Discussion:
John McAdams & Grizzlie Antagonist join hands to go after skeptics of all stripes.
(too old to reply)
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-18 19:52:50 UTC
Permalink
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
It's tradmark, neoconservative, right-wing disinformation that McA and
Mr. Courage use when they suggest that leftists really wanted a
Soviet-style imperium to triumph, one that operated in secrecy, like
the USA now does; one that practiced disinformation, like the USA now
does; one that abandoned one of the longest standing guarantees of
individual rights, habeas corpus, like the USA now does; one that used
gulags, torture, death domestic spying, extraordinary renditions and
unprovoked wars, like both the USSR did and the USA now does.

Unlike what the neocons say, it is precisely those vile features of the
USSR that were anathema to paleoconservatives and classic liberals
alike, and why they take such a principled stand against the current
wave of neo-Big Brotherism.

It's the neocons who applaud Bush's embrace of the very practices that
paleocons and classic libs found so objectionable when practiced first
by the Nazis, then the commies, and now the Bushistas.

The hopes of real liberals, from paleoconservatives to classic
liberals, was to limit the power of the Police State, not enhance it,
such as has happened of late; to limit the deficits, not increase
them, such as we've experienced under "conservative" rule; and to
constrain the militarists from their vile tendency to break the bank,
shred civil liberties and void the Geneva Conventions whilst we go
stomping about the world in search of (often fictitious) monsters to
destroy.

The notion that paleoconservatives and classic liberals cheered the
USSR is an oft repeated, false slur, just as it wa a false slur to once
suggest one was either with Joe McCarthy or with the communists and
just as it is absurd to argue that one is either with Bush or with the
terrorists.

But since what currently passes for conservatives - blokes like John
McAdams and Mr. Courage, aka, Grizzlie Antagonist - are, from all
appearances, actually Big Brother statists, what can anyone expect but
that they will trade in standard, Big Brother Statecraft -
disinformation and dissimulation?

Why else would McAdams and Mr. Courage harbor such profound respect for
one of the greatest disinformationalists and dissimulators, and one of
the best-known practitioners of Big Brother Statecraft of all time, J.
Edgar Hoover?

For just as Hoover destroyed reputations of his "enemies" with false
smears, so, too, did McAdams fling false charges of pedophilia and
illicit drug use at his disputants on newsgroups. After having been
outed in his local newspaper,* McAdams 12-stepped his way toward
respectability and now is a "moderator," ironically filtering precisely
the sort of smears he used to put out all the time.

When he's not censoring unacceptable posts, McA cuddles with a comrade,
"Mr. Courage," who doesn't fear being shamed for posting exactly the
kinds of smears that got McA in such hot water because he posts, as an
abject coward, under an assumed name, "Grizzlie Antagonist."

Is is by accident that these sterling fellows swear by their model's,
J. Edgar Hoover's "true" solution to the Kennedy mystery?

Gary

* See: Tom Vanden Brrook, "On-line Insults Put Conduct @ Issue."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, 3/24/96, copies available by faxed request
to: 415-776-7456.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
2006-09-18 21:15:41 UTC
Permalink
No kidding. What a creep the Griz turns out to be. Hiding behind a
mask, though also posting to the baseball ng as a Giants fan, dumping
large amounts of merde into aaj, getting it past the censors who will
allow a nameless LNT priveleges far greater than those accorded to the
most conservative named CT. Making demands, with little wit, he is
showing himself to be a biased dimwit.

Pamela

www.in-broad-daylight.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
It's tradmark, neoconservative, right-wing disinformation that McA and
Mr. Courage use when they suggest that leftists really wanted a
Soviet-style imperium to triumph, one that operated in secrecy, like
the USA now does; one that practiced disinformation, like the USA now
does; one that abandoned one of the longest standing guarantees of
individual rights, habeas corpus, like the USA now does; one that used
gulags, torture, death domestic spying, extraordinary renditions and
unprovoked wars, like both the USSR did and the USA now does.
Unlike what the neocons say, it is precisely those vile features of the
USSR that were anathema to paleoconservatives and classic liberals
alike, and why they take such a principled stand against the current
wave of neo-Big Brotherism.
It's the neocons who applaud Bush's embrace of the very practices that
paleocons and classic libs found so objectionable when practiced first
by the Nazis, then the commies, and now the Bushistas.
The hopes of real liberals, from paleoconservatives to classic
liberals, was to limit the power of the Police State, not enhance it,
such as has happened of late; to limit the deficits, not increase
them, such as we've experienced under "conservative" rule; and to
constrain the militarists from their vile tendency to break the bank,
shred civil liberties and void the Geneva Conventions whilst we go
stomping about the world in search of (often fictitious) monsters to
destroy.
The notion that paleoconservatives and classic liberals cheered the
USSR is an oft repeated, false slur, just as it wa a false slur to once
suggest one was either with Joe McCarthy or with the communists and
just as it is absurd to argue that one is either with Bush or with the
terrorists.
But since what currently passes for conservatives - blokes like John
McAdams and Mr. Courage, aka, Grizzlie Antagonist - are, from all
appearances, actually Big Brother statists, what can anyone expect but
that they will trade in standard, Big Brother Statecraft -
disinformation and dissimulation?
Why else would McAdams and Mr. Courage harbor such profound respect for
one of the greatest disinformationalists and dissimulators, and one of
the best-known practitioners of Big Brother Statecraft of all time, J.
Edgar Hoover?
For just as Hoover destroyed reputations of his "enemies" with false
smears, so, too, did McAdams fling false charges of pedophilia and
illicit drug use at his disputants on newsgroups. After having been
outed in his local newspaper,* McAdams 12-stepped his way toward
respectability and now is a "moderator," ironically filtering precisely
the sort of smears he used to put out all the time.
When he's not censoring unacceptable posts, McA cuddles with a comrade,
"Mr. Courage," who doesn't fear being shamed for posting exactly the
kinds of smears that got McA in such hot water because he posts, as an
abject coward, under an assumed name, "Grizzlie Antagonist."
Is is by accident that these sterling fellows swear by their model's,
J. Edgar Hoover's "true" solution to the Kennedy mystery?
Gary
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, 3/24/96, copies available by faxed request
to: 415-776-7456.
Grizzlie Antagonist
2006-09-19 14:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
No kidding. What a creep the Griz turns out to be.
Stone the crows! That's your perjorative for someone who challenges
the way that you process information.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Hiding behind a
mask,
Stone the crows! Yet ANOTHER atrocity is alleged. I don't post under
my real name. So I must be a Middle Eastern terrorist. But how do you
know that "Grizzlie Antagonist" isn't the name on my birth certificate?
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
though also posting to the baseball ng as a Giants fan,
The atrocity charges just keep piling up!
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
dumping
large amounts of merde into aaj, getting it past the censors who will
allow a nameless LNT priveleges far greater than those accorded to the
most conservative named CT.
No, there's no "foundation" for those observations. But I'll tell you
what: I'll try to develop a scenario about the JFK homicide that reads
like a romance novel - one that contains bright and attractive
characters. That way you'll appreciate it and "want to read more", and
you'll pronounce it to be "history".
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Pamela
www.in-dimlight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
2006-09-19 17:12:59 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Sep 2006 07:58:45 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
No kidding. What a creep the Griz turns out to be.
Stone the crows! That's your perjorative for someone who challenges
the way that you process information.
Bullshit. That's my response to someone who tries to sandbag me with
lies on the slanted field of aaj. That would be you.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Hiding behind a
mask,
Stone the crows! Yet ANOTHER atrocity is alleged. I don't post under
my real name. So I must be a Middle Eastern terrorist. But how do you
know that "Grizzlie Antagonist" isn't the name on my birth certificate?
Another diversion. You're a coward, hiding behind your mask. Face
it.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
though also posting to the baseball ng as a Giants fan,
The atrocity charges just keep piling up!
Yes, that is atrocious. I also object to the fact that you may even
live in San Francisco. I find that really distressing.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
dumping
large amounts of merde into aaj, getting it past the censors who will
allow a nameless LNT priveleges far greater than those accorded to the
most conservative named CT.
No, there's no "foundation" for those observations.
No, there isn't You tried to make a campaign out of the fact that I
choose to put a human face on LHO.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But I'll tell you
what: I'll try to develop a scenario about the JFK homicide that reads
like a romance novel - one that contains bright and attractive
characters. That way you'll appreciate it and "want to read more", and
you'll pronounce it to be "history".
I watched LHO shot on live tv. That is history.

He wasn't allowed to live to stand trial. He wasn't given a
presumption of innocence, nor allowed due process in a court of law.
He wasn't allowed a defense in life or death. I object to that.

Pamela

www.in-broad-daylight.com
Grizzlie Antagonist
2006-09-20 00:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
On 19 Sep 2006 07:58:45 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
No kidding. What a creep the Griz turns out to be.
Stone the crows! That's your perjorative for someone who challenges
the way that you process information.
Bullshit. That's my response to someone who tries to sandbag me with
lies on the slanted field of aaj. That would be you.
The "slanted" field of aaj. Why do people who complain about this
supposedly "slanted" field continually go back for more? Do you know
that my last response to you in aaj wasn't published? That shows how
much pull I have.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Hiding behind a
mask,
Stone the crows! Yet ANOTHER atrocity is alleged. I don't post under
my real name. So I must be a Middle Eastern terrorist. But how do you
know that "Grizzlie Antagonist" isn't the name on my birth certificate?
Another diversion. You're a coward, hiding behind your mask. Face
it.
What use would you make of my real name if you had it?
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
though also posting to the baseball ng as a Giants fan,
The atrocity charges just keep piling up!
Yes, that is atrocious. I also object to the fact that you may even
live in San Francisco. I find that really distressing.
If you live in San Francisco, I'm not the least bit surprised.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
dumping
large amounts of merde into aaj, getting it past the censors who will
allow a nameless LNT priveleges far greater than those accorded to the
most conservative named CT.
No, there's no "foundation" for those observations.
No, there isn't You tried to make a campaign out of the fact that I
choose to put a human face on LHO.
No, there's no foundation for that observation either. You've
intentionally mischaracterized my point of view about that. In other
words, you've lied. I'm sure that you've justified it to yourself by
deciding that I "deserve" it.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But I'll tell you
what: I'll try to develop a scenario about the JFK homicide that reads
like a romance novel - one that contains bright and attractive
characters. That way you'll appreciate it and "want to read more", and
you'll pronounce it to be "history".
I watched LHO shot on live tv. That is history.
I'm watching your brain cells erode right now. They are becoming
history.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't allowed to live to stand trial.
Irrelevant to the fact that he shot JFK.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't given a
presumption of innocence, nor allowed due process in a court of law.
That's because he was dead. But unless you can incriminate the Warren
Commission members in his death, you can't blame them for working with
what they had: a lead suspect who was dead.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't allowed a defense in life or death. I object to that.
Get over it.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Pamela
www.in-PMS-daylight.com
Pamela McElwain-Brown
2006-09-20 01:17:22 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Sep 2006 17:28:03 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
On 19 Sep 2006 07:58:45 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
No kidding. What a creep the Griz turns out to be.
Stone the crows! That's your perjorative for someone who challenges
the way that you process information.
Bullshit. That's my response to someone who tries to sandbag me with
lies on the slanted field of aaj. That would be you.
The "slanted" field of aaj. Why do people who complain about this
supposedly "slanted" field continually go back for more?
That's ground zero for the anti-Judyth team.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Do you know
that my last response to you in aaj wasn't published?
Really? I am amazed. Why not post it here?
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
That shows how
much pull I have.
You still have more than I do. Lots of luck if I tried to accuse
someone on aaj of "posturing" as a "researcher". I can't even say
shit. Only Barb can.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Hiding behind a
mask,
Stone the crows! Yet ANOTHER atrocity is alleged. I don't post under
my real name. So I must be a Middle Eastern terrorist. But how do you
know that "Grizzlie Antagonist" isn't the name on my birth certificate?
Another diversion. You're a coward, hiding behind your mask. Face
it.
What use would you make of my real name if you had it?
Well, I don't know. If you had a website, I might check it out. If
you have published things, I might find that of interest. Basically,
it just isn't fair for someone hiding behind an alias to take
potshots at someone who isn't. A matter of principle, if you will...
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
though also posting to the baseball ng as a Giants fan,
The atrocity charges just keep piling up!
Yes, that is atrocious. I also object to the fact that you may even
live in San Francisco. I find that really distressing.
If you live in San Francisco, I'm not the least bit surprised.
That's the problem. I was dragged from SF kicking and screaming
because of a family move and have not been able to get back there to
live. I put everyone who does in a special corner for my highest
level of jealousy. I am in the Twin Cities, which is about to change
from a fairyland into an ice palace.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
dumping
large amounts of merde into aaj, getting it past the censors who will
allow a nameless LNT priveleges far greater than those accorded to the
most conservative named CT.
No, there's no "foundation" for those observations.
No, there isn't You tried to make a campaign out of the fact that I
choose to put a human face on LHO.
No, there's no foundation for that observation either.
Au contraire. I believe there is. You pulled a quote of mine talking
about the portrayal of LHO as a human being, not a caricature. You
have then proceeded to base all your conclusions on that quote, have
you not? I'm not "researching", only interested in fairytale
entertainment? How else would you like those jabs characterized?

If you have read "Marina and Lee" for example you might understand
what a narrow and superficial treatment is given to LHO. I was
uncomfortable with that.

Have you read "A Mother in History" by LHO's mom? I found that
interesting and validating as to the complexities of the questions
Marguerite had about what her son was doing.

Have you read "Oswald's Game?" This is nearly, to my thinking, a
brilliant book, in that it works to present some of the many facets of
LHO's character and provide an explanation. There are gaps in the
portrayal, however, to my way of thinking. There are still too many
things unexplained for me to be persuaded.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You've
intentionally mischaracterized my point of view about that.
Huh? Your point of view is inappropriate.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
In other
words, you've lied. I'm sure that you've justified it to yourself by
deciding that I "deserve" it.
What you *deserve* is not the point.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But I'll tell you
what: I'll try to develop a scenario about the JFK homicide that reads
like a romance novel - one that contains bright and attractive
characters. That way you'll appreciate it and "want to read more", and
you'll pronounce it to be "history".
I watched LHO shot on live tv. That is history.
I'm watching your brain cells erode right now. They are becoming
history.
That's just wierd.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't allowed to live to stand trial.
Irrelevant to the fact that he shot JFK.
He was not allowed to stand trial and be judged by his peers in a
court of law as to whether he shot JFK or not. I personally believe
that if the govt believed they had a case that would stand up in court
LHO would have been allowed to live. That security was breached and
he was murdered in police custody speaks volumes.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't given a
presumption of innocence, nor allowed due process in a court of law.
That's because he was dead.
Even before he was murdered he was not.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But unless you can incriminate the Warren
Commission members in his death, you can't blame them for working with
what they had: a lead suspect who was dead.
They also had the gist of the conspiracy right from the start. At
least the FBI did, and that was the agency responsible for doing the
groundwork for the WC. Marina was asked about "Mr. Farry" two nights
after the assassination.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't allowed a defense in life or death. I object to that.
Get over it.
No thanks.

Pamela

www.in-broad-daylight.com
William Yates
2006-09-20 08:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
On 19 Sep 2006 17:28:03 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
On 19 Sep 2006 07:58:45 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
No kidding. What a creep the Griz turns out to be.
Stone the crows! That's your perjorative for someone who challenges
the way that you process information.
Bullshit. That's my response to someone who tries to sandbag me with
lies on the slanted field of aaj. That would be you.
The "slanted" field of aaj. Why do people who complain about this
supposedly "slanted" field continually go back for more?
That's ground zero for the anti-Judyth team.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Do you know
that my last response to you in aaj wasn't published?
Really? I am amazed. Why not post it here?
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
That shows how
much pull I have.
You still have more than I do. Lots of luck if I tried to accuse
someone on aaj of "posturing" as a "researcher". I can't even say
shit. Only Barb can.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Hiding behind a
mask,
Stone the crows! Yet ANOTHER atrocity is alleged. I don't post under
my real name. So I must be a Middle Eastern terrorist. But how do you
know that "Grizzlie Antagonist" isn't the name on my birth certificate?
Another diversion. You're a coward, hiding behind your mask. Face
it.
What use would you make of my real name if you had it?
Well, I don't know. If you had a website, I might check it out. If
you have published things, I might find that of interest. Basically,
it just isn't fair for someone hiding behind an alias to take
potshots at someone who isn't. A matter of principle, if you will...
If you haven't already, do a google search on his screen name. It will
be very obvious why he's to scared to use his real name.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
though also posting to the baseball ng as a Giants fan,
The atrocity charges just keep piling up!
Yes, that is atrocious. I also object to the fact that you may even
live in San Francisco. I find that really distressing.
If you live in San Francisco, I'm not the least bit surprised.
That's the problem. I was dragged from SF kicking and screaming
because of a family move and have not been able to get back there to
live. I put everyone who does in a special corner for my highest
level of jealousy. I am in the Twin Cities, which is about to change
from a fairyland into an ice palace.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
dumping
large amounts of merde into aaj, getting it past the censors who will
allow a nameless LNT priveleges far greater than those accorded to the
most conservative named CT.
No, there's no "foundation" for those observations.
No, there isn't You tried to make a campaign out of the fact that I
choose to put a human face on LHO.
No, there's no foundation for that observation either.
Au contraire. I believe there is. You pulled a quote of mine talking
about the portrayal of LHO as a human being, not a caricature. You
have then proceeded to base all your conclusions on that quote, have
you not? I'm not "researching", only interested in fairytale
entertainment? How else would you like those jabs characterized?
If you have read "Marina and Lee" for example you might understand
what a narrow and superficial treatment is given to LHO. I was
uncomfortable with that.
Have you read "A Mother in History" by LHO's mom? I found that
interesting and validating as to the complexities of the questions
Marguerite had about what her son was doing.
Have you read "Oswald's Game?" This is nearly, to my thinking, a
brilliant book, in that it works to present some of the many facets of
LHO's character and provide an explanation. There are gaps in the
portrayal, however, to my way of thinking. There are still too many
things unexplained for me to be persuaded.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You've
intentionally mischaracterized my point of view about that.
Huh? Your point of view is inappropriate.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
In other
words, you've lied. I'm sure that you've justified it to yourself by
deciding that I "deserve" it.
What you *deserve* is not the point.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But I'll tell you
what: I'll try to develop a scenario about the JFK homicide that reads
like a romance novel - one that contains bright and attractive
characters. That way you'll appreciate it and "want to read more", and
you'll pronounce it to be "history".
I watched LHO shot on live tv. That is history.
I'm watching your brain cells erode right now. They are becoming
history.
That's just wierd.
He should know a thing or two about eroded brain cells. His having
completely eroded.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't allowed to live to stand trial.
Irrelevant to the fact that he shot JFK.
He was not allowed to stand trial and be judged by his peers in a
court of law as to whether he shot JFK or not. I personally believe
that if the govt believed they had a case that would stand up in court
LHO would have been allowed to live. That security was breached and
he was murdered in police custody speaks volumes.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't given a
presumption of innocence, nor allowed due process in a court of law.
That's because he was dead.
Even before he was murdered he was not.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But unless you can incriminate the Warren
Commission members in his death, you can't blame them for working with
what they had: a lead suspect who was dead.
They also had the gist of the conspiracy right from the start. At
least the FBI did, and that was the agency responsible for doing the
groundwork for the WC. Marina was asked about "Mr. Farry" two nights
after the assassination.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't allowed a defense in life or death. I object to that.
Get over it.
No thanks.
Pamela
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Bud
2006-09-20 09:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
On 19 Sep 2006 07:58:45 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
No kidding. What a creep the Griz turns out to be.
Stone the crows! That's your perjorative for someone who challenges
the way that you process information.
Bullshit. That's my response to someone who tries to sandbag me with
lies on the slanted field of aaj. That would be you.
Methinks Griz is hitting too close to the mark. The people who
match his profile most closely are the ones (the ones who suspicions in
the case are driven by political ideology) are the ones bitching the
most about what he has to say.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Hiding behind a
mask,
Stone the crows! Yet ANOTHER atrocity is alleged. I don't post under
my real name. So I must be a Middle Eastern terrorist. But how do you
know that "Grizzlie Antagonist" isn't the name on my birth certificate?
Another diversion. You're a coward, hiding behind your mask. Face
it.
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
though also posting to the baseball ng as a Giants fan,
The atrocity charges just keep piling up!
Yes, that is atrocious. I also object to the fact that you may even
live in San Francisco. I find that really distressing.
<snicker> Griz is desecrating the holy ground of San Fransico. the
only place in the US I wouldn`t feel save bending over to pick up a ten
dollar bill.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
dumping
large amounts of merde into aaj, getting it past the censors who will
allow a nameless LNT priveleges far greater than those accorded to the
most conservative named CT.
No, there's no "foundation" for those observations.
No, there isn't You tried to make a campaign out of the fact that I
choose to put a human face on LHO.
Like dressing up your dollies as a little girl, eh, Pamela?
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
But I'll tell you
what: I'll try to develop a scenario about the JFK homicide that reads
like a romance novel - one that contains bright and attractive
characters. That way you'll appreciate it and "want to read more", and
you'll pronounce it to be "history".
I watched LHO shot on live tv. That is history.
He wasn't allowed to live to stand trial.
Following this thinking, since nobody has ever stood trial for
thiese murders, we cannot conclude anyone`s guilt in these murders. I`m
sure you don`t blame anyone specifically for JFK`s murder, right?
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't given a
presumption of innocence, nor allowed due process in a court of law.
Neither was Hitler. Should we presume him guiltless?
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
He wasn't allowed a defense in life or death.
Please. Kooks have been working pro bono non-stop on his defense.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
I object to that.
You object to reality. You wish to believe that it was rthe right
wing that did in your lefty hero. You just can`t accept that it was a
lefty. And since Oz died before trial, you seem to find it impossible
to conclude his guilt. But, it`s really not that difficult.
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Pamela
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
2006-09-19 00:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-19 04:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim.
Both have about the same element of truth.

Yours of a piece with most of the other nonsensical slanders you put
out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]

It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette that is really galling, isn't it?

Regarding your latest imbecility that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative libertarian and a
regular at Republican Rountable meetings, held out hope that I'd lose
my not insignificant worldly assets to the vanquishing Ruskies is just
plain silly, and you know it.

That's why it's so damned amusing: as usual, you post what you know to
be untrue.

You're a perfect Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative
Republican, too. Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except,
perhaps, how not to get your sleaze outed in your own hometown paper!

Better luck next time.

Gary

PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456.
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:25:28 UTC
Permalink
In alt.conspiracy.jfk ***@gmail.com wrote:

Let's do the old Nuthouse thing with Gary's post!

He, after all, has become a Nuthouse buff.
Post by g***@gmail.com
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Both have about the same element of truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Yours of a piece with most of the other nonsensical slanders you put
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
they should have!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gary, my fellow professors hold people like you in complete contempt.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disgracing yourself and Marquette that is really galling, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Regarding your latest imbecility that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative libertarian and a
regular at Republican Rountable meetings, held out hope that I'd lose
my not insignificant worldly assets to the vanquishing Ruskies is just
plain silly, and you know it.
You hate America, Gary.

And you want us to believe you are happy we won the Cold War?
Post by g***@gmail.com
That's why it's so damned amusing: as usual, you post what you know to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
be untrue.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You're a perfect Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Republican, too. Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
perhaps, how not to get your sleaze outed in your own hometown paper!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Better luck next time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My side won the Cold War, Gary.

Galls you, doesn't it.

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 03:37:58 UTC
Permalink
John McAdams sent me a VIRUS.

Because I embarrassed him with Evidence/Testimony.

Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

That should show who is "Contemptible".
Post by John McAdams
Let's do the old Nuthouse thing with Gary's post!
He, after all, has become a Nuthouse buff.
Post by g***@gmail.com
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Both have about the same element of truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Yours of a piece with most of the other nonsensical slanders you put
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
they should have!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary, my fellow professors hold people like you in complete contempt.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disgracing yourself and Marquette that is really galling, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Regarding your latest imbecility that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative libertarian and a
regular at Republican Rountable meetings, held out hope that I'd lose
my not insignificant worldly assets to the vanquishing Ruskies is just
plain silly, and you know it.
You hate America, Gary.
And you want us to believe you are happy we won the Cold War?
Post by g***@gmail.com
That's why it's so damned amusing: as usual, you post what you know to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
be untrue.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You're a perfect Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Republican, too. Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
perhaps, how not to get your sleaze outed in your own hometown paper!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Better luck next time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My side won the Cold War, Gary.
Galls you, doesn't it.
.John
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-19 05:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]

John,

That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.

Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]


It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
galling, isn't it?

Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.

That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.

Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!


Better luck next time.

Gary

PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456. To those who have already
inquired: Sorry, but I can't really email it. Besides, seeing the
published lay out, with McAdams' picture adorning it, is well worth the
extra effort. His wounded innocence look is just so damned cute!
Grizzlie Antagonist
2006-09-19 15:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
It really does gall you.

But it's true.

Even Jules Feiffer, the liberal cartoonist, once had a post-Berlin Wall
cartoon, in which his character bemoans, "If that fool Reagan was right
all along, what kind of fool am I?"
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-19 17:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
It really does gall you.
But it's true.
Not exactly.

But what is true is that it's a fatuous conceit of neoconservatives
that critics of Bush's policies - including, but not limited to, secret
gulags, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, torture,
secret detention, violating the Geneva Conventions, lying to the
public, launching wars based on lies and twisted intelligence - favored
this sort of thing when the USSR did it. One is constrained to wonder
if it's not delusional, self-aggrandizing myths such as these that you
need to keep you going.

And speaking of galling, what's really galling, isn't it Mr. Courage?,
is that you said you wouldn't concede my interpretation of the
disgraceful Gulf of Tonkin incident, and then you promptly conceded it!
You may be a fool and a coward, but apparently you're not stupid enough
to actually take me on.

But what elsse would we expect of someone with so little courage that
he/she posts under an assumed name. At least you're not so stupid that
you got yourself outed in your own local newspaper, like John McAdams
did, for uttering the smears you utter. You may be a fool, Mr. Courage,
but McAdams was just plain stoopid. No wonder you guys are tag
teammates!

And, again, re: the Gulf of Tonkin incident, nice sashay, Mr. Courage!

Gary
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
It really does gall you.
But it's true.
Not exactly.
But what is true is that it's a fatuous conceit of neoconservatives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that critics of Bush's policies - including, but not limited to, secret
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
gulags, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, torture,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
secret detention, violating the Geneva Conventions, lying to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
public, launching wars based on lies and twisted intelligence - favored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
this sort of thing when the USSR did it. One is constrained to wonder
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
if it's not delusional, self-aggrandizing myths such as these that you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
need to keep you going.
But what elsse would we expect of someone with so little courage that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
he/she posts under an assumed name. At least you're not so stupid that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you got yourself outed in your own local newspaper, like John McAdams
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
did, for uttering the smears you utter. You may be a fool, Mr. Courage,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
but McAdams was just plain stoopid. No wonder you guys are tag
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
teammates!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
And, again, re: the Gulf of Tonkin incident, nice sashay, Mr. Courage!
Gary actually believes Communist propaganda about the Gulf of Tonkin!

The Communists have admitted that the first attack really happened. The
admitted it to McNamara.

But Aguilar doesn't believe Communists would do anything evil!

.John
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-21 05:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
It really does gall you.
But it's true.
Not exactly.
But what is true is that it's a fatuous conceit of neoconservatives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that critics of Bush's policies - including, but not limited to, secret
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
gulags, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, torture,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
secret detention, violating the Geneva Conventions, lying to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
public, launching wars based on lies and twisted intelligence - favored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
this sort of thing when the USSR did it. One is constrained to wonder
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
if it's not delusional, self-aggrandizing myths such as these that you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
need to keep you going.
But what elsse would we expect of someone with so little courage that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
he/she posts under an assumed name. At least you're not so stupid that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you got yourself outed in your own local newspaper, like John McAdams
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
did, for uttering the smears you utter. You may be a fool, Mr. Courage,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
but McAdams was just plain stoopid. No wonder you guys are tag
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
teammates!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
And, again, re: the Gulf of Tonkin incident, nice sashay, Mr. Courage!
Gary actually believes Communist propaganda about the Gulf of Tonkin!
The Communists have admitted that the first attack really happened. The
admitted it to McNamara.
But Aguilar doesn't believe Communists would do anything evil!
.John
I can't believe it: John took the bait!

Oh, John, you're such a dear, even if you are a glutton for punishment.


McA trots out the well known fact that there was a smalish attack on an
American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 2, 1964. It was so small
that no one in Washington thought to do anything about it.

But the Pentagon, which presented a pacific facade to the public, had
by then been maneuvering behind the scenes to provoke North Vietnam to
attack for a long time. And it didn't have much to show for it.
Numerous attempts under the OPLAN 34A raids and the DeSoto Patrols
failed to get the sought after military response - the pretext, to go
to war. But the USA, while publicly saying all it wanted was peace, was
doing all it could do to provoke war.

On August 4th, '64, there were reports of another attack on an American
ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. Very quickly, follow up reports called the
initial reports into question and, in fact, there'd been no attack on
8/4.

This fleshes out the story so far.

But the Pentagon was, as usual, desperate for war and, as usual, it
proceeded without scruple, pressuring witnesses to confirm we'd been
attacked on 8/4. Sure enough, as with the much-desired "intelligence"
that Saddam posed us an imminent threat, "patriots" saluted and swore
that, yes, indeed, we *had* been attacked ON AUGUST 4TH.

And then it began: the drumbeat for war. T'wasn't long before Robert
McNamara, all wounded innocence and righteous fury, strode into
congress to tell America's tale of woe: WITHOUT PROVOCATION, THE
COMMUNIST NORTH VIETNAM HAS ATTACKED US! THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO
STAND, etc.

Again, as with Powell's UN speech, skeptics were stunned into silence,
believing, as they would many years later when Bush's flacks bellowed,
that we were being told the truth.

But, as with Bush's balderdash, the August 4th attack that led to the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and to war, was a known deception of
congress, both Dems and GOP'ers, and the public.

McAdams implies that the minor skirmish on August 2nd was the necessary
and sufficient condition for unleashing the Dogs of War. He's quite
wrong, but even the fact he knew that there was indeed another
exchange, a real one, around the time of the casus belli of August 4th
is pretty good, for a Poly Sci teacher.

So what are my sources?

I'll start with the following:

By phone, Thursday, 5/30/02: George Herring: (Professor, History, U.
Kentucky, 859-373-....): McNamara didn't tell all he knew to
Congress in stumping for the G. of T. Resolution.

By phone, Thursday, 5/30/02: Ed Moise: (Professor at Clemson, So.
Carolina, author of "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Escalation of
the Vietnam War.)Ph. - 864-656- ....): McN not entirely honest. There
are probably things he didn't know, but there were things he surely
knew and didn't tell, things related to our involvement in the
"provocations." The PT boats the South was using to attack the
North before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, for example, were U.S. Navy
boats - their ownership had never been transferred to the S.V.N.

McN specifically denied U.S. involvement in the PT raids, certainly a
deliberate falsehood. The South Vietnamese PT boat captains took their
orders for the raids directly from the U.S. Navy, and McNamara may well
have known that specifically, he definitely knew the U.S. was complicit
in the raids, something he specifically denied to Congress and in
public.

Moreover, in '68, McN repeatedly defended his assertions the attacks
at Tonkin were unprovoked, and he would certainly then have known then
about the U.S.'s provocations.

"What Congress did not know when it passed the (Gulf of Tonkin)
resolution was that 34A operations were going on in the vicinity when
the North Vietnamese attacked the Maddox. The Maddox was also engaged
in what some skeptics would have considered hanky-panky. The destroyer
was on a DESOTO patrol, a mission to gather electronic, radar, and
communications intelligence off the DRV coast." (p. 102 - 103.)
Wayne Morse, who voted against the resolution, got inklings from a tip
about the Maddox's true shenanigans. (p. 103.) [Leslie H. Gelb,
"The Irony of Vietnam: the System Worked." Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution, 1979.)

"Three nights before, on July 30, the first serious naval operations
of this covert campaign had taken place when two North Vietnamese
islands, Hon me and Hon Ngu, were attacked by four high-speed
motorboats manned by South Vietnamese commandos trained and armed by
the CIA. The islands were a mere three and four miles off the North
Vietnamese coast. Simultaneously, the U.S. destroyer Maddox received
orders to patrol just eight miles off the coast of North Vietnam, well
within the territorial waters claimed by Hanoi." ("Color of
Truth," p. 286.)

"Mac Bundy quickly realized that the North Vietnamese attack on the
Maddox was a direct response to the 34-A operation. Indeed, Mike
Forrestal reported to Mac on August 3, "It seems likely that the
North Vietnamese and perhaps the Chicoms [ Chinese Communists] have
assumed that the destroyer was part of this operation ... It is also
possible that Hanoi deliberately ordered the attack in retaliation for
the harassment of the islands." (Cited in Kai Bird, "Color of
Truth," p. 286.)

"When McNamara returned to the Pentagon at three that afternoon
(August 4, 1964), he was informed that the commander of the Maddox now
had doubts about whether the second attack had actually taken place. A
review of the 'engagement,' Navy Captain John J. Herrick cabled,
'makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear very
doubtful ... Freak weather effects and overeager sonarmen may have
accounted for many reports. No actual sightings by Maddox." (Kai
Bird, Color of Truth, p. 287.)

"Senator Wayne Morse (D-Ore.), charged that the Maddox's mission
was part of South Vietnamese patrol boat raids on the North. (Morse had
received his information from an informant with access to classified
information.) (sic)." (Kai Bird. The Color of Truth. New York; Simon
& Schuster, 1998, p. 287. Refers to Edwin Moise's book, p. 288.)

"In obtaining the congressional resolution, McNamara flatly told
Congress that the U.S. Navy 'played absolutely no part in, was not
associated with, was not aware of, any South Vietnamese action, if
there were any. I want to make that very clear to you. The Maddox was
operating in international waters, was carrying out a routine patrol of
the type we carry out all over the world at all times. It was not
informed of ... any possible South Vietnamese actions....'
"All of this was less than the full truth. The CIA's John McCone
himself had bluntly told the president on August 4, 'The North
Vietnamese are reacting defensively to our attacks on their off-shore
islands.' If McNamara had somehow convinced himself that the phantom
battle of August 4 had actually taken place, he nevertheless blatantly
deceived Congress when he claimed that the Maddox and Turner Joy had no
relationship to the 34-A operations that had so clearly provoked the
North Vietnamese ... In fact, one mission of the 34-A patrol boat
attacks was to provoke the North Vietnamese to turn on their shore
radar units, allowing the Maddox to use its sophisticated electronic
gear to pinpoint the location of these radar units. The intelligence
derived by the Maddox was therefore directly related to the 34-A patrol
boat attacks." " (Color, p. 288-289)

Admiral James Stockdale. Shot down in 1965, Stockdale spent 7 & ½
years in prisoner-of-war camps:
"The visibility from the deck of the destroyer was nowhere near as
good as it was for me circling around at a thousand feet, surveying the
whole area. They later found sailors who claimed to have seen sparkling
things in the water, but most of those 'sparkling things' sightings
were dreamed up a couple of days later, when de-briefings were
conducted after a message from Washington demanded 'proof.' I know
of no responsible person who considers them anything but bunk ...
People say, 'Wasn't it a dark night?' Yes, it was dark as hell
and that's why I could see so well. The wake would have been
luminous. The ricochets would have been sparkling, the gunfire of the
PT boats would have been red and bright. I'm sure I'd have seen
anything within five miles of those boats during the hour and a half I
was there. No question about it. No boats were there and when I got
back to the ship, the commander of the destroyers had come to the same
conclusion. He [cabled Washington] (sic) 'Please don't take any
rash action until you verify this.' In other words please disregard
the [earlier] (sic) messages he'd been sending." ... These cables
" (The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam War. New York: A
Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987, p. 30 - 31)

"And then I was awakened about two hours later by a young officer and
told that they have received word from Washington that we're going to
retaliate. And I said, 'Relaliate for what?' And he said, 'for
last night's attack.' He didn't know any better. Well, I sat
there on the edge of the bed realizing that I was one of the few people
in the world that realized we were going to launch a war under false
pretenses. And sure enough, the next day we did. I led this big horde
of airplanes over there and we blew the oil tanks clear off the map."
(The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam War. New York: A Newsweek
Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987, p. 31)

"I'm a warrior and you can see I'm a hawk, but I'm going to
tell you that when you get into war you've got to be very sure that
you are on honest, solid rock foundations or it's going to eat you
alive. In a real war, you just cannot risk losing moral leverage, which
[LBJ] did ... Well, I am the guy who rose from the ashes, and twenty
years later telling you I saw it, and there were no boats ... I told
them what the truth was. A message went out from the ship to Washington
right after I had landed, saying that I had seen no boats ... I had
always thought the government worked just like Poli. Sci. One and Two
said it did. And now I realized that this was a goddamned fiasco and I
was part of it." (The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam War.
New York: A Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987, p.
32-33)

"[On August 11, 1964] the phone rang. It was Captain Hutch Cooper. He
said, 'Jim, a couple of guys just came aboard and say they want to
talk to you ... .' There were two guys in sports shirts and slacks,
one about my age and the other younger. The older one introduced
himself as Jack Stempler, special assistant to Secretary McNamara ...
[Stemper asked] 'Were there any fuckin' boats out there the other
night or not?' And this [interview occurred] four hours after
they'd signed the 'declaration of war.'" (The Bad War: An Oral
History of the Vietnam War. New York: A Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New
American Library, 1987, p. 34)

**********************************************************************************

There's plenty more where this came from, but let's see if McA can deal
with just these, for starters. Next, we'll get into the guts of the
book by the reigning authority on the subject: Edwin Moise, Ph.D.,
professor of history, Clemson.

Gary
Anthony Marsh
2006-09-21 14:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
It really does gall you.
But it's true.
Not exactly.
But what is true is that it's a fatuous conceit of neoconservatives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that critics of Bush's policies - including, but not limited to, secret
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
gulags, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, torture,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
secret detention, violating the Geneva Conventions, lying to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
public, launching wars based on lies and twisted intelligence - favored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
this sort of thing when the USSR did it. One is constrained to wonder
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
if it's not delusional, self-aggrandizing myths such as these that you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
need to keep you going.
But what elsse would we expect of someone with so little courage that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
he/she posts under an assumed name. At least you're not so stupid that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you got yourself outed in your own local newspaper, like John McAdams
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
did, for uttering the smears you utter. You may be a fool, Mr. Courage,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
but McAdams was just plain stoopid. No wonder you guys are tag
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
teammates!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
And, again, re: the Gulf of Tonkin incident, nice sashay, Mr. Courage!
Gary actually believes Communist propaganda about the Gulf of Tonkin!
The Communists have admitted that the first attack really happened. The
admitted it to McNamara.
But Aguilar doesn't believe Communists would do anything evil!
.John
I can't believe it: John took the bait!
Oh, John, you're such a dear, even if you are a glutton for punishment.
McA trots out the well known fact that there was a smalish attack on an
American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 2, 1964. It was so small
that no one in Washington thought to do anything about it.
But the Pentagon, which presented a pacific facade to the public, had
by then been maneuvering behind the scenes to provoke North Vietnam to
attack for a long time. And it didn't have much to show for it.
Numerous attempts under the OPLAN 34A raids and the DeSoto Patrols
failed to get the sought after military response - the pretext, to go
to war. But the USA, while publicly saying all it wanted was peace, was
doing all it could do to provoke war.
On August 4th, '64, there were reports of another attack on an American
ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. Very quickly, follow up reports called the
initial reports into question and, in fact, there'd been no attack on
8/4.
This fleshes out the story so far.
But the Pentagon was, as usual, desperate for war and, as usual, it
proceeded without scruple, pressuring witnesses to confirm we'd been
attacked on 8/4. Sure enough, as with the much-desired "intelligence"
that Saddam posed us an imminent threat, "patriots" saluted and swore
that, yes, indeed, we *had* been attacked ON AUGUST 4TH.
And then it began: the drumbeat for war. T'wasn't long before Robert
McNamara, all wounded innocence and righteous fury, strode into
congress to tell America's tale of woe: WITHOUT PROVOCATION, THE
COMMUNIST NORTH VIETNAM HAS ATTACKED US! THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO
STAND, etc.
Again, as with Powell's UN speech, skeptics were stunned into silence,
believing, as they would many years later when Bush's flacks bellowed,
that we were being told the truth.
But, as with Bush's balderdash, the August 4th attack that led to the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and to war, was a known deception of
congress, both Dems and GOP'ers, and the public.
McAdams implies that the minor skirmish on August 2nd was the necessary
and sufficient condition for unleashing the Dogs of War. He's quite
wrong, but even the fact he knew that there was indeed another
exchange, a real one, around the time of the casus belli of August 4th
is pretty good, for a Poly Sci teacher.
So what are my sources?
By phone, Thursday, 5/30/02: George Herring: (Professor, History, U.
Kentucky, 859-373-....): McNamara didn't tell all he knew to
Congress in stumping for the G. of T. Resolution.
By phone, Thursday, 5/30/02: Ed Moise: (Professor at Clemson, So.
Carolina, author of "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Escalation of
the Vietnam War.)Ph. - 864-656- ....): McN not entirely honest. There
are probably things he didn't know, but there were things he surely
knew and didn't tell, things related to our involvement in the
"provocations." The PT boats the South was using to attack the
North before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, for example, were U.S. Navy
boats - their ownership had never been transferred to the S.V.N.
McN specifically denied U.S. involvement in the PT raids, certainly a
deliberate falsehood. The South Vietnamese PT boat captains took their
orders for the raids directly from the U.S. Navy, and McNamara may well
have known that specifically, he definitely knew the U.S. was complicit
in the raids, something he specifically denied to Congress and in
public.
Moreover, in '68, McN repeatedly defended his assertions the attacks
at Tonkin were unprovoked, and he would certainly then have known then
about the U.S.'s provocations.
"What Congress did not know when it passed the (Gulf of Tonkin)
resolution was that 34A operations were going on in the vicinity when
the North Vietnamese attacked the Maddox. The Maddox was also engaged
in what some skeptics would have considered hanky-panky. The destroyer
was on a DESOTO patrol, a mission to gather electronic, radar, and
communications intelligence off the DRV coast." (p. 102 - 103.)
Wayne Morse, who voted against the resolution, got inklings from a tip
about the Maddox's true shenanigans. (p. 103.) [Leslie H. Gelb,
Brookings Institution, 1979.)
"Three nights before, on July 30, the first serious naval operations
of this covert campaign had taken place when two North Vietnamese
islands, Hon me and Hon Ngu, were attacked by four high-speed
motorboats manned by South Vietnamese commandos trained and armed by
the CIA. The islands were a mere three and four miles off the North
Vietnamese coast. Simultaneously, the U.S. destroyer Maddox received
orders to patrol just eight miles off the coast of North Vietnam, well
within the territorial waters claimed by Hanoi." ("Color of
Truth," p. 286.)
"Mac Bundy quickly realized that the North Vietnamese attack on the
Maddox was a direct response to the 34-A operation. Indeed, Mike
Forrestal reported to Mac on August 3, "It seems likely that the
North Vietnamese and perhaps the Chicoms [ Chinese Communists] have
assumed that the destroyer was part of this operation ... It is also
possible that Hanoi deliberately ordered the attack in retaliation for
the harassment of the islands." (Cited in Kai Bird, "Color of
Truth," p. 286.)
"When McNamara returned to the Pentagon at three that afternoon
(August 4, 1964), he was informed that the commander of the Maddox now
had doubts about whether the second attack had actually taken place. A
review of the 'engagement,' Navy Captain John J. Herrick cabled,
'makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear very
doubtful ... Freak weather effects and overeager sonarmen may have
accounted for many reports. No actual sightings by Maddox." (Kai
Bird, Color of Truth, p. 287.)
"Senator Wayne Morse (D-Ore.), charged that the Maddox's mission
was part of South Vietnamese patrol boat raids on the North. (Morse had
received his information from an informant with access to classified
information.) (sic)." (Kai Bird. The Color of Truth. New York; Simon
& Schuster, 1998, p. 287. Refers to Edwin Moise's book, p. 288.)
"In obtaining the congressional resolution, McNamara flatly told
Congress that the U.S. Navy 'played absolutely no part in, was not
associated with, was not aware of, any South Vietnamese action, if
there were any. I want to make that very clear to you. The Maddox was
operating in international waters, was carrying out a routine patrol of
the type we carry out all over the world at all times. It was not
informed of ... any possible South Vietnamese actions....'
"All of this was less than the full truth. The CIA's John McCone
himself had bluntly told the president on August 4, 'The North
Vietnamese are reacting defensively to our attacks on their off-shore
islands.' If McNamara had somehow convinced himself that the phantom
battle of August 4 had actually taken place, he nevertheless blatantly
deceived Congress when he claimed that the Maddox and Turner Joy had no
relationship to the 34-A operations that had so clearly provoked the
North Vietnamese ... In fact, one mission of the 34-A patrol boat
attacks was to provoke the North Vietnamese to turn on their shore
radar units, allowing the Maddox to use its sophisticated electronic
gear to pinpoint the location of these radar units. The intelligence
derived by the Maddox was therefore directly related to the 34-A patrol
boat attacks." " (Color, p. 288-289)
Admiral James Stockdale. Shot down in 1965, Stockdale spent 7 & ½
"The visibility from the deck of the destroyer was nowhere near as
good as it was for me circling around at a thousand feet, surveying the
whole area. They later found sailors who claimed to have seen sparkling
things in the water, but most of those 'sparkling things' sightings
were dreamed up a couple of days later, when de-briefings were
conducted after a message from Washington demanded 'proof.' I know
of no responsible person who considers them anything but bunk ...
People say, 'Wasn't it a dark night?' Yes, it was dark as hell
and that's why I could see so well. The wake would have been
luminous. The ricochets would have been sparkling, the gunfire of the
PT boats would have been red and bright. I'm sure I'd have seen
anything within five miles of those boats during the hour and a half I
was there. No question about it. No boats were there and when I got
back to the ship, the commander of the destroyers had come to the same
conclusion. He [cabled Washington] (sic) 'Please don't take any
rash action until you verify this.' In other words please disregard
the [earlier] (sic) messages he'd been sending." ... These cables
" (The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam War. New York: A
Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987, p. 30 - 31)
"And then I was awakened about two hours later by a young officer and
told that they have received word from Washington that we're going to
retaliate. And I said, 'Relaliate for what?' And he said, 'for
last night's attack.' He didn't know any better. Well, I sat
there on the edge of the bed realizing that I was one of the few people
in the world that realized we were going to launch a war under false
pretenses. And sure enough, the next day we did. I led this big horde
of airplanes over there and we blew the oil tanks clear off the map."
(The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam War. New York: A Newsweek
Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987, p. 31)
"I'm a warrior and you can see I'm a hawk, but I'm going to
tell you that when you get into war you've got to be very sure that
you are on honest, solid rock foundations or it's going to eat you
alive. In a real war, you just cannot risk losing moral leverage, which
[LBJ] did ... Well, I am the guy who rose from the ashes, and twenty
years later telling you I saw it, and there were no boats ... I told
them what the truth was. A message went out from the ship to Washington
right after I had landed, saying that I had seen no boats ... I had
always thought the government worked just like Poli. Sci. One and Two
said it did. And now I realized that this was a goddamned fiasco and I
was part of it." (The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam War.
New York: A Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987, p.
32-33)
"[On August 11, 1964] the phone rang. It was Captain Hutch Cooper. He
said, 'Jim, a couple of guys just came aboard and say they want to
talk to you ... .' There were two guys in sports shirts and slacks,
one about my age and the other younger. The older one introduced
himself as Jack Stempler, special assistant to Secretary McNamara ...
[Stemper asked] 'Were there any fuckin' boats out there the other
night or not?' And this [interview occurred] four hours after
they'd signed the 'declaration of war.'" (The Bad War: An Oral
History of the Vietnam War. New York: A Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New
American Library, 1987, p. 34)
**********************************************************************************
There's plenty more where this came from, but let's see if McA can deal
with just these, for starters. Next, we'll get into the guts of the
book by the reigning authority on the subject: Edwin Moise, Ph.D.,
professor of history, Clemson.
Gary
I think most people miss an important point about the Gulf of Tonkin.
The DeSoto raids were a deliberate provocation and sent into enemy water
to trick the North Vietnamese into attacking. And it was a cover for
South Vietnamese sabotage raids. Hiding behind the skirts it is called.
Kenneth A. Rahn
2006-09-19 16:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Just when you think that Gary can't sink any lower, he does. Shame!

Ken Rahn
tomnln
2006-09-19 17:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?

http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Just when you think that Gary can't sink any lower, he does. Shame!
Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
2006-09-19 18:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.

Ken Rahn
tomnln
2006-09-19 18:51:35 UTC
Permalink
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.

The way you do.

THAT is stealing money ken.
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
Todd W. Vaughan
2006-09-19 18:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,

Head out of ass. Pull it.

Todd
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
tomnln
2006-09-19 19:15:17 UTC
Permalink
toad;
Is this your way of Diverting people's focus on the Illegal Acts of you and
Pamela?

http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,
Head out of ass. Pull it.
Todd
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
Pamela McElwain-Brown
2006-09-19 19:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Huh? What do I have to do with any of this? :-0

Pamela
Post by tomnln
toad;
Is this your way of Diverting people's focus on the Illegal Acts of you and
Pamela?
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,
Head out of ass. Pull it.
Todd
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-19 20:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,
Head out of ass. Pull it.
Todd
Todd!

Somehow I'd imagined you'd be ..., be ..., well a tad less indelicate
than that.

While I know that the Patron of Purity, McAdams, doesn't clean house
round here, it never occurred to me that you'd be someone who'd need
it. ;~}

Gary
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
tomnln
2006-09-19 20:50:59 UTC
Permalink
toad's Criminal Acts can be found on my website.
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

Beginning to look like others know what toad really IS.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,
Head out of ass. Pull it.
Todd
Todd!
Somehow I'd imagined you'd be ..., be ..., well a tad less indelicate
than that.
While I know that the Patron of Purity, McAdams, doesn't clean house
round here, it never occurred to me that you'd be someone who'd need
it. ;~}
Gary
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
Todd W. Vaughan
2006-09-20 15:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,
Head out of ass. Pull it.
Todd
Todd!
Somehow I'd imagined you'd be ..., be ..., well a tad less indelicate
than that.
While I know that the Patron of Purity, McAdams, doesn't clean house
round here, it never occurred to me that you'd be someone who'd need
it. ;~}
Gary
Gary,

Relax. My shot at Tomnln was just that - a shot at Tomnln. My choice of
this thread to deliver that shot was a random one at that. It had
nothing to do with you. Likewise, it was not meant as any sort of
defense of McAdams.

It was solely a shot directed at Tomnln, whom I consider to be nothing
short of a loon.

Simple as that.

Todd
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
tomnln
2006-09-20 17:31:48 UTC
Permalink
That "loon" has shown toad to be the Liar he really is on this website......

http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by Todd W. Vaughan
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,
Head out of ass. Pull it.
Todd
Todd!
Somehow I'd imagined you'd be ..., be ..., well a tad less indelicate
than that.
While I know that the Patron of Purity, McAdams, doesn't clean house
round here, it never occurred to me that you'd be someone who'd need
it. ;~}
Gary
Gary,
Relax. My shot at Tomnln was just that - a shot at Tomnln. My choice of
this thread to deliver that shot was a random one at that. It had
nothing to do with you. Likewise, it was not meant as any sort of
defense of McAdams.
It was solely a shot directed at Tomnln, whom I consider to be nothing
short of a loon.
Simple as that.
Todd
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
Todd W. Vaughan
2006-09-20 19:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
That "loon" has shown toad to be the Liar he really is on this website......
Nice to see your admission that you're a "loon".

Admitting your problem is the first step towards recovery.

You're now well on your way, Tom.

Congrats.
Post by tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by Todd W. Vaughan
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,
Head out of ass. Pull it.
Todd
Todd!
Somehow I'd imagined you'd be ..., be ..., well a tad less indelicate
than that.
While I know that the Patron of Purity, McAdams, doesn't clean house
round here, it never occurred to me that you'd be someone who'd need
it. ;~}
Gary
Gary,
Relax. My shot at Tomnln was just that - a shot at Tomnln. My choice of
this thread to deliver that shot was a random one at that. It had
nothing to do with you. Likewise, it was not meant as any sort of
defense of McAdams.
It was solely a shot directed at Tomnln, whom I consider to be nothing
short of a loon.
Simple as that.
Todd
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
tomnln
2006-09-20 20:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Now all we gotta do is get you to admit to the Criminal act by you and
Pamela.

Ohhhh Here's Proof of what a Liar you are....

http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

I recognize you from Book IV of the Church Committee Report.

STILL Stealing time from your Boss I see.
Post by Todd W. Vaughan
Post by tomnln
That "loon" has shown toad to be the Liar he really is on this website......
Nice to see your admission that you're a "loon".
Admitting your problem is the first step towards recovery.
You're now well on your way, Tom.
Congrats.
Post by tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by Todd W. Vaughan
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
I don't think he teaches Lies to students who pay Tuition.
The way you do.
THAT is stealing money ken.
Tomnln,
Head out of ass. Pull it.
Todd
Todd!
Somehow I'd imagined you'd be ..., be ..., well a tad less indelicate
than that.
While I know that the Patron of Purity, McAdams, doesn't clean house
round here, it never occurred to me that you'd be someone who'd need
it. ;~}
Gary
Gary,
Relax. My shot at Tomnln was just that - a shot at Tomnln. My choice of
this thread to deliver that shot was a random one at that. It had
nothing to do with you. Likewise, it was not meant as any sort of
defense of McAdams.
It was solely a shot directed at Tomnln, whom I consider to be nothing
short of a loon.
Simple as that.
Todd
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Post by tomnln
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Tomnln,
Post by tomnln
Does Gary steal tuition mmoney from students?
I don't know. Maybe you should ask him directly.
Ken Rahn
Pamela McElwain-Brown
2006-09-19 19:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Gary is just balancing the damage done by .John on aaj, imo.

McAdams needs to take responsibility for his unscholarly and
unprofessional actions. He is in a position of influence with young
people and they deserve a better example.

I am especially distressed at McAdams' publishing purloined documents
connected to Judyth, which also had a copyright, without any
permission, and also making blatant misrepresentations of her
statements on his website. He has condescended to make a couple of
corrections, but there is quite a ways to go.

In addition, his website pretends to be objective, when it contains
little more than LNT propaganda and slanderous material about CTs such
as Mark Lane and Garrison. It needs to be renamed "The Fourth Reich's
Representation of the JFK Assassination."

Pamela
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Just when you think that Gary can't sink any lower, he does. Shame!
Ken Rahn
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-19 19:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Just when you think that Gary can't sink any lower, he does. Shame!
Ken Rahn
Ken,

Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?

Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?

Gary
John McAdams
2006-09-20 04:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Just when you think that Gary can't sink any lower, he does. Shame!
Ken Rahn
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.

His recklessness caught up with him.

He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.

Not real smart on his part.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-20 05:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Just when you think that Gary can't sink any lower, he does. Shame!
Ken Rahn
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
His recklessness caught up with him.
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
Not real smart on his part.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Oh, so I and Lisa Pease "manipulated" him, did we? Right!

Did we fabricate posts you wrote in which, as in a Stalin-era show
trial, you asked disputants to 'answer to charges' they were
pedophiles? Did we fabricate your post in which you, similarly, asked
me to answer to drug charges?

No, we didn't, and you'll never be able to deny your guilt. It was that
sort of sleazy behavior that was at the heart of the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinal's truthful face-slapping. [That really stung, didn't it?] But
even more incriminating was that, in your published response, you
didn't deny your sleazy posts, you defended them on tit-for-tat
grounds. And then, without skipping a beat, and with unintended irony,
criticized your disputants who, as in Stalin show trials, had
impertinently asked you to 'answer to charges that I had ... !"

One imagines that, when they cut the checks for their kids' tuition,
the parents of Marquette students don't realize their kids will be
getting moral object lessons from someone with your track record,
someone whose vlugar immaturity is a matter of public record, someone
who gives the word "hypocrisy" a bad name.

You're a perfect Warrenista, John, cut from the J. Edgar Hoover mold.
And you're just as perfect a neocon. Just the sort of person the good
fathers of the Catholic Church would want shepherding our young folk
and shaping their morals and their minds.

Gary
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Kenneth A. Rahn
Just when you think that Gary can't sink any lower, he does. Shame!
Ken Rahn
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
His recklessness caught up with him.
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
Not real smart on his part.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Oh, so I and Lisa Pease "manipulated" him, did we? Right!
Did we fabricate posts you wrote in which, as in a Stalin-era show
trial, you asked disputants to 'answer to charges' they were
pedophiles? Did we fabricate your post in which you, similarly, asked
me to answer to drug charges?
No, we didn't, and you'll never be able to deny your guilt. It was that
sort of sleazy behavior that was at the heart of the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinal's truthful face-slapping. [That really stung, didn't it?] But
even more incriminating was that, in your published response, you
didn't deny your sleazy posts, you defended them on tit-for-tat
grounds. And then, without skipping a beat, and with unintended irony,
criticized your disputants who, as in Stalin show trials, had
impertinently asked you to 'answer to charges that I had ... !"
Here is the truth, Gary.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24628afab695868b/dcc9ff91ceb53548?lnk=st&q=McAdams+Journal+site%3Aacorn.net&rnum=1&hl=en&fwc=2

You and Pease suckered a lazy and naive reporter.
Post by g***@gmail.com
One imagines that, when they cut the checks for their kids' tuition,
the parents of Marquette students don't realize their kids will be
getting moral object lessons from someone with your track record,
someone whose vlugar immaturity is a matter of public record, someone
who gives the word "hypocrisy" a bad name.
You're a perfect Warrenista, John, cut from the J. Edgar Hoover mold.
And you're just as perfect a neocon. Just the sort of person the good
fathers of the Catholic Church would want shepherding our young folk
and shaping their morals and their minds.
You and your buddies lost the Cold War, Gary.

You don't like hearing that, do you?

That has really set you off, hasn't it?

.John

--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:38:00 UTC
Permalink
More attacks from Gary.

Old style Nuthouse style.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Oh, so I and Lisa Pease "manipulated" him, did we? Right!
Did we fabricate posts you wrote in which, as in a Stalin-era show
trial, you asked disputants to 'answer to charges' they were
pedophiles? Did we fabricate your post in which you, similarly, asked
me to answer to drug charges?
No, we didn't, and you'll never be able to deny your guilt. It was that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
sort of sleazy behavior that was at the heart of the Milwaukee Journal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Sentinal's truthful face-slapping. [That really stung, didn't it?] But
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
even more incriminating was that, in your published response, you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
didn't deny your sleazy posts, you defended them on tit-for-tat
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
grounds. And then, without skipping a beat, and with unintended irony,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
criticized your disputants who, as in Stalin show trials, had
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
impertinently asked you to 'answer to charges that I had ... !"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
One imagines that, when they cut the checks for their kids' tuition,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
the parents of Marquette students don't realize their kids will be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
getting moral object lessons from someone with your track record,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
someone whose vlugar immaturity is a matter of public record, someone
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
who gives the word "hypocrisy" a bad name.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You're a perfect Warrenista, John, cut from the J. Edgar Hoover mold.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
And you're just as perfect a neocon. Just the sort of person the good
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fathers of the Catholic Church would want shepherding our young folk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and shaping their morals and their minds.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Was you dad a Catholic, Gary?

Is that why you hate the Catholic Church?

Hate America?

Why you go ballistic when somebody points out that America won the Cold
War.

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 04:14:20 UTC
Permalink
John;
Why spend so much time in this newsgroup that you Despise?

You have your own website that you totally control.

Why not just publish Official Documents there?

There "ARE" Official Documents to support your position Aren't there???

That's what I do to embarrass You. HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by John McAdams
More attacks from Gary.
Old style Nuthouse style.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Oh, so I and Lisa Pease "manipulated" him, did we? Right!
Did we fabricate posts you wrote in which, as in a Stalin-era show
trial, you asked disputants to 'answer to charges' they were
pedophiles? Did we fabricate your post in which you, similarly, asked
me to answer to drug charges?
No, we didn't, and you'll never be able to deny your guilt. It was that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
sort of sleazy behavior that was at the heart of the Milwaukee Journal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Sentinal's truthful face-slapping. [That really stung, didn't it?] But
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
even more incriminating was that, in your published response, you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
didn't deny your sleazy posts, you defended them on tit-for-tat
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
grounds. And then, without skipping a beat, and with unintended irony,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
criticized your disputants who, as in Stalin show trials, had
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
impertinently asked you to 'answer to charges that I had ... !"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
One imagines that, when they cut the checks for their kids' tuition,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
the parents of Marquette students don't realize their kids will be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
getting moral object lessons from someone with your track record,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
someone whose vlugar immaturity is a matter of public record, someone
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
who gives the word "hypocrisy" a bad name.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You're a perfect Warrenista, John, cut from the J. Edgar Hoover mold.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
And you're just as perfect a neocon. Just the sort of person the good
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fathers of the Catholic Church would want shepherding our young folk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and shaping their morals and their minds.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Was you dad a Catholic, Gary?
Is that why you hate the Catholic Church?
Hate America?
Why you go ballistic when somebody points out that America won the Cold
War.
.John
tomnln
2006-09-20 06:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Was this guy legally charged with any crime John?
Post by John McAdams
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
His recklessness caught up with him.
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
Not real smart on his part.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-20 23:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
Post by John McAdams
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
"The guy who wrote that article," Tom Vanden Brook, is still a
reporter, but he's moved up in the world.
Post by John McAdams
His recklessness caught up with him.
"His recklessness," publishing the truth about your sleazy smears and,
no doubt, other credible journalism I'm unaware of being I don't live
in Milwaukee, actually didn't hurt him a bit. The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel gave him a plum assignment in the paper's Washington bureau in
the late 1990s. [McA is still stuck in Milwaukee, isn't he?]

In 2000, Vanden Brook left 'The Sentinel' for the largest circulation
daily in the country, USA Today, where, via a simple google, anyone can
find his articles on-line.n [See below.]

So rather than the principled professor having run the blackguard out
of journalism, McAdams' self-aggrandizing implication, said
"blackguard's" career has blossomed. For, rather than reporting on
local, nutty professors for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vanden
Brook now reports on the Pentagon for USA Today. [See:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-27-rover_x.htm]
Post by John McAdams
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
I suppose that, finally, McAdams has gotten something close to right,
if by "manipulation" he means that I let Vanden Brook read McAdams'
sleazy smears with his own eyes.
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Well, I've had my fun, and John you *are* fun, but the take home
message is: Where does Marquette's John McAdams come up with this
stuff? Do his students read his silly stuff? [Vanden Brook howled with
glee when I read McAdams' batty post to him on the phone today in his
USA Today office.]

Gary
tomnln
2006-09-21 00:41:47 UTC
Permalink
How come I didn't see this post on McAdams' newsgroup?

Must have been an "Oversight".

I'll copy and paste it over there.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
Post by John McAdams
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
"The guy who wrote that article," Tom Vanden Brook, is still a
reporter, but he's moved up in the world.
Post by John McAdams
His recklessness caught up with him.
"His recklessness," publishing the truth about your sleazy smears and,
no doubt, other credible journalism I'm unaware of being I don't live
in Milwaukee, actually didn't hurt him a bit. The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel gave him a plum assignment in the paper's Washington bureau in
the late 1990s. [McA is still stuck in Milwaukee, isn't he?]
In 2000, Vanden Brook left 'The Sentinel' for the largest circulation
daily in the country, USA Today, where, via a simple google, anyone can
find his articles on-line.n [See below.]
So rather than the principled professor having run the blackguard out
of journalism, McAdams' self-aggrandizing implication, said
"blackguard's" career has blossomed. For, rather than reporting on
local, nutty professors for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vanden
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-27-rover_x.htm]
Post by John McAdams
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
I suppose that, finally, McAdams has gotten something close to right,
if by "manipulation" he means that I let Vanden Brook read McAdams'
sleazy smears with his own eyes.
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Well, I've had my fun, and John you *are* fun, but the take home
message is: Where does Marquette's John McAdams come up with this
stuff? Do his students read his silly stuff? [Vanden Brook howled with
glee when I read McAdams' batty post to him on the phone today in his
USA Today office.]
Gary
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-21 01:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
How come I didn't see this post on McAdams' newsgroup?
Must have been an "Oversight".
I'll copy and paste it over there.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
Post by John McAdams
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
"The guy who wrote that article," Tom Vanden Brook, is still a
reporter, but he's moved up in the world.
Post by John McAdams
His recklessness caught up with him.
"His recklessness," publishing the truth about your sleazy smears and,
no doubt, other credible journalism I'm unaware of being I don't live
in Milwaukee, actually didn't hurt him a bit. The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel gave him a plum assignment in the paper's Washington bureau in
the late 1990s. [McA is still stuck in Milwaukee, isn't he?]
In 2000, Vanden Brook left 'The Sentinel' for the largest circulation
daily in the country, USA Today, where, via a simple google, anyone can
find his articles on-line.n [See below.]
So rather than the principled professor having run the blackguard out
of journalism, McAdams' self-aggrandizing implication, said
"blackguard's" career has blossomed. For, rather than reporting on
local, nutty professors for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vanden
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-27-rover_x.htm]
Post by John McAdams
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
I suppose that, finally, McAdams has gotten something close to right,
if by "manipulation" he means that I let Vanden Brook read McAdams'
sleazy smears with his own eyes.
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Well, I've had my fun, and John you *are* fun, but the take home
message is: Where does Marquette's John McAdams come up with this
stuff? Do his students read his silly stuff? [Vanden Brook howled with
glee when I read McAdams' batty post to him on the phone today in his
USA Today office.]
Gary
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.

You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}

Gary
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by tomnln
How come I didn't see this post on McAdams' newsgroup?
Must have been an "Oversight".
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
You really need to get beyond this hatred of things Catholic, Gary.

Was your dad a Catholic?

Is it something between you and him?

Did the Catholic Church tell you you should not do something you
*wanted* to do?

You need to explain this hate that you have.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
2006-09-21 04:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Well;
At least we got McAdams to Stop Lying about Evidence/Testimony.

Let's talk about McAdams sending CT's A Virus.
Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

Lets talk about McAdams Supporting Destruction of Evidence.
Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by tomnln
How come I didn't see this post on McAdams' newsgroup?
Must have been an "Oversight".
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
You really need to get beyond this hatred of things Catholic, Gary.
Was your dad a Catholic?
Is it something between you and him?
Did the Catholic Church tell you you should not do something you
*wanted* to do?
You need to explain this hate that you have.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
2006-09-21 13:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by tomnln
How come I didn't see this post on McAdams' newsgroup?
Must have been an "Oversight".
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
You really need to get beyond this hatred of things Catholic, Gary.
ROFLMAO!!

After smearing Dr. Aguilar with phony charges of being a drug addict,
and then smearing this reporter with the deliberate lie that he was
booted out of his profession, you are accusing Dr. Aguilar of
"HATRED"!!

BTW, when do you intend to post an apology to Mr. Vanden Brook?

For that matter, have you EVER posted an apology to Dr. Aguilar for
your lies about him??







Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Was your dad a Catholic?
Is it something between you and him?
Did the Catholic Church tell you you should not do something you
*wanted* to do?
You need to explain this hate that you have.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no question that an honest man will evade.

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
cdddraftsman
2006-09-21 18:14:56 UTC
Permalink
I really don't see where any explaination is warrented . John has the
complete right to do every thing in his power to get rid of cancerous
infections that plauge our society . With new leftist garbage gurglings
reguritated dailey , I would of thought by now , you and gary would of
been banned long ago , for your unreasonable stances , on any number of
issues . Tom Lowry
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by tomnln
How come I didn't see this post on McAdams' newsgroup?
Must have been an "Oversight".
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
You really need to get beyond this hatred of things Catholic, Gary.
ROFLMAO!!
After smearing Dr. Aguilar with phony charges of being a drug addict,
and then smearing this reporter with the deliberate lie that he was
booted out of his profession, you are accusing Dr. Aguilar of
"HATRED"!!
BTW, when do you intend to post an apology to Mr. Vanden Brook?
For that matter, have you EVER posted an apology to Dr. Aguilar for
your lies about him??
Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Was your dad a Catholic?
Is it something between you and him?
Did the Catholic Church tell you you should not do something you
*wanted* to do?
You need to explain this hate that you have.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
tomnln
2006-09-21 18:54:42 UTC
Permalink
The FIRST cancerous infection that needs "Extrction" from
our society is you "Anti-Semites".

Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by cdddraftsman
I really don't see where any explaination is warrented . John has the
complete right to do every thing in his power to get rid of cancerous
infections that plauge our society . With new leftist garbage gurglings
reguritated dailey , I would of thought by now , you and gary would of
been banned long ago , for your unreasonable stances , on any number of
issues . Tom Lowry
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by tomnln
How come I didn't see this post on McAdams' newsgroup?
Must have been an "Oversight".
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
You really need to get beyond this hatred of things Catholic, Gary.
ROFLMAO!!
After smearing Dr. Aguilar with phony charges of being a drug addict,
and then smearing this reporter with the deliberate lie that he was
booted out of his profession, you are accusing Dr. Aguilar of
"HATRED"!!
BTW, when do you intend to post an apology to Mr. Vanden Brook?
For that matter, have you EVER posted an apology to Dr. Aguilar for
your lies about him??
Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Was your dad a Catholic?
Is it something between you and him?
Did the Catholic Church tell you you should not do something you
*wanted* to do?
You need to explain this hate that you have.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
John McAdams
2006-09-21 20:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by tomnln
How come I didn't see this post on McAdams' newsgroup?
Must have been an "Oversight".
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
You really need to get beyond this hatred of things Catholic, Gary.
ROFLMAO!!
After smearing Dr. Aguilar with phony charges of being a drug addict,
I didn't make any charges, Bob.

I asked him about charges that were circulating via e-mail.
Post by Robert Harris
and then smearing this reporter with the deliberate lie that he was
booted out of his profession, you are accusing Dr. Aguilar of
"HATRED"!!
I never said the reporter was "booted out of the profession."

I did say that he was not a reporter any more, because when I heard
his wife speak in Milwaukee a couple of years ago, he was a *copy
editor* at USA Today.
Post by Robert Harris
BTW, when do you intend to post an apology to Mr. Vanden Brook?
He owes me an apology, Bob.
Post by Robert Harris
For that matter, have you EVER posted an apology to Dr. Aguilar for
your lies about him??
Bob, you like Gary have a problem with all the hate you bring to this
case.

You really need to get over it.

.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:42:08 UTC
Permalink
In alt.conspiracy.jfk ***@gmail.com wrote:

More abuse from Aguilar.

He's *really* sensitive about the outcome of the Cold War.
Post by g***@gmail.com
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You dad was Catholic, right?

That's the problem, right?

.John
Anthony Marsh
2006-09-21 14:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
More abuse from Aguilar.
He's *really* sensitive about the outcome of the Cold War.
Post by g***@gmail.com
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You dad was Catholic, right?
That's the problem, right?
.John
And just what the Hell does this have to do with the Kennedy
assassination? Are you suggesting some anti-Catholic bias because
Kennedy was Catholic?
Robert Harris
2006-09-21 16:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
More abuse from Aguilar.
He's *really* sensitive about the outcome of the Cold War.
Post by g***@gmail.com
As I've discussed with Robert Harris, when you bust McAdams, especially
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
when you really knock him flat, he disappears.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You'll never get McA to allow my busting him onto "his" website and he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
won't ever admit he was wrong. They may teach the value of admitting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
error in Catholic colleges, but you don't for a moment actually think
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that the teachers in Catholic colleges actually practice what they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
teach, do you? I mean, really! ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You dad was Catholic, right?
That's the problem, right?
I think the only "problem" here is that you are a liar and you smear
honest people when they catch you at it.

Why don't you explain to us, how you came to the conclusion that Mr.
Vanden Brook was driven out of his profession? You obviously, didn't
contact the Sentinel, or do a two minute web search, right?

Come on, .john, tell us how you came to that conclusion.

Be specific.

Or is it fair to say, .john, that you just totally fabricated that
vicious accusation without a shred of justification??






Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
.John
There is no question that an honest man will evade.

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
John McAdams
2006-09-21 02:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
Post by John McAdams
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
"The guy who wrote that article," Tom Vanden Brook, is still a
reporter, but he's moved up in the world.
Post by John McAdams
His recklessness caught up with him.
"His recklessness," publishing the truth about your sleazy smears and,
no doubt, other credible journalism I'm unaware of being I don't live
in Milwaukee, actually didn't hurt him a bit. The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel gave him a plum assignment in the paper's Washington bureau in
the late 1990s. [McA is still stuck in Milwaukee, isn't he?]
In 2000, Vanden Brook left 'The Sentinel' for the largest circulation
daily in the country, USA Today, where, via a simple google, anyone can
find his articles on-line.n [See below.]
So rather than the principled professor having run the blackguard out
of journalism, McAdams' self-aggrandizing implication, said
"blackguard's" career has blossomed. For, rather than reporting on
local, nutty professors for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vanden
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-27-rover_x.htm]
Post by John McAdams
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
I suppose that, finally, McAdams has gotten something close to right,
if by "manipulation" he means that I let Vanden Brook read McAdams'
sleazy smears with his own eyes.
Here is the truth, Gary:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24628afab695868b/dcc9ff91ceb53548?lnk=st&q=McAdams+Journal+site%3Aacorn.net&rnum=1&hl=en&fwc=2
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Last I heard, Gary, he was a *copy editor* at USA Today.

As long as they keep him on bland stories, he may do fine.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-21 07:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
Post by John McAdams
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
"The guy who wrote that article," Tom Vanden Brook, is still a
reporter, but he's moved up in the world.
Post by John McAdams
His recklessness caught up with him.
"His recklessness," publishing the truth about your sleazy smears and,
no doubt, other credible journalism I'm unaware of being I don't live
in Milwaukee, actually didn't hurt him a bit. The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel gave him a plum assignment in the paper's Washington bureau in
the late 1990s. [McA is still stuck in Milwaukee, isn't he?]
In 2000, Vanden Brook left 'The Sentinel' for the largest circulation
daily in the country, USA Today, where, via a simple google, anyone can
find his articles on-line.n [See below.]
So rather than the principled professor having run the blackguard out
of journalism, McAdams' self-aggrandizing implication, said
"blackguard's" career has blossomed. For, rather than reporting on
local, nutty professors for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vanden
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-27-rover_x.htm]
Post by John McAdams
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
I suppose that, finally, McAdams has gotten something close to right,
if by "manipulation" he means that I let Vanden Brook read McAdams'
sleazy smears with his own eyes.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24628afab695868b/dcc9ff91ceb53548?lnk=st&q=McAdams+Journal+site%3Aacorn.net&rnum=1&hl=en&fwc=2
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Last I heard, Gary, he was a *copy editor* at USA Today.
As long as they keep him on bland stories, he may do fine.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You're a riot, John, and a complete hypocrite, too!

You said Vanden Brook had got run out of journalism and you implied you
had a hand in it. Instead, he's a correspondent at USA Today and writes
on Pentagon matters, as per the article I posted.

You're such a dishonest coward that you can't even admit you were
wrong. But that's nothing new to us who know you, including Vanden
Brook.

John's true colors, again.

Gary
John McAdams
2006-09-21 18:17:27 UTC
Permalink
In alt.conspiracy.jfk ***@gmail.com wrote:

More abuse from Gary.

More reposts from me!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24628afab695868b/dcc9ff91ceb53548?lnk=st&q=McAdams+Journal+site%3Aacorn.net&rnum=1&hl=en&fwc=2
Gary won't respond to the rebuttal of Vanden Brooks article that the
Journal-Sentinel printed.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Last I heard, Gary, he was a *copy editor* at USA Today.
As long as they keep him on bland stories, he may do fine.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You're a riot, John, and a complete hypocrite, too!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You said Vanden Brook had got run out of journalism and you implied you
had a hand in it. Instead, he's a correspondent at USA Today and writes
on Pentagon matters, as per the article I posted.
I heard his wife speak a couple of years ago in Milwaukee, and at that
time he was a *copy editor* at USA Today.

Not a reporter.
Post by g***@gmail.com
You're such a dishonest coward that you can't even admit you were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
wrong. But that's nothing new to us who know you, including Vanden
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Brook.
^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
John's true colors, again.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Gary
Gary really needs to get control of the hatred that dominates his life.

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 18:50:07 UTC
Permalink
John;

WHY do you make it sound like the Journal-Sentinel "Rebutted"???

They printed YOUR (self serving) "Rebuttal".

http://whokilledjfk.net/
Post by John McAdams
More abuse from Gary.
More reposts from me!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24628afab695868b/dcc9ff91ceb53548?lnk=st&q=McAdams+Journal+site%3Aacorn.net&rnum=1&hl=en&fwc=2
Gary won't respond to the rebuttal of Vanden Brooks article that the
Journal-Sentinel printed.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Last I heard, Gary, he was a *copy editor* at USA Today.
As long as they keep him on bland stories, he may do fine.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You're a riot, John, and a complete hypocrite, too!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
You said Vanden Brook had got run out of journalism and you implied you
had a hand in it. Instead, he's a correspondent at USA Today and writes
on Pentagon matters, as per the article I posted.
I heard his wife speak a couple of years ago in Milwaukee, and at that
time he was a *copy editor* at USA Today.
Not a reporter.
Post by g***@gmail.com
You're such a dishonest coward that you can't even admit you were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
wrong. But that's nothing new to us who know you, including Vanden
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Brook.
^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
John's true colors, again.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Gary
Gary really needs to get control of the hatred that dominates his life.
.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 18:29:16 UTC
Permalink
John is a "Terrorist" who sends computer Viruses as evidenced
HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
Post by John McAdams
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
"The guy who wrote that article," Tom Vanden Brook, is still a
reporter, but he's moved up in the world.
Post by John McAdams
His recklessness caught up with him.
"His recklessness," publishing the truth about your sleazy smears and,
no doubt, other credible journalism I'm unaware of being I don't live
in Milwaukee, actually didn't hurt him a bit. The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel gave him a plum assignment in the paper's Washington bureau in
the late 1990s. [McA is still stuck in Milwaukee, isn't he?]
In 2000, Vanden Brook left 'The Sentinel' for the largest circulation
daily in the country, USA Today, where, via a simple google, anyone can
find his articles on-line.n [See below.]
So rather than the principled professor having run the blackguard out
of journalism, McAdams' self-aggrandizing implication, said
"blackguard's" career has blossomed. For, rather than reporting on
local, nutty professors for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vanden
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-27-rover_x.htm]
Post by John McAdams
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
I suppose that, finally, McAdams has gotten something close to right,
if by "manipulation" he means that I let Vanden Brook read McAdams'
sleazy smears with his own eyes.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24628afab695868b/dcc9ff91ceb53548?lnk=st&q=McAdams+Journal+site%3Aacorn.net&rnum=1&hl=en&fwc=2
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Last I heard, Gary, he was a *copy editor* at USA Today.
As long as they keep him on bland stories, he may do fine.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You're a riot, John, and a complete hypocrite, too!
You said Vanden Brook had got run out of journalism and you implied you
had a hand in it. Instead, he's a correspondent at USA Today and writes
on Pentagon matters, as per the article I posted.
You're such a dishonest coward that you can't even admit you were
wrong. But that's nothing new to us who know you, including Vanden
Brook.
John's true colors, again.
Gary
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-21 07:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Your "truth" about you're being publicly disgraced in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel is about as reliable as your "truth" that the
journalist who slapped you, Vanden Brook, had been forced out of
journalism. In other words, no truth to it at all. Vanden Brook's
career has soared, while you're still stuck at Marquette. Who's
laughing now, pal?

But go right ahead and try to justify your ghastly behavior all you
want, you will still never be able to deny that you flamed your
disputants with allusions they were pedophiles or drug abusers. Nor
will you ever be able to give a adequate reason why a college teacher
would ever stoop so low.

Is behavior like yours the sort of moral example Marquette parents pay
for?

Gary
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
Post by John McAdams
The guy who wrote that article isn't a reporter any more, Gary.
"The guy who wrote that article," Tom Vanden Brook, is still a
reporter, but he's moved up in the world.
Post by John McAdams
His recklessness caught up with him.
"His recklessness," publishing the truth about your sleazy smears and,
no doubt, other credible journalism I'm unaware of being I don't live
in Milwaukee, actually didn't hurt him a bit. The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel gave him a plum assignment in the paper's Washington bureau in
the late 1990s. [McA is still stuck in Milwaukee, isn't he?]
In 2000, Vanden Brook left 'The Sentinel' for the largest circulation
daily in the country, USA Today, where, via a simple google, anyone can
find his articles on-line.n [See below.]
So rather than the principled professor having run the blackguard out
of journalism, McAdams' self-aggrandizing implication, said
"blackguard's" career has blossomed. For, rather than reporting on
local, nutty professors for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Vanden
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-27-rover_x.htm]
Post by John McAdams
He let himself be manipulated by you and Lisa Pease.
I suppose that, finally, McAdams has gotten something close to right,
if by "manipulation" he means that I let Vanden Brook read McAdams'
sleazy smears with his own eyes.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24628afab695868b/dcc9ff91ceb53548?lnk=st&q=McAdams+Journal+site%3Aacorn.net&rnum=1&hl=en&fwc=2
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Not real smart on his part.
I don't know; moving from the local beat of a local paper in a
negligible city to the job of Pentagon correspondent for USA Today
doesn't seem all *that* stupid to me. ;~}
Last I heard, Gary, he was a *copy editor* at USA Today.
As long as they keep him on bland stories, he may do fine.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2006-09-21 18:19:47 UTC
Permalink
In alt.conspiracy.jfk ***@gmail.com wrote:

Still more abuse from Gary.

Still more reposts from me!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Your "truth" about you're being publicly disgraced in the Milwaukee
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Journal Sentinel is about as reliable as your "truth" that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
journalist who slapped you, Vanden Brook, had been forced out of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
journalism. In other words, no truth to it at all. Vanden Brook's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
career has soared, while you're still stuck at Marquette. Who's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
laughing now, pal?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
But go right ahead and try to justify your ghastly behavior all you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
want, you will still never be able to deny that you flamed your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disputants with allusions they were pedophiles or drug abusers. Nor
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
will you ever be able to give a adequate reason why a college teacher
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
would ever stoop so low.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Is behavior like yours the sort of moral example Marquette parents pay
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
for?
Gary
Gary just continues to spew hatred.

I and continue to repost!

Savor the lunacy, folks!

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 18:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Gary doesn't send people computer Viruses.

McAdams Does send computer Viruses.

Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by John McAdams
Still more abuse from Gary.
Still more reposts from me!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Your "truth" about you're being publicly disgraced in the Milwaukee
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Journal Sentinel is about as reliable as your "truth" that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
journalist who slapped you, Vanden Brook, had been forced out of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
journalism. In other words, no truth to it at all. Vanden Brook's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
career has soared, while you're still stuck at Marquette. Who's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
laughing now, pal?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
But go right ahead and try to justify your ghastly behavior all you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
want, you will still never be able to deny that you flamed your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disputants with allusions they were pedophiles or drug abusers. Nor
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
will you ever be able to give a adequate reason why a college teacher
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
would ever stoop so low.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Is behavior like yours the sort of moral example Marquette parents pay
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
for?
Gary
Gary just continues to spew hatred.
I and continue to repost!
Savor the lunacy, folks!
.John
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
From www.ratemds.com:

http://www.ratemds.com/ShowRatings.jsp?did=17770

<Quote on>

This doctor insisted I had a cataract problem when I complained of
double vision. Truth is I had lymphoma which he realised much later
when my L eye popped out of my head.


Previously leisurely and thorough examinations are now rushed, and a
new assistant opthalmologist doesn't listen to patient complaints or
requests well: optical services are sloppy - last pair of lenses were
unusable and were re-made. Still unusable.

<Quote off>

Do you suppose you should be be spending more time on your practice,
Gary, and not so much trying to smear people who disagree with you
about the assassination.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
2006-09-21 03:41:14 UTC
Permalink
It's McAdams and his cohorts who "smear opponents"
because of Evidence/Testimony.

McAdams resorts to "Censoring" opponents posts on his newsgroup.

http://whokilledjfk.net/
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
http://www.ratemds.com/ShowRatings.jsp?did=17770
<Quote on>
This doctor insisted I had a cataract problem when I complained of
double vision. Truth is I had lymphoma which he realised much later
when my L eye popped out of my head.
Previously leisurely and thorough examinations are now rushed, and a
new assistant opthalmologist doesn't listen to patient complaints or
requests well: optical services are sloppy - last pair of lenses were
unusable and were re-made. Still unusable.
<Quote off>
Do you suppose you should be be spending more time on your practice,
Gary, and not so much trying to smear people who disagree with you
about the assassination.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela McElwain-Brown
2006-09-21 04:10:43 UTC
Permalink
It is common knowledge that the purpose of aaj is to shut down
discussion of the assassination. The agenda is that it will *appear*
there is no *evidence* left to discuss. In fact, those who refuse to
accept the WCR are slandered and smeared by the slanted field so
diligently that they give up.

Pamela
Post by tomnln
It's McAdams and his cohorts who "smear opponents"
because of Evidence/Testimony.
McAdams resorts to "Censoring" opponents posts on his newsgroup.
http://whokilledjfk.net/
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
http://www.ratemds.com/ShowRatings.jsp?did=17770
<Quote on>
This doctor insisted I had a cataract problem when I complained of
double vision. Truth is I had lymphoma which he realised much later
when my L eye popped out of my head.
Previously leisurely and thorough examinations are now rushed, and a
new assistant opthalmologist doesn't listen to patient complaints or
requests well: optical services are sloppy - last pair of lenses were
unusable and were re-made. Still unusable.
<Quote off>
Do you suppose you should be be spending more time on your practice,
Gary, and not so much trying to smear people who disagree with you
about the assassination.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
2006-09-21 04:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Not quite true Dear;

When they insult me, I ask in advance if they really wanna trade insults.

Those dumb enough to say "yes" get Buried so Deeply in insults that their
Guardian Angels can't find them.

Which puts them in "Stupid Mode" as evidenced
HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
It is common knowledge that the purpose of aaj is to shut down
discussion of the assassination. The agenda is that it will *appear*
there is no *evidence* left to discuss. In fact, those who refuse to
accept the WCR are slandered and smeared by the slanted field so
diligently that they give up.
Pamela
Post by tomnln
It's McAdams and his cohorts who "smear opponents"
because of Evidence/Testimony.
McAdams resorts to "Censoring" opponents posts on his newsgroup.
http://whokilledjfk.net/
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
http://www.ratemds.com/ShowRatings.jsp?did=17770
<Quote on>
This doctor insisted I had a cataract problem when I complained of
double vision. Truth is I had lymphoma which he realised much later
when my L eye popped out of my head.
Previously leisurely and thorough examinations are now rushed, and a
new assistant opthalmologist doesn't listen to patient complaints or
requests well: optical services are sloppy - last pair of lenses were
unusable and were re-made. Still unusable.
<Quote off>
Do you suppose you should be be spending more time on your practice,
Gary, and not so much trying to smear people who disagree with you
about the assassination.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2006-09-21 18:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
It is common knowledge that the purpose of aaj is to shut down
discussion of the assassination. The agenda is that it will *appear*
there is no *evidence* left to discuss. In fact, those who refuse to
accept the WCR are slandered and smeared by the slanted field so
diligently that they give up.
Pamela,

Let me be frank with you.

You've gotten a hard time about Judyth on alt.assassination.jfk because
you don't seem to want to analyze evidence.

You badly want to believe her story, and so you approach it as though it
were a romance novel, which, if aesthetically satififying, is to be
believed.

You should and will get a hard time about that. We moderators can
protect you from insults, but we can't protect you from disagreement.

.John
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-21 19:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
It is common knowledge that the purpose of aaj is to shut down
discussion of the assassination. The agenda is that it will *appear*
there is no *evidence* left to discuss. In fact, those who refuse to
accept the WCR are slandered and smeared by the slanted field so
diligently that they give up.
Pamela,
Let me be frank with you.
What? Is this your way of acknowledging that you're doing something out
of character?
Post by John McAdams
You've gotten a hard time about Judyth on alt.assassination.jfk because
you don't seem to want to analyze evidence.
As opposed to you, who does, right? You, who announces that Tom Vanden
Brook, who outed your nastiness on the 'net, had been drummed out of
journalism, an untruth that took me all of about 20 seconds to debunk.
Are you suggesting that we use you as the exemplar of how one goes
about analyzing evidence, John? ;~}
Post by John McAdams
You badly want to believe her story, and so you approach it as though it
were a romance novel, which, if aesthetically satififying, is to be
believed.
And you badly want to believe J. Edgar Hoover, so what?
Post by John McAdams
You should and will get a hard time about that. We moderators can
protect you from insults, but we can't protect you from disagreement.
What irony! The former pedophile, er, flamer-in-chief, is now in charge
of protecting the youth from sexual abuse, er, protecting writers from
flamers.

Could it possibly get any better than this?

Say, John, those 12-step programs really work, don't they? :~}

Gary
Post by John McAdams
.John
John McAdams
2006-09-21 21:11:16 UTC
Permalink
In alt.conspiracy.jfk ***@gmail.com wrote:

More abuse from Gary.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
It is common knowledge that the purpose of aaj is to shut down
discussion of the assassination. The agenda is that it will *appear*
there is no *evidence* left to discuss. In fact, those who refuse to
accept the WCR are slandered and smeared by the slanted field so
diligently that they give up.
Pamela,
Let me be frank with you.
What? Is this your way of acknowledging that you're doing something out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
of character?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You badly want to believe her story, and so you approach it as though it
were a romance novel, which, if aesthetically satififying, is to be
believed.
And you badly want to believe J. Edgar Hoover, so what?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gary *hates* Hoover.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You should and will get a hard time about that. We moderators can
protect you from insults, but we can't protect you from disagreement.
What irony! The former pedophile, er, flamer-in-chief, is now in charge
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
of protecting the youth from sexual abuse, er, protecting writers from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
flamers.
^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Could it possibly get any better than this?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Say, John, those 12-step programs really work, don't they? :~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Gary
Is there a 12 step program for people who hate people who disagree with
them about the Kennedy assassination?

You need to find it, Gary.

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 21:30:19 UTC
Permalink
John;
You've already Lost the Conspiracy Debate.

It's beginning to look as though your continuance is based on economics.

Are you getting Paid to promote the Lone Assassin Theory John?
Post by John McAdams
More abuse from Gary.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
It is common knowledge that the purpose of aaj is to shut down
discussion of the assassination. The agenda is that it will *appear*
there is no *evidence* left to discuss. In fact, those who refuse to
accept the WCR are slandered and smeared by the slanted field so
diligently that they give up.
Pamela,
Let me be frank with you.
What? Is this your way of acknowledging that you're doing something out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
of character?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You badly want to believe her story, and so you approach it as though it
were a romance novel, which, if aesthetically satififying, is to be
believed.
And you badly want to believe J. Edgar Hoover, so what?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary *hates* Hoover.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
You should and will get a hard time about that. We moderators can
protect you from insults, but we can't protect you from disagreement.
What irony! The former pedophile, er, flamer-in-chief, is now in charge
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
of protecting the youth from sexual abuse, er, protecting writers from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
flamers.
^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Could it possibly get any better than this?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Say, John, those 12-step programs really work, don't they? :~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Gary
Is there a 12 step program for people who hate people who disagree with
them about the Kennedy assassination?
You need to find it, Gary.
.John
Pamela McElwain-Brown
2006-09-21 19:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by Pamela McElwain-Brown
It is common knowledge that the purpose of aaj is to shut down
discussion of the assassination. The agenda is that it will *appear*
there is no *evidence* left to discuss. In fact, those who refuse to
accept the WCR are slandered and smeared by the slanted field so
diligently that they give up.
Pamela,
Let me be frank with you.
I doubt that is going to be the case, but go ahead...
Post by John McAdams
You've gotten a hard time about Judyth on alt.assassination.jfk because
you don't seem to want to analyze evidence.
Untrue. I am not considering opinion with a bias and very negative
focus *evidence*. That is the problem. In order to be *comfortable*
on aaj a poster is supposed to follow the lead of the others and think
in a limited fashion. Then they get cute compliments from Barb and
for the moment are part of her little clique. That has nothing to do
with research. In fact, it is the opposite of research.
Post by John McAdams
You badly want to believe her story, and so you approach it as though it
were a romance novel, which, if aesthetically satififying, is to be
believed.
Untrue. I have a wider perspective. It doesn't include a personal
*want*. It includes an acknowledgement that the treatment Judyth is
getting is happening for a reason. It is analogous to the treatment
of LHO, in that the public was only supposed to accept what the govt
said about him, not look for the truth on their own. aaj does little
but attempt to lead readers to shut down investigation of
assassination issues, especially anything having to do with Judyth.
The coverup continues on aaj.
Post by John McAdams
You should and will get a hard time about that.
You confuse the issue if you think I am getting a *hard* time on aaj.
I am posting there precisely because of the unfair treatment Judyth
receives there. This is not about *me*, John. There is nothing you
can do to prevent me from posting. I am not one of the ones you are
discouraging, although you are showing that to be your intent.
Post by John McAdams
We moderators can
protect you from insults, but we can't protect you from disagreement.
You don't *protect* me. I am more comfortable and in other forums
than in aaj because I can speak my mind. You muzzle me there.

Pamela

www.in-broad-daylight.com
Robert Harris
2006-09-21 13:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
http://www.ratemds.com/ShowRatings.jsp?did=17770
Well let's see now.

After 32 years of medical practice and tens of thousands of patients,
you found exactly two who thought they had something to bitch about.

I notice that you forgot to mention however, that the second one,
despite his complaints, STILL rated him 14 out of a possible 15
points.

I wonder if your students would give you such a rating :-)





Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
<Quote on>
This doctor insisted I had a cataract problem when I complained of
double vision. Truth is I had lymphoma which he realised much later
when my L eye popped out of my head.
Previously leisurely and thorough examinations are now rushed, and a
new assistant opthalmologist doesn't listen to patient complaints or
requests well: optical services are sloppy - last pair of lenses were
unusable and were re-made. Still unusable.
<Quote off>
Do you suppose you should be be spending more time on your practice,
Gary, and not so much trying to smear people who disagree with you
about the assassination.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no question that an honest man will evade.

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Anthony Marsh
2006-09-21 14:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ken,
Do you object to McAdams' flaming his disputants with allusions they're
pedophiles and drug abuser, or just to my reporting truthfully about
it?
Would you like to see the article that was published in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinal outing McAdams for it, or would you prefer to be kept
in the dark?
John responded, as follows. After each false statement Marquette's
McAdams made, I'll post the truth.
http://www.ratemds.com/ShowRatings.jsp?did=17770
<Quote on>
This doctor insisted I had a cataract problem when I complained of
double vision. Truth is I had lymphoma which he realised much later
when my L eye popped out of my head.
Previously leisurely and thorough examinations are now rushed, and a
new assistant opthalmologist doesn't listen to patient complaints or
requests well: optical services are sloppy - last pair of lenses were
unusable and were re-made. Still unusable.
<Quote off>
Do you suppose you should be be spending more time on your practice,
Gary, and not so much trying to smear people who disagree with you
about the assassination.
You're one to talk. This nothing more than a personal attack.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
2006-09-19 19:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Now that you mention it.....

Have you ever seen pictures of McAdams?
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
galling, isn't it?
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
Better luck next time.
Gary
PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456. To those who have already
inquired: Sorry, but I can't really email it. Besides, seeing the
published lay out, with McAdams' picture adorning it, is well worth the
extra effort. His wounded innocence look is just so damned cute!
John McAdams
2006-09-20 04:36:30 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Sep 2006 22:16:22 -0700, ***@gmail.com wrote:


I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?

You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?

All the people you hate won.

And your leftist buddies lost.

Tough for you, Gary.

You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
galling, isn't it?
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
Better luck next time.
Gary
PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456. To those who have already
inquired: Sorry, but I can't really email it. Besides, seeing the
published lay out, with McAdams' picture adorning it, is well worth the
extra effort. His wounded innocence look is just so damned cute!
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-20 05:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.

Nice try.

Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
you "unique?"

Gary
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
galling, isn't it?
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
Better luck next time.
Gary
PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456. To those who have already
inquired: Sorry, but I can't really email it. Besides, seeing the
published lay out, with McAdams' picture adorning it, is well worth the
extra effort. His wounded innocence look is just so damned cute!
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
Gary, they way this has gotten under you skin clearly shows that you
are sensitive about the outcome of the Cold War.

You were on the side of people who hated the U.S., hated the military,
and hated U.S. security forces.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
you "unique?"
You hate Catholics, Gary.

I don't know why, but you need to get beyond that sort of bigotry.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
2006-09-21 04:00:47 UTC
Permalink
John;
Despising Pedophiles is NOT Bigotry.
Despising those who take money under false pretenses is NOT Bigotry.
Despising Corruption is NOT Bigotry.
Despising those who support those sins is NOT Bigotry.

You will find some of those people HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by John McAdams
You hate Catholics, Gary.
I don't know why, but you need to get beyond that sort of bigotry.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:44:12 UTC
Permalink
In alt.conspiracy.jfk ***@gmail.com wrote:

It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!

Gary piles on the abuse.

And I pile on the reposts!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.

He's got problems on that front.

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 04:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
AND "I" POST THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-21 07:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
"Thing about Catholics?" Most who've been raised in The Church have
feelings about it, one way or another. I'm no different; I was raised
Catholic. My mom's a devout Catholic, and so are some of my sibs. Some,
like me, don't find it very believable and so aren't Catholics. I love
all of 'em, anyhow.

McAdams doesn't find Catholicism particularly believable and, last time
he mentioned the subject, McA said he ain't one, either; he said he was
Protestant. Christianity doesn't make much sense to me in general, but
Catholics are welcome to Catholicism, Protestants to Protestantism,
Muslims to their faith, etc.

But I do think there's something that's particulary tragic about
Catholicism - its breathtaking hypocrisy, most recently in the pope's
preaching to muslims the evils of muslim violence without giving a nod
to the fact of The Church's behavior during the Inquisition and
Crusades, without mention of the fact a goodly number of Nazis were
Catholics (the rest were Protestants).

And there's another kind of hypocrisy that's driven thinking people
away from 'The Church,' such that Catholic churches in Europe sit
mostly empty and the only area where The Church is growing is in
countries with un- or poorly-educated populations - Africa, mainly.
That hypocrisy is The Church's response to disclosures it harbored
pedophile priests in her midst.

Rather than promptly cutting the cancer from The Body of Christ, and
turning the criminals over to prosecutors, which it should have done,
The Church, like many governments and individuals, moved to cover its
own a_ _, often protecting the abusers, and, of course, its own,
now-tarnished reputation, tarnished for its having so desperately tried
to CYA.

"The Church" has paid out more than $1 billion in settlements to
victims and the Church and the hierarchy bears the lion's share of
responsibility for having protected the criminals in its midst at the
expense of the victims, and at the expense of its flock of true
believers.

If I believed all those silly, anthropromorphic stories in the bible,
perhaps I'd be religious. But I don't. I do think, however, that if I
were religious I'd want my church to provide a moral object lesson, a
moral example for me to follow. Even if I were religious I doubt I
could bring myself to believe the Catholic Church provides much of a
moral object lesson, other than, "Do as I say, not as I do." From what
little I recall of my Catholic education, that sort of thing isn't
likely to get one into heaven. Is it? ;~}

Gary

Gary
John McAdams
2006-09-21 18:07:57 UTC
Permalink
In alt.conspiracy.jfk ***@gmail.com wrote:


Here Gary denies that he is anti-Catholic, and then starts spewing
hatred at the Catholic Church.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
"Thing about Catholics?" Most who've been raised in The Church have
feelings about it, one way or another. I'm no different; I was raised
Catholic. My mom's a devout Catholic, and so are some of my sibs. Some,
like me, don't find it very believable and so aren't Catholics. I love
all of 'em, anyhow.
McAdams doesn't find Catholicism particularly believable and, last time
he mentioned the subject, McA said he ain't one, either; he said he was
Protestant. Christianity doesn't make much sense to me in general, but
Catholics are welcome to Catholicism, Protestants to Protestantism,
Muslims to their faith, etc.
But I do think there's something that's particulary tragic about
Catholicism - its breathtaking hypocrisy, most recently in the pope's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
preaching to muslims the evils of muslim violence without giving a nod
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to the fact of The Church's behavior during the Inquisition and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Crusades, without mention of the fact a goodly number of Nazis were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Catholics (the rest were Protestants).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep. Christianity is responsible for Naziism, in Gary's world.

And he *still* has a grudge against the Inquisition.

For Gary, grudges die slowly.
Post by g***@gmail.com
And there's another kind of hypocrisy that's driven thinking people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
away from 'The Church,' such that Catholic churches in Europe sit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
mostly empty and the only area where The Church is growing is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
countries with un- or poorly-educated populations - Africa, mainly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
That hypocrisy is The Church's response to disclosures it harbored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
pedophile priests in her midst.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If churches are empty in Europe, that might be the fault of the
Europeans, and not the Church.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Rather than promptly cutting the cancer from The Body of Christ, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
turning the criminals over to prosecutors, which it should have done,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
The Church, like many governments and individuals, moved to cover its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
own a_ _, often protecting the abusers, and, of course, its own,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
now-tarnished reputation, tarnished for its having so desperately tried
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to CYA.
^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
"The Church" has paid out more than $1 billion in settlements to
victims and the Church and the hierarchy bears the lion's share of
responsibility for having protected the criminals in its midst at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
expense of the victims, and at the expense of its flock of true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
believers.
^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
If I believed all those silly, anthropromorphic stories in the bible,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
perhaps I'd be religious. But I don't. I do think, however, that if I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
were religious I'd want my church to provide a moral object lesson, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral example for me to follow. Even if I were religious I doubt I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
could bring myself to believe the Catholic Church provides much of a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral object lesson, other than, "Do as I say, not as I do." From what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
little I recall of my Catholic education, that sort of thing isn't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
likely to get one into heaven. Is it? ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gary is a collector of grudges. The CIA. The FBI. Richard Helms. The
Catholic Church. LBJ. The U.S. Military.

His whole world is filled with hatred against *so* many groups and
individuals.

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 18:58:40 UTC
Permalink
What I read was that he was Denouncing the Pedophiles within the church.

I now read that you Support those Pedophiles.

You must be a Champion Limbo dancer McAdams.
I've never seen anyone get lower than you.
Post by John McAdams
Here Gary denies that he is anti-Catholic, and then starts spewing
hatred at the Catholic Church.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil
conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
"Thing about Catholics?" Most who've been raised in The Church have
feelings about it, one way or another. I'm no different; I was raised
Catholic. My mom's a devout Catholic, and so are some of my sibs. Some,
like me, don't find it very believable and so aren't Catholics. I love
all of 'em, anyhow.
McAdams doesn't find Catholicism particularly believable and, last time
he mentioned the subject, McA said he ain't one, either; he said he was
Protestant. Christianity doesn't make much sense to me in general, but
Catholics are welcome to Catholicism, Protestants to Protestantism,
Muslims to their faith, etc.
But I do think there's something that's particulary tragic about
Catholicism - its breathtaking hypocrisy, most recently in the pope's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
preaching to muslims the evils of muslim violence without giving a nod
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to the fact of The Church's behavior during the Inquisition and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Crusades, without mention of the fact a goodly number of Nazis were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Catholics (the rest were Protestants).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep. Christianity is responsible for Naziism, in Gary's world.
And he *still* has a grudge against the Inquisition.
For Gary, grudges die slowly.
Post by g***@gmail.com
And there's another kind of hypocrisy that's driven thinking people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
away from 'The Church,' such that Catholic churches in Europe sit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
mostly empty and the only area where The Church is growing is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
countries with un- or poorly-educated populations - Africa, mainly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
That hypocrisy is The Church's response to disclosures it harbored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
pedophile priests in her midst.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If churches are empty in Europe, that might be the fault of the
Europeans, and not the Church.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Rather than promptly cutting the cancer from The Body of Christ, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
turning the criminals over to prosecutors, which it should have done,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
The Church, like many governments and individuals, moved to cover its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
own a_ _, often protecting the abusers, and, of course, its own,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
now-tarnished reputation, tarnished for its having so desperately tried
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to CYA.
^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
"The Church" has paid out more than $1 billion in settlements to
victims and the Church and the hierarchy bears the lion's share of
responsibility for having protected the criminals in its midst at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
expense of the victims, and at the expense of its flock of true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
believers.
^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
If I believed all those silly, anthropromorphic stories in the bible,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
perhaps I'd be religious. But I don't. I do think, however, that if I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
were religious I'd want my church to provide a moral object lesson, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral example for me to follow. Even if I were religious I doubt I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
could bring myself to believe the Catholic Church provides much of a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral object lesson, other than, "Do as I say, not as I do." From what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
little I recall of my Catholic education, that sort of thing isn't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
likely to get one into heaven. Is it? ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary is a collector of grudges. The CIA. The FBI. Richard Helms. The
Catholic Church. LBJ. The U.S. Military.
His whole world is filled with hatred against *so* many groups and
individuals.
.John
Robert Harris
2006-09-21 19:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Here Gary denies that he is anti-Catholic, and then starts spewing
hatred at the Catholic Church.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
So, you were accusing Dr. Aguilar of being a traiter, who cheered for
the communists and was heartbroken when Russian communism collapsed?

Wow!!

And you are trying to convince us that HE is the one who is the
problem here??
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
"Thing about Catholics?" Most who've been raised in The Church have
feelings about it, one way or another. I'm no different; I was raised
Catholic. My mom's a devout Catholic, and so are some of my sibs. Some,
like me, don't find it very believable and so aren't Catholics. I love
all of 'em, anyhow.
McAdams doesn't find Catholicism particularly believable and, last time
he mentioned the subject, McA said he ain't one, either; he said he was
Protestant. Christianity doesn't make much sense to me in general, but
Catholics are welcome to Catholicism, Protestants to Protestantism,
Muslims to their faith, etc.
But I do think there's something that's particulary tragic about
Catholicism - its breathtaking hypocrisy, most recently in the pope's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
preaching to muslims the evils of muslim violence without giving a nod
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to the fact of The Church's behavior during the Inquisition and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Crusades, without mention of the fact a goodly number of Nazis were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Catholics (the rest were Protestants).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep. Christianity is responsible for Naziism, in Gary's world.
Christianity is what provoked the nazis to murder six millions Jews,
john. That's what anti-semitism is all about.

Christianity and religion in general has been responsible for most of
the world's miseries, from long before the bloody crusades, and
including millenia of anti-semitism. Catholics and protestants
slaughtering each other - Moslems and Christians, Moslems and moslems,
etc. etc.

And right now, we are almost on the brink of another world war, purely
based on religion. The only thing holding us back is, the moslems lack
of technology - a problem they are well on their way to solving.

But at least, give the moslems credit for handing that little problem
of dwindling memberships, that is plaguing the catholics. They simply
kill anybody who tries to bail out:-)


What I wonder however is, how sincere your pious defense of
christianity is.

I asked you a long ago if you really believed the universe was created
in 7 days, and you evaded the question.

Why don't you answer it now?

And do you really think that if you weren't the dirtbag you are, you
would spend eternity in heaven, sharing a cloud with Marilyn Monroe
and playing a harp?

In fact, do you think MOST so-called christians, or at least, the ones
who made it past seventh grade, really believe that?






Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
And he *still* has a grudge against the Inquisition.
For Gary, grudges die slowly.
Post by g***@gmail.com
And there's another kind of hypocrisy that's driven thinking people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
away from 'The Church,' such that Catholic churches in Europe sit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
mostly empty and the only area where The Church is growing is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
countries with un- or poorly-educated populations - Africa, mainly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
That hypocrisy is The Church's response to disclosures it harbored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
pedophile priests in her midst.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If churches are empty in Europe, that might be the fault of the
Europeans, and not the Church.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Rather than promptly cutting the cancer from The Body of Christ, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
turning the criminals over to prosecutors, which it should have done,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
The Church, like many governments and individuals, moved to cover its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
own a_ _, often protecting the abusers, and, of course, its own,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
now-tarnished reputation, tarnished for its having so desperately tried
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to CYA.
^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
"The Church" has paid out more than $1 billion in settlements to
victims and the Church and the hierarchy bears the lion's share of
responsibility for having protected the criminals in its midst at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
expense of the victims, and at the expense of its flock of true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
believers.
^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
If I believed all those silly, anthropromorphic stories in the bible,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
perhaps I'd be religious. But I don't. I do think, however, that if I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
were religious I'd want my church to provide a moral object lesson, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral example for me to follow. Even if I were religious I doubt I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
could bring myself to believe the Catholic Church provides much of a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral object lesson, other than, "Do as I say, not as I do." From what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
little I recall of my Catholic education, that sort of thing isn't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
likely to get one into heaven. Is it? ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary is a collector of grudges. The CIA. The FBI. Richard Helms. The
Catholic Church. LBJ. The U.S. Military.
His whole world is filled with hatred against *so* many groups and
individuals.
.John
There is no question that an honest man will evade.

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-21 19:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Here Gary denies that he is anti-Catholic, and then starts spewing
hatred at the Catholic Church.
I'm not anti-Catholic because I think very little of the abuses of the
Catholic Church any more than I hate Russians because I held nothing
but contempt for the USSR, or for Putin, for that matter.

These sorts of distinctions are easy for most people to grasp. ;~>
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
"Thing about Catholics?" Most who've been raised in The Church have
feelings about it, one way or another. I'm no different; I was raised
Catholic. My mom's a devout Catholic, and so are some of my sibs. Some,
like me, don't find it very believable and so aren't Catholics. I love
all of 'em, anyhow.
McAdams doesn't find Catholicism particularly believable and, last time
he mentioned the subject, McA said he ain't one, either; he said he was
Protestant. Christianity doesn't make much sense to me in general, but
Catholics are welcome to Catholicism, Protestants to Protestantism,
Muslims to their faith, etc.
But I do think there's something that's particulary tragic about
Catholicism - its breathtaking hypocrisy, most recently in the pope's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
preaching to muslims the evils of muslim violence without giving a nod
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to the fact of The Church's behavior during the Inquisition and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Crusades, without mention of the fact a goodly number of Nazis were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Catholics (the rest were Protestants).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep. Christianity is responsible for Naziism, in Gary's world.
And he *still* has a grudge against the Inquisition.
For Gary, grudges die slowly.
Here's that loopy, Marquette logic at work, again.

Christianity isn't responsible for Nazism any more than Northern
Europeans are any more than beer drinkers are. But Christianity offered
no great obstacle to vile Nazism.

These sorts of obvious distinctions are easy for most people to
understand. ;~>
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
And there's another kind of hypocrisy that's driven thinking people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
away from 'The Church,' such that Catholic churches in Europe sit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
mostly empty and the only area where The Church is growing is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
countries with un- or poorly-educated populations - Africa, mainly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
That hypocrisy is The Church's response to disclosures it harbored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
pedophile priests in her midst.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If churches are empty in Europe, that might be the fault of the
Europeans, and not the Church.
Last time I checked, there were no heretics or apostates baring entry
to Catholic Churches in Europe.

If The Church really offered a valuable product, or even an inspiring
one, Europeans would vote with their feet and pews would fill. But "the
market,' something I greatly respect as a Libertarian, shows that the
Catholic Church isn't offering well educated people anything they find
valuable.

You hate free markets, freedom of religion and free will, don't you,
John? You'd send neighborhood watchers into homes on Sunday mornings
and roust the lax into the pews if it were up to you, wouldn't you?
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Rather than promptly cutting the cancer from The Body of Christ, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
turning the criminals over to prosecutors, which it should have done,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
The Church, like many governments and individuals, moved to cover its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
own a_ _, often protecting the abusers, and, of course, its own,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
now-tarnished reputation, tarnished for its having so desperately tried
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to CYA.
^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
"The Church" has paid out more than $1 billion in settlements to
victims and the Church and the hierarchy bears the lion's share of
responsibility for having protected the criminals in its midst at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
expense of the victims, and at the expense of its flock of true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
believers.
^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
If I believed all those silly, anthropromorphic stories in the bible,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
perhaps I'd be religious. But I don't. I do think, however, that if I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
were religious I'd want my church to provide a moral object lesson, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral example for me to follow. Even if I were religious I doubt I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
could bring myself to believe the Catholic Church provides much of a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral object lesson, other than, "Do as I say, not as I do." From what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
little I recall of my Catholic education, that sort of thing isn't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
likely to get one into heaven. Is it? ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary is a collector of grudges. The CIA. The FBI. Richard Helms. The
Catholic Church. LBJ. The U.S. Military.
His whole world is filled with hatred against *so* many groups and
individuals.
.John
I guess I stumped John, and all he can do is splutter incoherently
about how I bear grudges and hatred. He does this because he obviously
can't defend The very Church that pays his salary! You'd think The
Chruch would be a bit wiser about whom it employs.

Gary
John McAdams
2006-09-21 21:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Here Gary denies that he is anti-Catholic, and then starts spewing
hatred at the Catholic Church.
I'm not anti-Catholic because I think very little of the abuses of the
Catholic Church any more than I hate Russians because I held nothing
but contempt for the USSR, or for Putin, for that matter.
You obsess on the "abuses" for the same reason that anti-Semites obsess
on the failures -- real and imagined -- of the state of Israel.
Post by g***@gmail.com
These sorts of distinctions are easy for most people to grasp. ;~>
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
"Thing about Catholics?" Most who've been raised in The Church have
feelings about it, one way or another. I'm no different; I was raised
Catholic. My mom's a devout Catholic, and so are some of my sibs. Some,
like me, don't find it very believable and so aren't Catholics. I love
all of 'em, anyhow.
McAdams doesn't find Catholicism particularly believable and, last time
he mentioned the subject, McA said he ain't one, either; he said he was
Protestant. Christianity doesn't make much sense to me in general, but
Catholics are welcome to Catholicism, Protestants to Protestantism,
Muslims to their faith, etc.
But I do think there's something that's particulary tragic about
Catholicism - its breathtaking hypocrisy, most recently in the pope's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
preaching to muslims the evils of muslim violence without giving a nod
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to the fact of The Church's behavior during the Inquisition and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Crusades, without mention of the fact a goodly number of Nazis were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Catholics (the rest were Protestants).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep. Christianity is responsible for Naziism, in Gary's world.
And he *still* has a grudge against the Inquisition.
For Gary, grudges die slowly.
Here's that loopy, Marquette logic at work, again.
Christianity isn't responsible for Nazism any more than Northern
Europeans are any more than beer drinkers are. But Christianity offered
no great obstacle to vile Nazism.
It offered more of an obstacle than atheism did.
Post by g***@gmail.com
These sorts of obvious distinctions are easy for most people to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
understand. ;~>
^^^^^^^^^^^^


You're not good on distinctions, Gary.

All the things you hate are a big blur.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
And there's another kind of hypocrisy that's driven thinking people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
away from 'The Church,' such that Catholic churches in Europe sit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
mostly empty and the only area where The Church is growing is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
countries with un- or poorly-educated populations - Africa, mainly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
That hypocrisy is The Church's response to disclosures it harbored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
pedophile priests in her midst.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If churches are empty in Europe, that might be the fault of the
Europeans, and not the Church.
Last time I checked, there were no heretics or apostates baring entry
to Catholic Churches in Europe.
If The Church really offered a valuable product, or even an inspiring
one, Europeans would vote with their feet and pews would fill. But "the
market,' something I greatly respect as a Libertarian, shows that the
Catholic Church isn't offering well educated people anything they find
valuable.
In fact, religion is going great guns here in the U.S., and among
educated people.

Your atheist friends in Europe aren't reproducing themselves.

They are disappearing. The long run trend, barring a Christian revival,
is for Islam to take over Europe.

It might be you wouldn't mind that.
Post by g***@gmail.com
You hate free markets, freedom of religion and free will, don't you,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
John? You'd send neighborhood watchers into homes on Sunday mornings
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and roust the lax into the pews if it were up to you, wouldn't you?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Listening to your rhetoric, one would expect that you would send
Christians to detention camps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Rather than promptly cutting the cancer from The Body of Christ, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
turning the criminals over to prosecutors, which it should have done,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
The Church, like many governments and individuals, moved to cover its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
own a_ _, often protecting the abusers, and, of course, its own,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
now-tarnished reputation, tarnished for its having so desperately tried
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to CYA.
^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
"The Church" has paid out more than $1 billion in settlements to
victims and the Church and the hierarchy bears the lion's share of
responsibility for having protected the criminals in its midst at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
expense of the victims, and at the expense of its flock of true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
believers.
^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
If I believed all those silly, anthropromorphic stories in the bible,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
perhaps I'd be religious. But I don't. I do think, however, that if I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
were religious I'd want my church to provide a moral object lesson, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral example for me to follow. Even if I were religious I doubt I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
could bring myself to believe the Catholic Church provides much of a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral object lesson, other than, "Do as I say, not as I do." From what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
little I recall of my Catholic education, that sort of thing isn't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
likely to get one into heaven. Is it? ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary is a collector of grudges. The CIA. The FBI. Richard Helms. The
Catholic Church. LBJ. The U.S. Military.
His whole world is filled with hatred against *so* many groups and
individuals.
.John
I guess I stumped John, and all he can do is splutter incoherently
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
about how I bear grudges and hatred. He does this because he obviously
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
can't defend The very Church that pays his salary! You'd think The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Chruch would be a bit wiser about whom it employs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gary, you can spew hatred and spew hatred.

I don't think you have any idea how nasty it sounds.

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 21:27:22 UTC
Permalink
John;
STOP Pretending you're against Anti-Semites.

One of your own team (tom lowry) is an Out n Our Anti-Semite.

NOT once have you denounced him.

You're nothing more than a Virus sending Felon Supporter.

PROOF is found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Here Gary denies that he is anti-Catholic, and then starts spewing
hatred at the Catholic Church.
I'm not anti-Catholic because I think very little of the abuses of the
Catholic Church any more than I hate Russians because I held nothing
but contempt for the USSR, or for Putin, for that matter.
You obsess on the "abuses" for the same reason that anti-Semites obsess
on the failures -- real and imagined -- of the state of Israel.
Post by g***@gmail.com
These sorts of distinctions are easy for most people to grasp. ;~>
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
"Thing about Catholics?" Most who've been raised in The Church have
feelings about it, one way or another. I'm no different; I was raised
Catholic. My mom's a devout Catholic, and so are some of my sibs. Some,
like me, don't find it very believable and so aren't Catholics. I love
all of 'em, anyhow.
McAdams doesn't find Catholicism particularly believable and, last time
he mentioned the subject, McA said he ain't one, either; he said he was
Protestant. Christianity doesn't make much sense to me in general, but
Catholics are welcome to Catholicism, Protestants to Protestantism,
Muslims to their faith, etc.
But I do think there's something that's particulary tragic about
Catholicism - its breathtaking hypocrisy, most recently in the pope's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
preaching to muslims the evils of muslim violence without giving a nod
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to the fact of The Church's behavior during the Inquisition and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Crusades, without mention of the fact a goodly number of Nazis were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Catholics (the rest were Protestants).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep. Christianity is responsible for Naziism, in Gary's world.
And he *still* has a grudge against the Inquisition.
For Gary, grudges die slowly.
Here's that loopy, Marquette logic at work, again.
Christianity isn't responsible for Nazism any more than Northern
Europeans are any more than beer drinkers are. But Christianity offered
no great obstacle to vile Nazism.
It offered more of an obstacle than atheism did.
Post by g***@gmail.com
These sorts of obvious distinctions are easy for most people to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
understand. ;~>
^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're not good on distinctions, Gary.
All the things you hate are a big blur.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
And there's another kind of hypocrisy that's driven thinking people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
away from 'The Church,' such that Catholic churches in Europe sit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
mostly empty and the only area where The Church is growing is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
countries with un- or poorly-educated populations - Africa, mainly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
That hypocrisy is The Church's response to disclosures it harbored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
pedophile priests in her midst.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If churches are empty in Europe, that might be the fault of the
Europeans, and not the Church.
Last time I checked, there were no heretics or apostates baring entry
to Catholic Churches in Europe.
If The Church really offered a valuable product, or even an inspiring
one, Europeans would vote with their feet and pews would fill. But "the
market,' something I greatly respect as a Libertarian, shows that the
Catholic Church isn't offering well educated people anything they find
valuable.
In fact, religion is going great guns here in the U.S., and among
educated people.
Your atheist friends in Europe aren't reproducing themselves.
They are disappearing. The long run trend, barring a Christian revival,
is for Islam to take over Europe.
It might be you wouldn't mind that.
Post by g***@gmail.com
You hate free markets, freedom of religion and free will, don't you,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
John? You'd send neighborhood watchers into homes on Sunday mornings
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and roust the lax into the pews if it were up to you, wouldn't you?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Listening to your rhetoric, one would expect that you would send
Christians to detention camps.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Rather than promptly cutting the cancer from The Body of Christ, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
turning the criminals over to prosecutors, which it should have done,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
The Church, like many governments and individuals, moved to cover its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
own a_ _, often protecting the abusers, and, of course, its own,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
now-tarnished reputation, tarnished for its having so desperately tried
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
to CYA.
^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
"The Church" has paid out more than $1 billion in settlements to
victims and the Church and the hierarchy bears the lion's share of
responsibility for having protected the criminals in its midst at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
expense of the victims, and at the expense of its flock of true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
believers.
^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
If I believed all those silly, anthropromorphic stories in the bible,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
perhaps I'd be religious. But I don't. I do think, however, that if I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
were religious I'd want my church to provide a moral object lesson, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral example for me to follow. Even if I were religious I doubt I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
could bring myself to believe the Catholic Church provides much of a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
moral object lesson, other than, "Do as I say, not as I do." From what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
little I recall of my Catholic education, that sort of thing isn't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
likely to get one into heaven. Is it? ;~}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary is a collector of grudges. The CIA. The FBI. Richard Helms.
The
Catholic Church. LBJ. The U.S. Military.
His whole world is filled with hatred against *so* many groups and
individuals.
.John
I guess I stumped John, and all he can do is splutter incoherently
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
about how I bear grudges and hatred. He does this because he obviously
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
can't defend The very Church that pays his salary! You'd think The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Chruch would be a bit wiser about whom it employs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary, you can spew hatred and spew hatred.
I don't think you have any idea how nasty it sounds.
.John
Anthony Marsh
2006-09-21 14:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
And you pile on the personal attacks.

Savor the hypocrisy!
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
g***@gmail.com
2006-09-21 18:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
And you pile on the personal attacks.
Savor the hypocrisy!
Tony,

Give poor McAdams a break. After all, he teaches at a Catholic college
and by day delivers sermons to impressionable youth that when attacked,
they should turn the other cheek! Now he may not be a Catholic, but his
by his do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach, one could be forgiven for
believing he were one. Maybe after all those years teaching in a
Catholic environment something has rubbed off.

Ain't it great?

Gary
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 18:59:46 UTC
Permalink
If I'm not mistaken, he's doing it for $$$$$$$$$$.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
And you pile on the personal attacks.
Savor the hypocrisy!
Tony,
Give poor McAdams a break. After all, he teaches at a Catholic college
and by day delivers sermons to impressionable youth that when attacked,
they should turn the other cheek! Now he may not be a Catholic, but his
by his do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach, one could be forgiven for
believing he were one. Maybe after all those years teaching in a
Catholic environment something has rubbed off.
Ain't it great?
Gary
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
I'm sure my anti-communist credentials vastly outdistance yours, herr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams. But you know that already, of course. So this must be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
McAdams version of the Big Lie: You keep repeating the same lie, over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
and over, hoping that someone will believe it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Nice try.
Is this sort of tactic commonly practiced at Catholic colleges, or are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
you "unique?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary has this "thing" about Catholics.
He's got problems on that front.
.John
John McAdams
2006-09-21 21:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
And you pile on the personal attacks.
Savor the hypocrisy!
Tony,
Give poor McAdams a break. After all, he teaches at a Catholic college
and by day delivers sermons to impressionable youth that when attacked,
they should turn the other cheek! Now he may not be a Catholic, but his
by his do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach, one could be forgiven for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
believing he were one. Maybe after all those years teaching in a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Catholic environment something has rubbed off.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ain't it great?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What does one say to an anti-Christian bigot?

Nothing really. But one does continue to rub his nose in his bigotry.

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 21:22:57 UTC
Permalink
What does one say to a Felon Supporter who sends VIRUSES?

Hi Scumbucket.
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It's like the old days on the Nuthouse!
Gary piles on the abuse.
And I pile on the reposts!
And you pile on the personal attacks.
Savor the hypocrisy!
Tony,
Give poor McAdams a break. After all, he teaches at a Catholic college
and by day delivers sermons to impressionable youth that when attacked,
they should turn the other cheek! Now he may not be a Catholic, but his
by his do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach, one could be forgiven for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
believing he were one. Maybe after all those years teaching in a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Catholic environment something has rubbed off.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Ain't it great?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does one say to an anti-Christian bigot?
Nothing really. But one does continue to rub his nose in his bigotry.
.John
William Yates
2006-09-20 08:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
The Cold War ended during the first Bush administration.
Post by John McAdams
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
According to you, you were on Grizzlies woman hating side.
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
galling, isn't it?
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
Better luck next time.
Gary
PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456. To those who have already
inquired: Sorry, but I can't really email it. Besides, seeing the
published lay out, with McAdams' picture adorning it, is well worth the
extra effort. His wounded innocence look is just so damned cute!
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2006-09-20 14:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Yates
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
The Cold War ended during the first Bush administration.
And he pretends to be a college professor?
Post by William Yates
Post by John McAdams
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
According to you, you were on Grizzlies woman hating side.
Is this the same Grizzlie Antagonist who advocates raping and eating women?
Post by William Yates
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
galling, isn't it?
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
Better luck next time.
Gary
PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456. To those who have already
inquired: Sorry, but I can't really email it. Besides, seeing the
published lay out, with McAdams' picture adorning it, is well worth the
extra effort. His wounded innocence look is just so damned cute!
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
William Yates
2006-09-20 19:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by William Yates
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
The Cold War ended during the first Bush administration.
And he pretends to be a college professor?
Since he's a right wing professor, I think he's safe from the Horowitz/
Ahmadinejad jihad against "liberal" professors, though.
Be kinda funny to see the two team up on him though.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by William Yates
Post by John McAdams
All the people you hate won.
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
According to you, you were on Grizzlies woman hating side.
Is this the same Grizzlie Antagonist who advocates raping and eating women?
I haven't seen the post where he said that, but I have seen the one
where he admits he thinks all women are monsters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by William Yates
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie
Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
galling, isn't it?
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
Better luck next time.
Gary
PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456. To those who have already
inquired: Sorry, but I can't really email it. Besides, seeing the
published lay out, with McAdams' picture adorning it, is well worth the
extra effort. His wounded innocence look is just so damned cute!
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2006-09-20 14:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
And you pretend to be a college professor? Is this what you teach your
students?
The Cold War ended at the end of 1991 when the elder Bush was President.
Doesn't he get any credit? Doesn't Gorbachev get any credit?
Post by John McAdams
All the people you hate won.
Oh, I see. Only the neocons won? Not all of America, just one faction of
the ruling elite, maybe 1% of 1%?
Post by John McAdams
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
Don't you think that the poor people in those Communist countries also won?
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
John McAdams and his sidekick, Mr. Courage, aka "Grizzlie Antagonist,"
have their hearts set on perpetuating many myths, mostly about the
Kennedy case. But perhaps one of the most amusing, because it's so
self-flattering, is their myth that it is only liberals who are
skeptical of J. Edgar Hoover's solution to the Kennedy case, and they
are the same liberals who were disappointed at the collapse of the
USSR.
The Cold War, Gary.
Your side lost.
My side (and Grizzlie's) won.
Galls you, doesn't it, Gary. :-)
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
[The following post is mostly a repeat, with a couple of minor
corrections for clarity.]
John,
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
they should have!]
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
galling, isn't it?
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
Better luck next time.
Gary
PS Again, lurkers and non-lurkers alike are invited to read the
McA-smackdown that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
Just fax me an address at 415-776-7456. To those who have already
inquired: Sorry, but I can't really email it. Besides, seeing the
published lay out, with McAdams' picture adorning it, is well worth the
extra effort. His wounded innocence look is just so damned cute!
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
2006-09-20 23:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
I seem to have gotten under your skin, eh Gary?
You really weren't happy when the evil CIA and the evil conservatives
and the evil Reagan administration won the Cold War, were you?
And you pretend to be a college professor?
He even teaches students at a University to complete the ruse. Can`t
fool the clever kooks here, though, they see right through it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Is this what you teach your
students?
The Cold War ended at the end of 1991 when the elder Bush was President.
The Civil War ended at Appomattox, but the outcome was decided at
Gettysburg.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Doesn't he get any credit? Doesn't Gorbachev get any credit?
All the credit, to hear lefties tell it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
All the people you hate won.
Oh, I see. Only the neocons won? Not all of America, just one faction of
the ruling elite, maybe 1% of 1%?
Everyone won because of the path charted by conservatives.
Following the appeasement policies advocated by the left would have
been disastrous.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And your leftist buddies lost.
Tough for you, Gary.
You were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
Don't you think that the poor people in those Communist countries also won?
Yah, they should be thanking Reagan also.


<SNIP>
John McAdams
2006-09-21 03:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
they should have!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's right.

Gary is the sort who will harrass the co-workers of somebody with whom
he disagrees about the JFK assassination.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
galling, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
Anybody who reads you posts knows you hate America, hate the military,
hate the CIA and the FBI.

And you've never provided any criticism of the Communists.

What are we to conclude from that, Gary?
Post by g***@gmail.com
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Better luck next time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Viva 1989!

.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 04:10:16 UTC
Permalink
McAdams is the sort who will send you a Virus if you embarrass
him with Official Records.

Proof is HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
they should have!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's right.
Gary is the sort who will harrass the co-workers of somebody with whom
he disagrees about the JFK assassination.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
galling, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
Anybody who reads you posts knows you hate America, hate the military,
hate the CIA and the FBI.
And you've never provided any criticism of the Communists.
What are we to conclude from that, Gary?
Post by g***@gmail.com
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Better luck next time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Viva 1989!
.John
Anthony Marsh
2006-09-21 14:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
they should have!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's right.
Gary is the sort who will harrass the co-workers of somebody with whom
he disagrees about the JFK assassination.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
galling, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
Anybody who reads you posts knows you hate America, hate the military,
hate the CIA and the FBI.
And you've never provided any criticism of the Communists.
What are we to conclude from that, Gary?
That you are a dinosaur McCarthyite stuck in the 50's, still looking
under your bed for Communists.
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Better luck next time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Viva 1989!
.John
cdddraftsman
2006-09-21 18:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Under the bed is a long way away compared to where some of the posters
here have to look . TL
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
they should have!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's right.
Gary is the sort who will harrass the co-workers of somebody with whom
he disagrees about the JFK assassination.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
galling, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
Anybody who reads you posts knows you hate America, hate the military,
hate the CIA and the FBI.
And you've never provided any criticism of the Communists.
What are we to conclude from that, Gary?
That you are a dinosaur McCarthyite stuck in the 50's, still looking
under your bed for Communists.
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Better luck next time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Viva 1989!
.John
tomnln
2006-09-21 19:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Lousy;
When are you gonna address the 4 accounts of officer Baker like you said you
would?
Post by cdddraftsman
Under the bed is a long way away compared to where some of the posters
here have to look . TL
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
they should have!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's right.
Gary is the sort who will harrass the co-workers of somebody with whom
he disagrees about the JFK assassination.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
galling, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
Anybody who reads you posts knows you hate America, hate the military,
hate the CIA and the FBI.
And you've never provided any criticism of the Communists.
What are we to conclude from that, Gary?
That you are a dinosaur McCarthyite stuck in the 50's, still looking
under your bed for Communists.
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
That's why it's as telling as it is damned amusing: as usual, you post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
what you know to be untrue. And in that way, you're a perfect
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Warrenista, McA, and a perfect neoconservative Republican, too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Karl Rove's got nothing to teach you, pal, except, perhaps, how not to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
get your sleazy side plastered all over your own hometown paper!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Better luck next time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Viva 1989!
.John
John McAdams
2006-09-21 18:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by g***@gmail.com
That someone like you, who has previously resorted to sleazy allusions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that your disputants were pedophiles and/or drug users, would now claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
that Warren skeptics favored the USSR winning the Cold War doesn't gall
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
me any more than if I claimed that George Bush was a closet Muslim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
would gall you. Both have about the same element of truth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Yours is of a piece with most of the other batty, low slanders you've
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
put out, John, slanders that led to your being face-slapped by both the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and by your employer, Marquette. [Your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
fellow professors at Marquette found your performance pretty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
hair-raising and embarrassing to Marquette, let me tell ya, as well
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
they should have!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's right.
Gary is the sort who will harrass the co-workers of somebody with whom
he disagrees about the JFK assassination.
Post by g***@gmail.com
It's your very public outing as a sleazeball and your publicly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
disgracing yourself and Marquette - where the hope is teachers will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
inspire students, not scandalize them - that is what is truly really
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
galling, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by g***@gmail.com
Regarding your latest imbecility - that I, a former Young Republican
campaigner for Barry Goldwater, a paleoconservative
libertarian/Libertarian, and a regular at Republican Rountable
meetings, held out hope that I'd lose my not insignificant worldly
assets to the vanquishing Ruskies - is just plain silly, and you know
it.
Anybody who reads you posts knows you hate America, hate the military,
hate the CIA and the FBI.
And you've never provided any criticism of the Communists.
What are we to conclude from that, Gary?
That you are a dinosaur McCarthyite stuck in the 50's, still looking
under your bed for Communists.
Tony, you are an ageing 60s person who is still fighting the battles of
that decade.

My side won, Tony.

.John
Loading...