit the scans showing it is Oswald OR, if that seems untenable, even to your thick head, you will simply ignore the last 10 years of your life of denial and pretend none of it ever happened. You will just move on to some other part of the case and
    start all over again with your demands for attention.

    What say you, Brian? Which will it be?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Greg Parker@21:1/5 to Brian Doyle on Mon Oct 2 19:15:15 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:25:12 AM UTC+11, Brian Doyle wrote:
    Kinaski is obviously reading my proof and poorly translating it...

    I want to be let back on to the ROKC Forum to argue my own proof...

    As Kinaski correctly pointed-out, the Prayer Man people are getting away with the murder of suggesting that Oswald said he went outside to watch the presidential parade...The best analyses of the notes from the 3pm Interrogation show that any of its
    content is highly suspect...The best research now shows that Oswald really told them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room alone during the assassination, as was admitted by Fritz and Hosty...So the "went outside to watch presidential parade" part was
    probably a fabrication by Hosty and wasn't really said by Oswald...That quote has been presented in a brainwashing manner as being a direct quote of Oswald when in fact he probably never even said it and its true context is it was fabricated to get
    around Oswald telling them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...The people presenting that quote have dominated and censored criticism of it with banning...In light of the rest of the evidence they are ignoring, Oswald never said it and its true purpose
    was to cover-up his true location he revealed and the 3pm Interrogation covered-up...

    Nice to know that because of that asshole Gordon people are now stealing my material uncredited...And doing so in a way that doesn't translate its best impact...And doing so in a way that gives UK moderation credit it doesn't deserve...

    As delightful as it would be to act as your host once again, Brian, alas, it is not possible. I know I know, we are the ones missing out on you, you little ray of sunshine, you. But that is the burden we must bear. I am heartbroken that I cannot see a
    way around it. Completely out of my hands.. Forumotion has threatened to close us down if we allow you back on. I fought them, mind you. I was not going to be dictated to like that and have your name sullied in the process. But I admit, I had nothing to
    fight them with but bluff. They hold all the aces in this game. I'm sure you understand.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoTrueFlags Here@21:1/5 to Brian Doyle on Mon Oct 2 19:20:07 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
    Kinaski is obviously reading my proof and poorly translating it...

    I want to be let back on to the ROKC Forum to argue my own proof...
    There is nothing more pathetic than Brian Doyle. Ladies and gentlemen of the Academy, Brian Doyle has earned the JFK Kook Oscar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From robert johnson@21:1/5 to NoTrueFlags Here on Tue Oct 3 00:35:02 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:20:08 AM UTC+1, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
    Kinaski is obviously reading my proof and poorly translating it...

    I want to be let back on to the ROKC Forum to argue my own proof...
    There is nothing more pathetic than Brian Doyle. Ladies and gentlemen of the Academy, Brian Doyle has earned the JFK Kook Oscar.


    Agreed.
    And that idiot's demands are just too fucking funny.
    YOU WILL NEVER REGAIN AXX TO ROKC
    THAT PLACE IS RESERVED FOR REAL RESEARCHERS NOT NUT CASE ASSHOLES LIKE BRIAN DOYLE.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoTrueFlags Here@21:1/5 to robert johnson on Tue Oct 3 02:28:48 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:35:04 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:20:08 AM UTC+1, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
    Kinaski is obviously reading my proof and poorly translating it...

    I want to be let back on to the ROKC Forum to argue my own proof...
    There is nothing more pathetic than Brian Doyle. Ladies and gentlemen of the Academy, Brian Doyle has earned the JFK Kook Oscar.
    Agreed.
    And that idiot's demands are just too fucking funny.
    YOU WILL NEVER REGAIN AXX TO ROKC
    THAT PLACE IS RESERVED FOR REAL RESEARCHERS NOT NUT CASE ASSHOLES LIKE BRIAN DOYLE.

    Well, whoever it is reserved for, it is pathetic to beg to be allowed to join, especially after having made it known that he despises everybody there. It's like Simon Wiesenthal begging to join the Nazi Party. It's insanely pathetic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From robert johnson@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 3 03:53:02 2023
    Point taken, question is will the brain dead cunt take it?
    Somehow I doubt this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to robert johnson on Tue Oct 3 05:10:18 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:03 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
    Point taken, question is will the brain dead cunt take it?
    Somehow I doubt this.

    Stanton's relatives told Doyle that the woman in Davidson's picture was NOT Stanton.
    It's right here at the 21:00 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU

    But even though Doyle never met Stanton in his life, he knows what Stanton looked like better than her own relatives.
    That's what he's saying.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Doyle@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Tue Oct 3 07:34:18 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:10:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:03 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:



    Stanton's relatives told Doyle that the woman in Davidson's picture was NOT Stanton.
    It's right here at the 21:00 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU
    But even though Doyle never met Stanton in his life, he knows what Stanton looked like better than her own relatives.
    That's what he's saying.


    1) You are honoring one of the scummiest ROKC trolls and siding with him against one of the best JFK researchers...

    2) You are just ignoring my response and repeating your illegitimate point over...Rosa and Wanda didn't fully understand the evidence so they responded by saying the poor resolution blow-up of Wiegman by Davidson didn't look like Sarah...Gil is
    dishonest because he already tried this cheap trick and I already told him Wanda later told me "It has to be my grand mother Sarah because she's the biggest one out there"...Gil is dishonest because he tries to lie by ignoring that the person Wanda was
    referring to there was the same person in Davidson...

    3) Gil just stupidly and trollishly ignores that photo evidence is better than the intentionally-misconstrued quotes he offers...The reason Gil ignores Davidson's most recent woman's Scoop Neckline evidence is because he knows it is damning and proves
    Prayer Man is Stanton...When you tell Gil that Kamp's own case of evidence forces Prayer Man to be Stanton once the Scoop Neckline proves Prayer Man is a woman he ignores it and just repeats the same invalid argument...That's why I am saying there is no
    Peer Review on the JFK internet...All there is are gangs of feral researchers operating on the lawless internet under corrupted moderators and taking advantage of it in their bullshit entries like Gil does here...Peer Review would not allow Gil to ignore
    a valid scientific argument of evidence or side with trolls...

    Gil is publicly dodging Davidson's photo science that shows a woman's "Scoop" Neckline on Prayer Man's dress and ends the issue...Because of Lauren Johnson and James Gordon the JFK internet has now become a place that no longer honors the skilled
    evidence it lies and says it practices...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chuck Schuyler@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Tue Oct 3 07:44:31 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:42:23 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
    Kinaski is obviously reading my proof and poorly translating it...
    I want to be let back on to the ROKC Forum to argue my own proof...

    You're being peer reviewed. Get over it.

    You're all Brian Doyle's peers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Doyle@21:1/5 to Greg Parker on Tue Oct 3 07:53:19 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:06:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:56:27 AM UTC+11, Brian Doyle wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:



    Brian, I recently had a discussion around what your reaction will be when PM is shown to be Oswald. I took the view that it will make no difference to you. Sure, you may disappear for a little while, but I think you will return and either try and
    discredit the scans showing it is Oswald OR, if that seems untenable, even to your thick head, you will simply ignore the last 10 years of your life of denial and pretend none of it ever happened. You will just move on to some other part of the case and
    start all over again with your demands for attention.

    What say you, Brian? Which will it be?


    Greg is forgetting that in 2016 when I first posted the Davdison enhancement that showed a woman's face on Prayer Man on my Prayer Woman Facebook page Greg went over there and practically admitted that I had proven my case and refuted Prayer Man...Greg
    wrote that ROKC tolerated Bart Kamp and kept him on like a favorite junkyard dog...The clear intent of Greg's posting was to admit I had won the game and refuted Prayer Man without saying so directly...This became even more clear when I interviewed Wanda
    Daniel and got Stanton's family photo showing her obesity and 5 foot 4 height...What Greg did was go back and delete those comments on my Facebook Prayer Woman page...Just to show the true trolling nature of this researching-damaging asshole Greg Parker,
    whose sole purpose is to permanently fuck-up credible JFK research...Davidson's woman's face was just as legitimate in 2016 as it is now...Parker and his troll farm did their usual scummy thuggery and abuse and managed to use the corrupted moderation of
    the universally UK-moderated JFK forums to avoid the Peer Review on Davidson that would have shown his enhancement was conclusive proof that Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton...The trolling above is a good example of the content Parker and his trolls always
    manage to bring the discussion down to...Its design is to pull the conversation down in to ROKC-like trolling and away from the proof that condemns Prayer Man...Prayer Man was refuted in 2016 however incompetent and corrupted moderation has managed to
    keep it alive through censorship and banning...Greg is the ugly figurehead of that and there he is doing his ugly business...May he be damned...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Doyle@21:1/5 to Greg Parker on Tue Oct 3 08:23:56 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:15:17 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:25:12 AM UTC+11, Brian Doyle wrote:



    As delightful as it would be to act as your host once again, Brian, alas, it is not possible. I know I know, we are the ones missing out on you, you little ray of sunshine, you. But that is the burden we must bear. I am heartbroken that I cannot see a
    way around it. Completely out of my hands.. Forumotion has threatened to close us down if we allow you back on. I fought them, mind you. I was not going to be dictated to like that and have your name sullied in the process. But I admit, I had nothing to
    fight them with but bluff. They hold all the aces in this game. I'm sure you understand.



    Just to show what a true nut Parker is, here he is showing the cowardly egotistical domination by censorship on which his "research" depends...As if the "Forummotion" host even knows or cares who I am...Greg is a paranoid nut who thinks the Forummotion
    is following his every word as ROKC cult leader and is inserting a moral imperative to keep me off...This kind of thing would normally earn Greg true Fetzer/Cinque lunatic status, however when you add in the criminal "curve" of corruption on the JFK
    internet such nuttery is OK and doesn't serve as a good gauge of how crazy Parker is...The clique can get away with anything and the researchers providing the correct solution are never good enough...Only now the forum hosts are getting involved even
    though that is the sick pup Parker pulling that out of his crazy ass...All that is happening here is cult leader and blowhard Parker is just proving he does cheap banning of anyone who credibly refutes him and that he is a coward and a nut who directly
    depends on censoring of persons and information in order to make his evidence-hacking work...

    Greg shoud be advised that I have already been let back on because Kinaski was basing his correct destruction of the Prayer Man theory, that he was posting on ROKC, on my research...Kinaski was posting my evidence point for point - even if in a primitive
    manner that didn't enunciate the complete evidence...Smart researchers will see that your responses to Kinaski were a little too long and little too wordy...Smart researchers will understand that the ratio of bullshit that you type, in relation to the
    evidence you are trying to deny, is a direct indicator on how full of shit you are Greg and how aware you are of the amount of bullshit you need to force in order to get around evidence you are well aware is legitimate...It is this bullying/bullshit
    technique you exploit on your censorship-controlled website that gets you around giving any legitimate answer to Davidson's Scoop Neckline evidence that you and your thugs succeeded in avoiding answering...You're a liar Greg because you said you don't
    ban people who disagree with you...You're a liar because not only did you avoid giving any credible answer to the Scoop Neckline evidence but you also banned Kinaski because he showed what bullshit Prayer Man is by means of my evidence (without crediting
    me)...

    All Greg is doing above is trolling and making an excuse for why he is censoring me on ROKC because he knows damned well that I am deadly to him and his website of trolling assholes and that the Prayer Man theory will go down quickly once it is no longer
    protected by Mr Parker's cowardly outright censorship...Greg trolls instead of honestly answering why ROKC was publicly unable to give any legitimate research Peer Review of Davidson's Scoop Neckline or how it refutes Prayer Man...These assholes would
    rather take over and destroy the whole JFK internet than simply admit what has already been shown and what only digs their hole deeper by not admitting...They would rather give legitimacy to the moderator crooks Larsen and Gordon than recover the
    community's credibility by simply admitting what cannot be denied...This is how the asshole kings DiEugenio and Parker take power and rule the internet...By the dark route...By corruption and deceit...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From robert johnson@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 3 11:30:48 2023
    DOYLE YOU ARE A TRUE LEPER

    NO ONE LIKES YOU
    NO ONE BELIEVES YOU
    NO ONE THINKS YOU ARE A RESEARCHER

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)