Discussion:
Denis M. agrees with me: It was NOT Jack Ruby at the DPD at 2:00 on Friday
Add Reply
Ralph Cinque
2017-07-31 01:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/07/holy-moley-denis-morissette-agrees-that.html
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-03 02:51:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You don't care and that's because you don't care about the truth. You only
care about the war.

Jack Ruby was NOT at the Dallas PD on Friday afternoon. Yet, there was a
Ruby lookalike there. That means they had a Ruby double. They were framing
him for being obsessed with Oswald. The very fact that they had a double
of him tells you that they were targeting him. Just as the very fact that
they had Oswald doubles in Mexico City tells you that they were targeting
him.

Both Oswald and Ruby were framed and innocent.
Jason Burke
2017-08-04 00:49:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2017 7:51 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You don't care and that's because you don't care about the truth. You only
> care about the war.
>
> Jack Ruby was NOT at the Dallas PD on Friday afternoon. Yet, there was a
> Ruby lookalike there. That means they had a Ruby double. They were framing
> him for being obsessed with Oswald. The very fact that they had a double
> of him tells you that they were targeting him. Just as the very fact that
> they had Oswald doubles in Mexico City tells you that they were targeting
> him.
>
> Both Oswald and Ruby were framed and innocent.
>
>

So lemme get this straight, Ralph. EVERYONE had a double.

Except for JFK, eh, Ralph?

Yeah, Ralph, youse is making boatloads of sense.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 21:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/3/2017 8:49 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 8/2/2017 7:51 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> You don't care and that's because you don't care about the truth. You
>> only
>> care about the war.
>>
>> Jack Ruby was NOT at the Dallas PD on Friday afternoon. Yet, there was a
>> Ruby lookalike there. That means they had a Ruby double. They were
>> framing
>> him for being obsessed with Oswald. The very fact that they had a double
>> of him tells you that they were targeting him. Just as the very fact that
>> they had Oswald doubles in Mexico City tells you that they were targeting
>> him.
>>
>> Both Oswald and Ruby were framed and innocent.
>>
>>
>
> So lemme get this straight, Ralph. EVERYONE had a double.
>
> Except for JFK, eh, Ralph?
>
> Yeah, Ralph, youse is making boatloads of sense.
>
>

You're not trying hard enough. Ralph has a double too.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-04 01:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 4:51:27 AM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You don't care and that's because you don't care about the truth. You only
> care about the war.
>
> Jack Ruby was NOT at the Dallas PD on Friday afternoon. Yet, there was a
> Ruby lookalike there. That means they had a Ruby double. They were framing
> him for being obsessed with Oswald. The very fact that they had a double
> of him tells you that they were targeting him. Just as the very fact that
> they had Oswald doubles in Mexico City tells you that they were targeting
> him.
>
> Both Oswald and Ruby were framed and innocent.

we have hired cartel members to kidnap ralph and hold him hostage until
trump releases the ufo files on kennedy.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 22:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/3/2017 9:38 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 4:51:27 AM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> You don't care and that's because you don't care about the truth. You only
>> care about the war.
>>
>> Jack Ruby was NOT at the Dallas PD on Friday afternoon. Yet, there was a
>> Ruby lookalike there. That means they had a Ruby double. They were framing
>> him for being obsessed with Oswald. The very fact that they had a double
>> of him tells you that they were targeting him. Just as the very fact that
>> they had Oswald doubles in Mexico City tells you that they were targeting
>> him.
>>
>> Both Oswald and Ruby were framed and innocent.
>
> we have hired cartel members to kidnap ralph and hold him hostage until
> trump releases the ufo files on kennedy.
>



The UFO files are not part of the withheld collection. The CIA already
released them.
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-04 22:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
Jason Burke
2017-08-06 00:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/4/2017 3:19 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
>
>

Like writing a screenplay, eh, Raplh?
bpete1969
2017-08-06 00:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.

How much of a shit should people give about a dead politician?

There are many people study the Kennedy assassination because it's simply
an unsolved murder.

There are others that think Kennedy was God's gift to the world. He was
nothing more than another crooked politician that got where he was with
the help of Daddy's money and Daddy's connections. He's an old school
Trump with better hair and a real tan. He's a throwback to the days of
behind closed doors scandal and nothing more.

You really need to seem someone about this alter universe you inhabit.
bigdog
2017-08-06 03:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.

Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-06 22:48:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> > It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
> > give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
> > either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
> > feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
>
> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.

You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-08 16:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
>>
>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
>
> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
>


Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-09 12:15:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
> >>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
> >>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
> >>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
> >>
> >> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
> >> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
> >
> > You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
> > family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
> > party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
> > treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
> > I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
> > that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
> >
>
>
> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.

Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
the Hays Committee?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 22:39:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
>>>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
>>>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
>>>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
>>>>
>>>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
>>>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
>>>
>>> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
>>> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
>>> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
>>> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
>>> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
>>> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
>
> Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
> the Hays Committee?
>

I don't have any power to remove posts. Neither do you. And it's kinda
late after they have propagated.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-10 21:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:39:40 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >>>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
> >>>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
> >>>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
> >>>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
> >>>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
> >>>
> >>> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
> >>> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
> >>> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
> >>> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
> >>> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
> >>> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
> >
> > Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
> > the Hays Committee?
> >
>
> I don't have any power to remove posts. Neither do you. And it's kinda
> late after they have propagated.

I thought Google was allowing one to remove stupid posts from when you
were a teen-ager. That, in my humble opinion, is age discrimination.

Well, I changed my mind about removing it anyway since then. You wanna
hear another story, only worse?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-11 16:59:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/10/2017 5:50 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:39:40 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>>>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
>>>>>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
>>>>>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
>>>>>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
>>>>>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
>>>>> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
>>>>> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
>>>>> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
>>>>> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
>>>>> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
>>>
>>> Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
>>> the Hays Committee?
>>>
>>
>> I don't have any power to remove posts. Neither do you. And it's kinda
>> late after they have propagated.
>
> I thought Google was allowing one to remove stupid posts from when you
> were a teen-ager. That, in my humble opinion, is age discrimination.
>
> Well, I changed my mind about removing it anyway since then. You wanna
> hear another story, only worse?
>


No, you don't understand how THIS newsgroup works. It is a MODERATED
newsgroup. Only the Modetator can remove messages. And it's kinda hard to
do after they have propagated.

BTW, they didn't have Google when I was a teenager. We had to wait for Al
Gore to invent the InterNet. We barely had computers. No modems. Remember
300 BAUD? I found a hack to increase it to 450 BAUD. WOW! If you want to
relive the good old days and hear the sound of a 300 BAUD modem
connecting, watch old episodes of Generation X.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-12 00:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:59:10 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 5:50 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:39:40 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >>>>>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
> >>>>>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
> >>>>>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
> >>>>>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
> >>>>>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
> >>>>> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
> >>>>> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
> >>>>> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
> >>>>> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
> >>>>> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
> >>>
> >>> Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
> >>> the Hays Committee?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't have any power to remove posts. Neither do you. And it's kinda
> >> late after they have propagated.
> >
> > I thought Google was allowing one to remove stupid posts from when you
> > were a teen-ager. That, in my humble opinion, is age discrimination.
> >
> > Well, I changed my mind about removing it anyway since then. You wanna
> > hear another story, only worse?
> >
>
>
> No, you don't understand how THIS newsgroup works. It is a MODERATED
> newsgroup. Only the Modetator can remove messages. And it's kinda hard to
> do after they have propagated.


YOU don't understand that people can delete their own posts. Go ahead and
pretend that you said something else besides "Only the moderator can
remove messages." It will just sink your credibility deeper into the muck.
Jason Burke
2017-08-13 02:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/11/2017 5:37 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:59:10 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/10/2017 5:50 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:39:40 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
>>>>>>>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
>>>>>>>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
>>>>>>>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
>>>>>>>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
>>>>>>> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
>>>>>>> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
>>>>>>> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
>>>>>>> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
>>>>>>> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
>>>>> the Hays Committee?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any power to remove posts. Neither do you. And it's kinda
>>>> late after they have propagated.
>>>
>>> I thought Google was allowing one to remove stupid posts from when you
>>> were a teen-ager. That, in my humble opinion, is age discrimination.
>>>
>>> Well, I changed my mind about removing it anyway since then. You wanna
>>> hear another story, only worse?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, you don't understand how THIS newsgroup works. It is a MODERATED
>> newsgroup. Only the Modetator can remove messages. And it's kinda hard to
>> do after they have propagated.
>
>
> YOU don't understand that people can delete their own posts. Go ahead and
> pretend that you said something else besides "Only the moderator can
> remove messages." It will just sink your credibility deeper into the muck.
>
>

Dunno about that. Anthony Anthony's so deep in the muck I doubt even he
(and a bus in reverse,) can get hisself out.

>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-13 03:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/11/2017 8:37 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:59:10 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/10/2017 5:50 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:39:40 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
>>>>>>>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
>>>>>>>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
>>>>>>>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
>>>>>>>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
>>>>>>> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
>>>>>>> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
>>>>>>> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
>>>>>>> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
>>>>>>> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
>>>>> the Hays Committee?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any power to remove posts. Neither do you. And it's kinda
>>>> late after they have propagated.
>>>
>>> I thought Google was allowing one to remove stupid posts from when you
>>> were a teen-ager. That, in my humble opinion, is age discrimination.
>>>
>>> Well, I changed my mind about removing it anyway since then. You wanna
>>> hear another story, only worse?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, you don't understand how THIS newsgroup works. It is a MODERATED
>> newsgroup. Only the Modetator can remove messages. And it's kinda hard to
>> do after they have propagated.
>
>
> YOU don't understand that people can delete their own posts. Go ahead and
> pretend that you said something else besides "Only the moderator can
> remove messages." It will just sink your credibility deeper into the muck.
>
>
>

Wrong. This is a moderated newsgroup. Learn the rules.
Once a post is approved it propagates all across Usenet.


>
>
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-13 22:16:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Wrong. This is a moderated newsgroup. Learn the rules.
Once a post is approved it propagates all across Usenet.


There is an option on one's own posts to delete it. There are several
posts showing as deleted in threads right now.

You were wrong, as usual, in saying that only a moderator can delete a
post. Now you will claim that you said something else. That's what you do,
and it's a primary reason that your credibilty is zero.
John McAdams
2017-08-13 22:20:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13 Aug 2017 18:16:11 -0400, OHLeeRedux <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Anthony Marsh
>- show quoted text -
>Wrong. This is a moderated newsgroup. Learn the rules.
>Once a post is approved it propagates all across Usenet.
>
>
>There is an option on one's own posts to delete it. There are several
>posts showing as deleted in threads right now.
>
>You were wrong, as usual, in saying that only a moderator can delete a
>post. Now you will claim that you said something else. That's what you do,
>and it's a primary reason that your credibilty is zero.

Apparently, Google will allow a signed-user to delete a post if the
user is signed in under the e-mail address in the header of the post.

With other servers, a moderator can send out a CANCEL message, which
*might* delete a message from some servers.

But most servers don't recognize cancel messages, because of rogue
cancels sent out.

So what you are saying is only correct with regard to Google. But a
huge proportion of people who read newsgroups read them on Google.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:58:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/13/2017 6:20 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2017 18:16:11 -0400, OHLeeRedux <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Anthony Marsh
>> - show quoted text -
>> Wrong. This is a moderated newsgroup. Learn the rules.
>> Once a post is approved it propagates all across Usenet.
>>
>>
>> There is an option on one's own posts to delete it. There are several
>> posts showing as deleted in threads right now.
>>
>> You were wrong, as usual, in saying that only a moderator can delete a
>> post. Now you will claim that you said something else. That's what you do,
>> and it's a primary reason that your credibilty is zero.
>
> Apparently, Google will allow a signed-user to delete a post if the
> user is signed in under the e-mail address in the header of the post.
>
> With other servers, a moderator can send out a CANCEL message, which
> *might* delete a message from some servers.
>
> But most servers don't recognize cancel messages, because of rogue
> cancels sent out.
>
> So what you are saying is only correct with regard to Google. But a
> huge proportion of people who read newsgroups read them on Google.
>

Something like that. But don't try to explain propagation to him.
His head might explode.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-15 00:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:58:23 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/13/2017 6:20 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 13 Aug 2017 18:16:11 -0400, OHLeeRedux <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anthony Marsh
> >> - show quoted text -
> >> Wrong. This is a moderated newsgroup. Learn the rules.
> >> Once a post is approved it propagates all across Usenet.
> >>
> >>
> >> There is an option on one's own posts to delete it. There are several
> >> posts showing as deleted in threads right now.
> >>
> >> You were wrong, as usual, in saying that only a moderator can delete a
> >> post. Now you will claim that you said something else. That's what you do,
> >> and it's a primary reason that your credibilty is zero.
> >
> > Apparently, Google will allow a signed-user to delete a post if the
> > user is signed in under the e-mail address in the header of the post.
> >
> > With other servers, a moderator can send out a CANCEL message, which
> > *might* delete a message from some servers.
> >
> > But most servers don't recognize cancel messages, because of rogue
> > cancels sent out.
> >
> > So what you are saying is only correct with regard to Google. But a
> > huge proportion of people who read newsgroups read them on Google.
> >
>
> Something like that. But don't try to explain propagation to him.
> His head might explode.


Says the man who argues with himself and claims that The Nation is a right
wing publication.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:58:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/13/2017 6:16 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - show quoted text -
> Wrong. This is a moderated newsgroup. Learn the rules.
> Once a post is approved it propagates all across Usenet.
>
>
> There is an option on one's own posts to delete it. There are several
> posts showing as deleted in threads right now.
>
> You were wrong, as usual, in saying that only a moderator can delete a
> post. Now you will claim that you said something else. That's what you do,
> and it's a primary reason that your credibilty is zero.
>

McAdams has already explained it to you, but you're not tech savvy
enough to understand it.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-18 00:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:58:43 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/13/2017 6:16 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh
> > - show quoted text -
> > Wrong. This is a moderated newsgroup. Learn the rules.
> > Once a post is approved it propagates all across Usenet.
> >
> >
> > There is an option on one's own posts to delete it. There are several
> > posts showing as deleted in threads right now.
> >
> > You were wrong, as usual, in saying that only a moderator can delete a
> > post. Now you will claim that you said something else. That's what you do,
> > and it's a primary reason that your credibilty is zero.
> >
>
> McAdams has already explained it to you, but you're not tech savvy
> enough to understand it.

from resistors to transistors to insisters. i still have a nice vacuum
tube collection, with all the boxes.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-13 03:40:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:59:10 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 5:50 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:39:40 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >>>>>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
> >>>>>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
> >>>>>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
> >>>>>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
> >>>>>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
> >>>>> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
> >>>>> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
> >>>>> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
> >>>>> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
> >>>>> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
> >>>
> >>> Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
> >>> the Hays Committee?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't have any power to remove posts. Neither do you. And it's kinda
> >> late after they have propagated.
> >
> > I thought Google was allowing one to remove stupid posts from when you
> > were a teen-ager. That, in my humble opinion, is age discrimination.
> >
> > Well, I changed my mind about removing it anyway since then. You wanna
> > hear another story, only worse?
> >
>
>
> No, you don't understand how THIS newsgroup works. It is a MODERATED
> newsgroup. Only the Modetator can remove messages. And it's kinda hard to
> do after they have propagated.
>
> BTW, they didn't have Google when I was a teenager. We had to wait for Al
> Gore to invent the InterNet. We barely had computers. No modems. Remember
> 300 BAUD? I found a hack to increase it to 450 BAUD. WOW! If you want to
> relive the good old days and hear the sound of a 300 BAUD modem
> connecting, watch old episodes of Generation X.

Baddest BAUD in the whole damn town. BAUDer than King Kong's balls.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/12/2017 11:40 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:59:10 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/10/2017 5:50 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:39:40 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 6:18:50 PM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/2017 6:48 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+2, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It amazes me how many people obsess about the JFK assassination who don't
>>>>>>>>> give a chit about Kennedy. Of course, they don't give a chit about Oswald
>>>>>>>>> either, but they don't even give a chit about Kennedy. They really don't
>>>>>>>>> feel anything. Their whole motivation is based on something else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's put it this way, Ralph. If I ever came across Oswald's grave, what I
>>>>>>>> would leave there wouldn't pass for flowers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know what some Crips did with a Blood leader once, right? After the
>>>>>>> family buried the Blood, some Crips came back and dug him up and had a
>>>>>>> party wif 'em. Think John Barrymore, but this gang-banger was NOT a
>>>>>>> treated like a guest of honor should. There is videotape of said party.
>>>>>>> I think one of their pit bulls died from trying to eat him, what with all
>>>>>>> that formaldehyde in the flesh there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant and unnecessarily vulgar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very well, post removed. Now you have to remove the quote. What is this,
>>>>> the Hays Committee?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any power to remove posts. Neither do you. And it's kinda
>>>> late after they have propagated.
>>>
>>> I thought Google was allowing one to remove stupid posts from when you
>>> were a teen-ager. That, in my humble opinion, is age discrimination.
>>>
>>> Well, I changed my mind about removing it anyway since then. You wanna
>>> hear another story, only worse?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, you don't understand how THIS newsgroup works. It is a MODERATED
>> newsgroup. Only the Modetator can remove messages. And it's kinda hard to
>> do after they have propagated.
>>
>> BTW, they didn't have Google when I was a teenager. We had to wait for Al
>> Gore to invent the InterNet. We barely had computers. No modems. Remember
>> 300 BAUD? I found a hack to increase it to 450 BAUD. WOW! If you want to
>> relive the good old days and hear the sound of a 300 BAUD modem
>> connecting, watch old episodes of Generation X.
>
> Baddest BAUD in the whole damn town. BAUDer than King Kong's balls.
>

Update. They are rerunning Generation X right now. Not exactly a
marathon, but several episodes per week.
bpete1969
2017-08-04 14:36:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 10:51:27 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You don't care and that's because you don't care about the truth. You only
> care about the war.
>
> Jack Ruby was NOT at the Dallas PD on Friday afternoon. Yet, there was a
> Ruby lookalike there. That means they had a Ruby double. They were framing
> him for being obsessed with Oswald. The very fact that they had a double
> of him tells you that they were targeting him. Just as the very fact that
> they had Oswald doubles in Mexico City tells you that they were targeting
> him.
>
> Both Oswald and Ruby were framed and innocent.

You really have a screwed up sense of reality if you think this is war.

This is nothing more than you making jackass statements and claims without
any proof to back them up and other people telling you that you're full of
crap.

fact...Ruby was at the DPD.
fact...Ruby shot Oswald.
fact...you have no proof to back up anything you've claimed.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-05 23:49:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/4/2017 10:36 AM, bpete1969 wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 10:51:27 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> You don't care and that's because you don't care about the truth. You only
>> care about the war.
>>
>> Jack Ruby was NOT at the Dallas PD on Friday afternoon. Yet, there was a
>> Ruby lookalike there. That means they had a Ruby double. They were framing
>> him for being obsessed with Oswald. The very fact that they had a double
>> of him tells you that they were targeting him. Just as the very fact that
>> they had Oswald doubles in Mexico City tells you that they were targeting
>> him.
>>
>> Both Oswald and Ruby were framed and innocent.
>
> You really have a screwed up sense of reality if you think this is war.
>

YOU make it war. You came here to declare war against any and all
conspiracy believers. Not much of a job, but maybe the health care
benefits make it worth selling you dignity.

> This is nothing more than you making jackass statements and claims without
> any proof to back them up and other people telling you that you're full of
> crap.
>

BINGO! That's what this newsgroup is for.

> fact...Ruby was at the DPD.
> fact...Ruby shot Oswald.
> fact...you have no proof to back up anything you've claimed.
>
Ralph Cinque
2017-08-06 04:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:24:41 PM UTC-5, Betty Drew wrote:
> This is character assassination of Bookout.

It is the truth. James Bookhout was the Garage Shooter who rushed Oswald.
But frankly, what matters most is not who the shooter was but who the
shooter wasn't. And the shooter wasn't Jack Ruby. And Jack Ruby is the
most character assassinated person of all time. You should be feeling
sorry for him- not Bookhout.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-08-06 04:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 5:24:41 AM UTC+2, Betty Drew wrote:
> This is character assassination of Bookout.

And Bookout should sue Ralph bigly.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 12:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/4/2017 11:24 PM, Betty Drew wrote:
> This is character assassination of Bookout.
>



So what? It is just silly. Do you complain about character assassination
of Oswald or Ruby?
InsideSparta
2017-08-07 00:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:45:31 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/4/2017 11:24 PM, Betty Drew wrote:
> > This is character assassination of Bookout.
> >
>
>
>
> So what? It is just silly. Do you complain about character assassination
> of Oswald or Ruby?

Oh stop it. There's ample evidence that both Oswald and Ruby were cold
blooded murderers, with a guilty verdict for Ruby and two government
investigations concluding that Oswald was guilty of two homicides and a
third attempted homicide. You cannot compare them with Bookhout, who's
only a murderer in the warped mind of a JFK assassination attention whore.
It's disgusting that someone would even dream up a fantasy about Bookhout
and then peddle it in public forums. Bookhout's family deserves better.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-07 23:03:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/6/2017 8:25 PM, InsideSparta wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:45:31 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/4/2017 11:24 PM, Betty Drew wrote:
>>> This is character assassination of Bookout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So what? It is just silly. Do you complain about character assassination
>> of Oswald or Ruby?
>
> Oh stop it. There's ample evidence that both Oswald and Ruby were cold
> blooded murderers, with a guilty verdict for Ruby and two government
> investigations concluding that Oswald was guilty of two homicides and a
> third attempted homicide. You cannot compare them with Bookhout, who's
> only a murderer in the warped mind of a JFK assassination attention whore.
> It's disgusting that someone would even dream up a fantasy about Bookhout
> and then peddle it in public forums. Bookhout's family deserves better.
>


You are being silly. Just drop the phony outrageous indignation. Do people
go around suing authors for writing books about Hitler? He was never tried
and convicted either. So now you are claiming that you have the right so
shut down discussions about historical events? I already told the
alterationists that there were being stupid about trying to accuse
Bookhout instead of Jack Ruby.

I was the person who proved it was Jack Ruby. So now YOU attack me? What
kind of sense does that make?
bpete1969
2017-08-08 01:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:03:50 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/6/2017 8:25 PM, InsideSparta wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:45:31 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 8/4/2017 11:24 PM, Betty Drew wrote:
> >>> This is character assassination of Bookout.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So what? It is just silly. Do you complain about character assassination
> >> of Oswald or Ruby?
> >
> > Oh stop it. There's ample evidence that both Oswald and Ruby were cold
> > blooded murderers, with a guilty verdict for Ruby and two government
> > investigations concluding that Oswald was guilty of two homicides and a
> > third attempted homicide. You cannot compare them with Bookhout, who's
> > only a murderer in the warped mind of a JFK assassination attention whore.
> > It's disgusting that someone would even dream up a fantasy about Bookhout
> > and then peddle it in public forums. Bookhout's family deserves better.
> >
>
>
> You are being silly. Just drop the phony outrageous indignation. Do people
> go around suing authors for writing books about Hitler? He was never tried
> and convicted either. So now you are claiming that you have the right so
> shut down discussions about historical events? I already told the
> alterationists that there were being stupid about trying to accuse
> Bookhout instead of Jack Ruby.
>
> I was the person who proved it was Jack Ruby. So now YOU attack me? What
> kind of sense does that make?

You proved it was Jack Ruby?

When did this take place Marsh?

You testified at Ruby's trial? Provide the transcript or shut up.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 02:22:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/7/2017 9:01 PM, bpete1969 wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:03:50 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/6/2017 8:25 PM, InsideSparta wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 5:45:31 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/4/2017 11:24 PM, Betty Drew wrote:
>>>>> This is character assassination of Bookout.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what? It is just silly. Do you complain about character assassination
>>>> of Oswald or Ruby?
>>>
>>> Oh stop it. There's ample evidence that both Oswald and Ruby were cold
>>> blooded murderers, with a guilty verdict for Ruby and two government
>>> investigations concluding that Oswald was guilty of two homicides and a
>>> third attempted homicide. You cannot compare them with Bookhout, who's
>>> only a murderer in the warped mind of a JFK assassination attention whore.
>>> It's disgusting that someone would even dream up a fantasy about Bookhout
>>> and then peddle it in public forums. Bookhout's family deserves better.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are being silly. Just drop the phony outrageous indignation. Do people
>> go around suing authors for writing books about Hitler? He was never tried
>> and convicted either. So now you are claiming that you have the right so
>> shut down discussions about historical events? I already told the
>> alterationists that there were being stupid about trying to accuse
>> Bookhout instead of Jack Ruby.
>>
>> I was the person who proved it was Jack Ruby. So now YOU attack me? What
>> kind of sense does that make?
>
> You proved it was Jack Ruby?
>
> When did this take place Marsh?
>

Several times right here in this newsgroup.

> You testified at Ruby's trial? Provide the transcript or shut up.
>


You can shut up. I didn't say in court.
I posted the video right here that shows Ruby waiting for Oswald.
Loading...