Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and moreimportant to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and moreimportant to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and
I had to put the covers, those little styrofoam boxes, over the outside faucets to protect them from freezing. Yes, it took me half a day finding the damned things.
So the question was: covers for the faucets or reading knuckleheads (both sides) discussing a controversial event 60 years ago whose resolution they have no influence over? The fact that the covers are on is a hint as to who won out.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:55 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and
I had to put the covers, those little styrofoam boxes, over the outside faucets to protect them from freezing. Yes, it took me half a day finding the damned things.I have my doubts about those things. Insulation only holds in heat when there is heat, where is the heat generated outside? I suspect if you put a thermometer inside and outside they will read the same.
So the question was: covers for the faucets or reading knuckleheads (both sides) discussing a controversial event 60 years ago whose resolution they have no influence over? The fact that the covers are on is a hint as to who won out.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 5:27:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:55 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and
I've never heard of doing this. I agree that Styrofoam insulation can only hold in heat.I had to put the covers, those little styrofoam boxes, over the outside faucets to protect them from freezing. Yes, it took me half a day finding the damned things.I have my doubts about those things. Insulation only holds in heat when there is heat, where is the heat generated outside? I suspect if you put a thermometer inside and outside they will read the same.
So the question was: covers for the faucets or reading knuckleheads (both sides) discussing a controversial event 60 years ago whose resolution they have no influence over? The fact that the covers are on is a hint as to who won out.
What is
might do is hold in the daytime heat overnight. I don't know how efficiently it would do that. My
house was built a little over 20 years ago.
The faucets are made so the valve is inside the house
where it won't be exposed to the outside temperature.
What I have to do is make sure I
disconnect any thing from the faucet. I have one faucet with a timer attached. Also, I've ruined
more than one plastic hose nozzle by letting it freeze up.
That's the nice thing about this discussion group. You can stay away for months and nothing
changes. There might be some different characters, or at least different screennames, but the
silly arguments just keep getting recycled. They just keep repolishing the same old turds from
decades past.
So the question was: covers for the faucets or reading knuckleheads (both sides) discussing a controversial event 60 years ago whose resolution they have no influence over?
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and
That's the nice thing about this discussion group. You can stay away for months and nothing
changes. There might be some different characters, or at least different screennames, but the
silly arguments just keep getting recycled. They just keep repolishing the same old turds from
decades past.
Be careful about dropping in. For over a year I had pretty much dropped out, just checking in
once every few months. Then for some reason I got hooked again. The subject itself is
fascinating given all the subplots involved. Figuring it out is pretty simple. The only people
who can't figure out the truth are the ones who don't want to know the truth. They find their
fantasies more interesting.
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and moreimportant to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!) Things must be tough for you now that the hay fever season is over. Maybe you could spend more time farting. Or put some itching powder on your balls. Then you'd have something to do.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and
Things must be tough for you now that the hay fever season is over. Maybe you could spend more time farting. Or put some itching powder on your balls. Then you'd have something to do.
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and moreimportant to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 14:54:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've never heard of doing this. I agree that Styrofoam insulation can only hold in heat. What isAnd this has what to do with the JFK assassination?
might do is hold in the daytime heat overnight. I don't know how efficiently it would do that. My
house was built a little over 20 years ago. The faucets are made so the valve is inside the house
where it won't be exposed to the outside temperature. What I have to do is make sure I
disconnect any thing from the faucet. I have one faucet with a timer attached. Also, I've ruined
more than one plastic hose nozzle by letting it freeze up.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and
I vanish now for weeks at a time, but always come back so that Ben can repost his false claims about what I said, and call me a liar and a coward, and so SkyThrone can be reduced to ad hominem as well.point where I was just reposting my old posts showing Lane’s abuse of the record when Ben started reposting the series again.
I notice Ben has stopped posting his ever-present Mark Lane series. Maybe because it was so easy to point out where Lane was ignoring contrary evidence and selecting judiciously from the record to slant the information towards conspiracy. It got to the
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:58:43 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and
the point where I was just reposting my old posts showing Lane’s abuse of the record when Ben started reposting the series again.I vanish now for weeks at a time, but always come back so that Ben can repost his false claims about what I said, and call me a liar and a coward, and so SkyThrone can be reduced to ad hominem as well.
I notice Ben has stopped posting his ever-present Mark Lane series. Maybe because it was so easy to point out where Lane was ignoring contrary evidence and selecting judiciously from the record to slant the information towards conspiracy. It got to
Yes they are rather predictably entertaining.
Gil is turning into the mini-Holmes. He's deleting arguments for which he has no rebuttal.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wroteand more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:58:43 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better
to the point where I was just reposting my old posts showing Lane’s abuse of the record when Ben started reposting the series again.I vanish now for weeks at a time, but always come back so that Ben can repost his false claims about what I said, and call me a liar and a coward, and so SkyThrone can be reduced to ad hominem as well.
I notice Ben has stopped posting his ever-present Mark Lane series. Maybe because it was so easy to point out where Lane was ignoring contrary evidence and selecting judiciously from the record to slant the information towards conspiracy. It got
It seems that BT George has quit sneezing, farting and scratching his balls. Nothing left to do now but troll the JFK assassination newsgroup.Well at least whatever he terms "BS"---regardless of how sensible or relevant it actually is---comes closer to an actual logical fallacy than anything the hapless bebsy comes up with!Yes they are rather predictably entertaining.Gil is turning into the mini-Holmes. He's deleting arguments for which he has no rebuttal.
Instead of calling them logical fallacies, he just calls them bullshit without even attempting to
point out why they are bullshit. They are bullshit because he cannot refute them.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:58:43 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better and
the point where I was just reposting my old posts showing Lane’s abuse of the record when Ben started reposting the series again.I vanish now for weeks at a time, but always come back so that Ben can repost his false claims about what I said, and call me a liar and a coward, and so SkyThrone can be reduced to ad hominem as well.
I notice Ben has stopped posting his ever-present Mark Lane series. Maybe because it was so easy to point out where Lane was ignoring contrary evidence and selecting judiciously from the record to slant the information towards conspiracy. It got to
Yes they are rather predictably entertaining.Gil is turning into the mini-Holmes. He's deleting arguments for which he has no rebuttal.
Instead of calling them logical fallacies, he just calls them bullshit without even attempting to
point out why they are bullshit. They are bullshit because he cannot refute them.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:27:31 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:and more important to do. (Anything at or above the level of sneezing should qualify!)
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:58:43 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Just checking in to see if any intelligent life remained over here. ...Pretty much synonymous with verifying that most of my fellow LNs are still hanging around. Looks like most of them are. And anyone missing likely just has something better
got to the point where I was just reposting my old posts showing Lane’s abuse of the record when Ben started reposting the series again.I vanish now for weeks at a time, but always come back so that Ben can repost his false claims about what I said, and call me a liar and a coward, and so SkyThrone can be reduced to ad hominem as well.
I notice Ben has stopped posting his ever-present Mark Lane series. Maybe because it was so easy to point out where Lane was ignoring contrary evidence and selecting judiciously from the record to slant the information towards conspiracy. It
It seems that BT George has quit sneezing, farting and scratching his balls. Nothing left to do now but troll the JFK assassination newsgroup.Well at least whatever he terms "BS"---regardless of how sensible or relevant it actually is---comes closer to an actual logical fallacy than anything the hapless bebsy comes up with!Yes they are rather predictably entertaining.Gil is turning into the mini-Holmes. He's deleting arguments for which he has no rebuttal.
Instead of calling them logical fallacies, he just calls them bullshit without even attempting to
point out why they are bullshit. They are bullshit because he cannot refute them.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:14:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben is stuck. He ignores my invitation to discuss the Kennedy assassination here:
== quote ==
Nothing. But you’ve shown an aversion to discussing the JFK assassination for *years*.
If you disagree, post a reasoned argument for any aspect of the conspiracy you wish, and cite the evidence you think supports your argument.
This is not an invitation to claim I said things I never said, or even to talk about things I did say.
It’s an invitation to discuss the Kennedy assassination.
== unquote ==
Instead he wants to put words in my mouth and talk about things I never said.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:14:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Here Hank insists on "discussing" the assassination with somebody Hank thinks refuses to discuss the assassination. Hank has been insisting on this for decades now. I'm no expert, but I think Hank might be insane.You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben is stuck. He ignores my invitation to discuss the Kennedy assassination here:
== quote ==
Nothing. But you’ve shown an aversion to discussing the JFK assassination for *years*.
If you disagree, post a reasoned argument for any aspect of the conspiracy you wish, and cite the evidence you think supports your argument.
This is not an invitation to claim I said things I never said, or even to talk about things I did say.
It’s an invitation to discuss the Kennedy assassination.
== unquote ==
Instead he wants to put words in my mouth and talk about things I never said.
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 9:33:57?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:14:22?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
It's pointless trying to have a dialog with someone who...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 9:33:57 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:14:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben is stuck. He ignores my invitation to discuss the Kennedy assassination here:
== quote ==
Nothing. But you’ve shown an aversion to discussing the JFK assassination for *years*.
If you disagree, post a reasoned argument for any aspect of the conspiracy you wish, and cite the evidence you think supports your argument.
This is not an invitation to claim I said things I never said, or even to talk about things I did say.
It’s an invitation to discuss the Kennedy assassination.
== unquote ==
Instead he wants to put words in my mouth and talk about things I never said.Here Hank insists on "discussing" the assassination with somebody Hank thinks refuses to discuss the assassination. Hank has been insisting on this for decades now. I'm no expert, but I think Hank might be insane.
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 9:33:57 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:14:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?Ben is stuck. He ignores my invitation to discuss the Kennedy assassination here:
== quote ==
Nothing. But you’ve shown an aversion to discussing the JFK assassination for *years*.
If you disagree, post a reasoned argument for any aspect of the conspiracy you wish, and cite the evidence you think supports your argument.
This is not an invitation to claim I said things I never said, or even to talk about things I did say.
It’s an invitation to discuss the Kennedy assassination.
== unquote ==
Instead he wants to put words in my mouth and talk about things I never said.Here Hank insists on "discussing" the assassination with somebody Hank thinks refuses to discuss the assassination. Hank has been insisting on this for decades now. I'm no expert, but I think Hank might be insane.
You are pretending...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 117:19:10 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,237 |