Discussion:
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated keepers
(too old to reply)
Piotr Mancini
2018-09-23 00:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.

No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.

Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."

Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
to change my topic) I promptly clarified:

"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"



My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.

Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
John McAdams
2018-09-23 00:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
Huh? Did Morley "employ" you?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-09-24 17:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
Huh? Did Morley "employ" you?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Again, another anomaly. I read these messages in reverse chronological
order so that I can see the replies to someone's original message and not
waste everyone's time replying to something that someone else has already
answered adequately.

So, I am now replying to YOUR message which I should have SEEN before I
saw HIS messsage. But instead, HIS messsage appeared first then your reply
came after. Can you give us an innocent explanation?
Piotr Mancini
2018-09-27 01:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piotr Mancini
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
Huh? Did Morley "employ" you?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
E-employed me. On a volunteer basis, of course.

The full scoop (you asked, I am bound by my oath to reveal everything: ask
and you shall receive) will henceforth be detailed.

For now, first I have a new instance of a -really great- post just banned
by minuscule dictadorzuelo Duncan MacRae. As all cowards, he prefers to
act in the middle of the night.

Oh, his attempt to moderate (delay, etc.) Private Messages backfired. The
forum software was not designed for on-demand disabling of PMs. That is
something that you configure at deployment time and don't touch again.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

================

From: JFK Assassination Forum <***@myserver.com>
To: ***@jfknumbers.org
Subject: Topic removed: Breaking News: Putin, Trump to appear in the
upcoming JFK PBS Nova documentary
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:10:50 -0000

A topic you are watching has been removed by Duncan MacRae.

Regards,

The JFK Assassination Forum Team.
Piotr Mancini
2018-09-27 16:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Huh? Did Morley "employ" you?
.John
Yep. I even have a videoclip about the experience planned, from this
movie:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822832/

The other news is that JFK Numbers has been banned again:

Loading Image...

and all his posts were removed from that site. :-(

Who did that in ancient times? They removed statues, images? Was it the
Romans? Greeks? Egyptians? That way they destroyed the soul of the poor
sap?

In his last post, he had the heresy to present the infamous JFK Numbers
challenge heretofore undefeated to our esteemed Tracy Parnell. The one
about the petition to MIT, blah, blah, blah..

Prof: I guess you folks are stuck with me (the country and the NG). Until
I have my own forum, that is.

Volunteers are welcome.

-Ramon The Homeless Immigrant
JFK Numbers
s***@comcast.net
2018-09-29 02:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by John McAdams
Huh? Did Morley "employ" you?
.John
Yep. I even have a videoclip about the experience planned, from this
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822832/
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/JFK-Numbers-Banned-Again.png
and all his posts were removed from that site. :-(
Who did that in ancient times? They removed statues, images? Was it the
Romans? Greeks? Egyptians? That way they destroyed the soul of the poor
sap?
In his last post, he had the heresy to present the infamous JFK Numbers
challenge heretofore undefeated to our esteemed Tracy Parnell. The one
about the petition to MIT, blah, blah, blah..
Prof: I guess you folks are stuck with me (the country and the NG). Until
I have my own forum, that is.
Volunteers are welcome.
-Ramon The Homeless Immigrant
JFK Numbers
I'll tell you why you were banned. Because I supplied the proof in black
and white of how much of a LIAR you are. On this very site you stated that
you were vehemently attacked by LNers for referring to Greg Burnham as
Greg Durham. You then received a response, 1 single response, to your
gaffe that contained 3 names : The name Greg The name Durham with a
strikethru line and The name Burnham. There were no other responses. You
then came on here playing the victim role with your fraudulent tale.
Mark
2018-09-29 15:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by John McAdams
Huh? Did Morley "employ" you?
.John
Yep. I even have a videoclip about the experience planned, from this
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822832/
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/JFK-Numbers-Banned-Again.png
and all his posts were removed from that site. :-(
Who did that in ancient times? They removed statues, images? Was it the
Romans? Greeks? Egyptians? That way they destroyed the soul of the poor
sap?
In his last post, he had the heresy to present the infamous JFK Numbers
challenge heretofore undefeated to our esteemed Tracy Parnell. The one
about the petition to MIT, blah, blah, blah..
Prof: I guess you folks are stuck with me (the country and the NG). Until
I have my own forum, that is.
Volunteers are welcome.
-Ramon The Homeless Immigrant
JFK Numbers
I'll tell you why you were banned. Because I supplied the proof in black
and white of how much of a LIAR you are. On this very site you stated that
you were vehemently attacked by LNers for referring to Greg Burnham as
Greg Durham. You then received a response, 1 single response, to your
gaffe that contained 3 names : The name Greg The name Durham with a
strikethru line and The name Burnham. There were no other responses. You
then came on here playing the victim role with your fraudulent tale.
I don't know anything about the name part of this. But to ban someone
because you believe he or she is a liar is not right. He's a great
whiner, but he could me a liar and I could call him one, but should that
get us kicked off here? That's very subjective.

Mark
Piotr Mancini
2018-09-30 03:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by John McAdams
Huh? Did Morley "employ" you?
.John
Yep. I even have a videoclip planned, about the experience, from this
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822832/
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/JFK-Numbers-Banned-Again.png
and all his posts were removed from that site. :-(
Who did that in ancient times? They removed statues, images? Was it the
Romans? Greeks? Egyptians? That way they destroyed the soul of the poor
sap?
In his last post, he had the heresy to present the infamous JFK Numbers
challenge heretofore undefeated to our esteemed Tracy Parnell. The one
about the petition to MIT, blah, blah, blah..
Prof: I guess you folks are stuck with me (the country and the NG). Until
I have my own forum, that is.
Volunteers are welcome.
-Ramon The Homeless Immigrant
JFK Numbers
[Steve Logan:]
Post by s***@comcast.net
I'll tell you why you were banned. Because I supplied the proof in black
and white of how much of a LIAR you are.
Ladies (do we have any? Keep in mind that being a female does not a Lady
make, see the temporary occupants of the White House) and Gentlemen: I
would like to introduce you to Steve Logan, purportedly of the purest
Boston blue blood of Logan Airport fame. Not quite a Kennedy, but not too
shabby.

Like David Von Pain in the asset, who was the only member who made an
effort to defend me when the so called "Education" COL forum banned me.

Loading Image...

Likewise, since the days before the hard disk crash (Duncan McCoward the
minuscule dictadorzuelo that is under the delusion that he owns that site
and is so incompetent that doesn't know about keeping backups), our
esteemed Steve here was one of the few users in the Imprisoned Island that
ignored the writing on the wall, common in many forums:

IGNORE THAT PESKY RAMON BEHIND THE CURTAIN

So, Stevo, Stevie, Esteban ... (*) Why don't we go past the irrelevancies:
Let's go straight to the dope. Wanna proceed with our old bet? Where I
mock the so-called Notable Doctors (aka JFK Community Big Wigs) to their
faces? The action that you called "political suicide", illustrated by a
Japanese guy doing the Harakiri thing? Prof. McAdams would be a perfect
witness to my heresy, since he is present in the high level e-mails
threads, where we rub elbows with JFK royalty, la crème de la
crème.

https://vimeo.com/user69085127 [See "This Is What My Dreams Look Like"
(banned from YouTube): with proper text labels it will be very
irreverent to the docs.]

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

(*) From the movie "Inside Man"
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454848/?ref_=nv_sr_3

COL: Crying Out Loud
Anthony Marsh
2018-09-30 03:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by John McAdams
Huh? Did Morley "employ" you?
.John
Yep. I even have a videoclip about the experience planned, from this
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822832/
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/JFK-Numbers-Banned-Again.png
and all his posts were removed from that site. :-(
Who did that in ancient times? They removed statues, images? Was it the
Romans? Greeks? Egyptians? That way they destroyed the soul of the poor
sap?
In his last post, he had the heresy to present the infamous JFK Numbers
challenge heretofore undefeated to our esteemed Tracy Parnell. The one
about the petition to MIT, blah, blah, blah..
Prof: I guess you folks are stuck with me (the country and the NG). Until
I have my own forum, that is.
Volunteers are welcome.
-Ramon The Homeless Immigrant
JFK Numbers
I'll tell you why you were banned. Because I supplied the proof in black
and white of how much of a LIAR you are. On this very site you stated that
Ahem. McAdams says that the rules state that you are not allowed to call
another poster a liar. I guess the rules don't apply when you are one of
his minions. I know that I am not allowed to call you a liar, so you
are protected.
Post by s***@comcast.net
you were vehemently attacked by LNers for referring to Greg Burnham as
Greg Durham. You then received a response, 1 single response, to your
gaffe that contained 3 names : The name Greg The name Durham with a
strikethru line and The name Burnham. There were no other responses. You
then came on here playing the victim role with your fraudulent tale.
So, you are saying, with a straight face, that he was banned for making
a typo? Gee, I wish we had that rule here so that I could ban you for life.
John McAdams
2018-09-30 03:53:04 UTC
Permalink
On 29 Sep 2018 23:50:40 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@comcast.net
I'll tell you why you were banned. Because I supplied the proof in black
and white of how much of a LIAR you are. On this very site you stated that
Ahem. McAdams says that the rules state that you are not allowed to call
another poster a liar. I guess the rules don't apply when you are one of
his minions. I know that I am not allowed to call you a liar, so you
are protected.
Yes, the rules apply, but unfortunately I missed this.

Is ***@comcast.net supposed to be one of my "minions?"

Hell . . . I seem to have minions I never knew about.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-10-01 15:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 29 Sep 2018 23:50:40 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@comcast.net
I'll tell you why you were banned. Because I supplied the proof in black
and white of how much of a LIAR you are. On this very site you stated that
Ahem. McAdams says that the rules state that you are not allowed to call
another poster a liar. I guess the rules don't apply when you are one of
his minions. I know that I am not allowed to call you a liar, so you
are protected.
Yes, the rules apply, but unfortunately I missed this.
Hell . . . I seem to have minions I never knew about.
.John
You've got to be careful. They multiply if you don't keep an eye on them.
Post by John McAdams
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
1***@mail.com
2018-09-23 23:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-09-25 01:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?

You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
Anthony Marsh
2018-09-26 15:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
No one thinks the government killed JFK. Stop being childish.
1***@mail.com
2018-09-27 01:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when the evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Mark
2018-09-27 19:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?

Mark
1***@mail.com
2018-09-28 03:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
Mark
Oh, yes. Obama is just as evil as the dummy we have now. The last
president we had who was not evil was Jimmy Carter...maybe. I'm not too
sure about that, either, but he certainly was far less evil than anything
we've had since. Get this liberal and conservative baloney out of your
head. That's just the way they play us. We can genuinely disagree on those
issues, but that has nothing to do with the evil. The Obama administration
was one of the most disgusting we've ever had. I hope he suffers the
eternal torments of the damned, even though I doubt the existence of the
fine institution of eternal damnation. He deserves eternal torment, and I
hope he gets it.
Mark
2018-09-29 15:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
Mark
Oh, yes. Obama is just as evil as the dummy we have now. The last
president we had who was not evil was Jimmy Carter...maybe. I'm not too
sure about that, either, but he certainly was far less evil than anything
we've had since. Get this liberal and conservative baloney out of your
head. That's just the way they play us. We can genuinely disagree on those
issues, but that has nothing to do with the evil. The Obama administration
was one of the most disgusting we've ever had. I hope he suffers the
eternal torments of the damned, even though I doubt the existence of the
fine institution of eternal damnation. He deserves eternal torment, and I
hope he gets it.
How would you characterize your worldview? And that's not a rhetorical
question.

Obama did very little that I agreed with. But to declare him evil and
say that you hope he burns in hell is beyond reason. It dehumanizes him.
It's this sort of extremism that has created today's toxic political
environment.

Mark
1***@mail.com
2018-09-30 03:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
Mark
Oh, yes. Obama is just as evil as the dummy we have now. The last
president we had who was not evil was Jimmy Carter...maybe. I'm not too
sure about that, either, but he certainly was far less evil than anything
we've had since. Get this liberal and conservative baloney out of your
head. That's just the way they play us. We can genuinely disagree on those
issues, but that has nothing to do with the evil. The Obama administration
was one of the most disgusting we've ever had. I hope he suffers the
eternal torments of the damned, even though I doubt the existence of the
fine institution of eternal damnation. He deserves eternal torment, and I
hope he gets it.
How would you characterize your worldview? And that's not a rhetorical
question.
Obama did very little that I agreed with. But to declare him evil and
say that you hope he burns in hell is beyond reason. It dehumanizes him.
It's this sort of extremism that has created today's toxic political
environment.
Mark
Obama, like every president since Jimmy Carter, is a mass murderer. I need
say no more.
Anthony Marsh
2018-10-01 15:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
Mark
Oh, yes. Obama is just as evil as the dummy we have now. The last
president we had who was not evil was Jimmy Carter...maybe. I'm not too
sure about that, either, but he certainly was far less evil than anything
we've had since. Get this liberal and conservative baloney out of your
head. That's just the way they play us. We can genuinely disagree on those
issues, but that has nothing to do with the evil. The Obama administration
was one of the most disgusting we've ever had. I hope he suffers the
eternal torments of the damned, even though I doubt the existence of the
fine institution of eternal damnation. He deserves eternal torment, and I
hope he gets it.
How would you characterize your worldview? And that's not a rhetorical
question.
Obama did very little that I agreed with. But to declare him evil and
say that you hope he burns in hell is beyond reason. It dehumanizes him.
It's this sort of extremism that has created today's toxic political
environment.
Mark
Obama, like every president since Jimmy Carter, is a mass murderer. I need
say no more.
Why do you exclude the previous Presidents? That's not being fair. What
about all the wars?

How many people did they kill themselves in person? Hint: Rough Riders.
1***@mail.com
2018-10-02 02:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
Mark
Oh, yes. Obama is just as evil as the dummy we have now. The last
president we had who was not evil was Jimmy Carter...maybe. I'm not too
sure about that, either, but he certainly was far less evil than anything
we've had since. Get this liberal and conservative baloney out of your
head. That's just the way they play us. We can genuinely disagree on those
issues, but that has nothing to do with the evil. The Obama administration
was one of the most disgusting we've ever had. I hope he suffers the
eternal torments of the damned, even though I doubt the existence of the
fine institution of eternal damnation. He deserves eternal torment, and I
hope he gets it.
How would you characterize your worldview? And that's not a rhetorical
question.
Obama did very little that I agreed with. But to declare him evil and
say that you hope he burns in hell is beyond reason. It dehumanizes him.
It's this sort of extremism that has created today's toxic political
environment.
Mark
Obama, like every president since Jimmy Carter, is a mass murderer. I need
say no more.
Why do you exclude the previous Presidents? That's not being fair. What
about all the wars?
How many people did they kill themselves in person? Hint: Rough Riders.
I exclude Jimmy Carter. He was the last president who wasn't dropping
bombs on people and running death squads and stuff. At least, that is my
impression. I haven't studied his presidency. Getting past him, I'm sure
about 4. He wasn't president for very long, and Nixon seemed to walking
away from his bloodthirsty ways when Ford took over. But, Ford is one of
THEM, so given the chance, I'm sure he would have been a mass-murderer,
too. Nixon and LBJ of course qualify. JFK inherited the mass-murdering
apparatus, and used it, but I think he was getting better, one of the
reasons they killed him. Ike must be judged a mass-murderer, too. Truman
can hardly escape the charge, especially because of the 2nd bomb. FDR is
complicated for me. Maybe he shouldn't be. I don't know enough about his
three Republican predecessors to judge them on this point. I hate Woody,
and he didn't keep us out of war, so he can rot for eternity, too, for all
I care. Don't know enough about Taft's administration. And TR, I put it
down to an innocent sort of silliness. I guess I like him too much for
other reasons. I don't want to get into the 19th Century, if that's OK.
Anthony Marsh
2018-10-03 15:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
Mark
Oh, yes. Obama is just as evil as the dummy we have now. The last
president we had who was not evil was Jimmy Carter...maybe. I'm not too
sure about that, either, but he certainly was far less evil than anything
we've had since. Get this liberal and conservative baloney out of your
head. That's just the way they play us. We can genuinely disagree on those
issues, but that has nothing to do with the evil. The Obama administration
was one of the most disgusting we've ever had. I hope he suffers the
eternal torments of the damned, even though I doubt the existence of the
fine institution of eternal damnation. He deserves eternal torment, and I
hope he gets it.
How would you characterize your worldview? And that's not a rhetorical
question.
Obama did very little that I agreed with. But to declare him evil and
say that you hope he burns in hell is beyond reason. It dehumanizes him.
It's this sort of extremism that has created today's toxic political
environment.
Mark
Obama, like every president since Jimmy Carter, is a mass murderer. I need
say no more.
Why do you exclude the previous Presidents? That's not being fair. What
about all the wars?
How many people did they kill themselves in person? Hint: Rough Riders.
I exclude Jimmy Carter. He was the last president who wasn't dropping
bombs on people and running death squads and stuff. At least, that is my
Sounds reassuring, but how can you know that for sure? Maybe he was
doing stuff behind the scenes that you never heard about.

Are you old enough to remember the hostage crisis?
Did you see the movie Argo?
Post by 1***@mail.com
impression. I haven't studied his presidency. Getting past him, I'm sure
about 4. He wasn't president for very long, and Nixon seemed to walking
away from his bloodthirsty ways when Ford took over. But, Ford is one of
THEM, so given the chance, I'm sure he would have been a mass-murderer,
too. Nixon and LBJ of course qualify. JFK inherited the mass-murdering
apparatus, and used it, but I think he was getting better, one of the
reasons they killed him. Ike must be judged a mass-murderer, too. Truman
can hardly escape the charge, especially because of the 2nd bomb. FDR is
complicated for me. Maybe he shouldn't be. I don't know enough about his
three Republican predecessors to judge them on this point. I hate Woody,
and he didn't keep us out of war, so he can rot for eternity, too, for all
I care. Don't know enough about Taft's administration. And TR, I put it
down to an innocent sort of silliness. I guess I like him too much for
other reasons. I don't want to get into the 19th Century, if that's OK.
1***@mail.com
2018-10-04 05:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
Mark
Oh, yes. Obama is just as evil as the dummy we have now. The last
president we had who was not evil was Jimmy Carter...maybe. I'm not too
sure about that, either, but he certainly was far less evil than anything
we've had since. Get this liberal and conservative baloney out of your
head. That's just the way they play us. We can genuinely disagree on those
issues, but that has nothing to do with the evil. The Obama administration
was one of the most disgusting we've ever had. I hope he suffers the
eternal torments of the damned, even though I doubt the existence of the
fine institution of eternal damnation. He deserves eternal torment, and I
hope he gets it.
How would you characterize your worldview? And that's not a rhetorical
question.
Obama did very little that I agreed with. But to declare him evil and
say that you hope he burns in hell is beyond reason. It dehumanizes him.
It's this sort of extremism that has created today's toxic political
environment.
Mark
Obama, like every president since Jimmy Carter, is a mass murderer. I need
say no more.
Why do you exclude the previous Presidents? That's not being fair. What
about all the wars?
How many people did they kill themselves in person? Hint: Rough Riders.
I exclude Jimmy Carter. He was the last president who wasn't dropping
bombs on people and running death squads and stuff. At least, that is my
Sounds reassuring, but how can you know that for sure? Maybe he was
doing stuff behind the scenes that you never heard about.
Are you old enough to remember the hostage crisis?
Did you see the movie Argo?
Post by 1***@mail.com
impression. I haven't studied his presidency. Getting past him, I'm sure
about 4. He wasn't president for very long, and Nixon seemed to walking
away from his bloodthirsty ways when Ford took over. But, Ford is one of
THEM, so given the chance, I'm sure he would have been a mass-murderer,
too. Nixon and LBJ of course qualify. JFK inherited the mass-murdering
apparatus, and used it, but I think he was getting better, one of the
reasons they killed him. Ike must be judged a mass-murderer, too. Truman
can hardly escape the charge, especially because of the 2nd bomb. FDR is
complicated for me. Maybe he shouldn't be. I don't know enough about his
three Republican predecessors to judge them on this point. I hate Woody,
and he didn't keep us out of war, so he can rot for eternity, too, for all
I care. Don't know enough about Taft's administration. And TR, I put it
down to an innocent sort of silliness. I guess I like him too much for
other reasons. I don't want to get into the 19th Century, if that's OK.
No Argo. Yes hostage crisis. Whatever he may have done pales in comparison
to the others who made mass murder a matter of policy.
Mark
2018-09-30 03:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
Mark
Oh, yes. Obama is just as evil as the dummy we have now. The last
president we had who was not evil was Jimmy Carter...maybe. I'm not too
sure about that, either, but he certainly was far less evil than anything
we've had since. Get this liberal and conservative baloney out of your
head. That's just the way they play us. We can genuinely disagree on those
issues, but that has nothing to do with the evil. The Obama administration
was one of the most disgusting we've ever had. I hope he suffers the
eternal torments of the damned, even though I doubt the existence of the
fine institution of eternal damnation. He deserves eternal torment, and I
hope he gets it.
How would you characterize your worldview? And that's not a rhetorical
question.
Obama did very little that I agreed with. But to declare him evil and
say that you hope he burns in hell is beyond reason. It dehumanizes him.
It's this sort of extremism that has created today's toxic political
environment.
Mark
P.S. Just as calling conservatives Nazis does. Mark
Piotr Mancini
2018-10-04 21:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Mark
P.S. Just as calling conservatives Nazis does. Mark
If your party, aka the Party of Trump takes one small step to the right:

- They are Nazis

If the Democrats take one -rather large- step to the Left:

- They are communist

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

"Let them call you racist, wear it as a badge of honor"

- Steve Bannon, main Advisor to the White House, before a crowd of white
supremacists, Neo Nazis, etc. in Europe, were is Trump unofficial
ambassador exporting his revolution.



Anthony Marsh
2018-09-28 20:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You think the government murdered JFK but also want to give it the power
to tell private groups/individuals who and what they can "censor"?
You think they can exercise that power fairly? The same government you
think killed JFK?
That is the problem with power. I think our system is well-designed, but
paper will not restrict evil people. But those evil people are there
whether or not there is government power, so, without the government
power, they censor and murder by their own power. This is why there needs
to be a healthy amount of democratic input, so the rulers themselves are
restricted by the people's representatives. But when individuals become
too powerful, or "rich," then they take over the government and do what
they will with government power. Government power was used by such people
to murder JFK, because they controlled enough of the government that they
could get away with it. And they controlled enough of the media, too. In
my view, the evil people murdered JFK, not "the government." I did not
state that well in my post above, but to state things precisely requires
very tedious reading and writing, as perhaps the current post
demonstrates. I think a definition of "public" and "private" can be used
to make reasonable rules about free speech. Marsh I think makes a point
about this being a "public" forum, while a private newsgroup, presumable
would not be "public." "Private" in the sense of free speech, need not be
restricted to everything privately owned, and "public" need not be
restricted to everything owned by the government. Of course, when th e evil
people run the government, then there's no winning but by getting rid of
them. And that is what has happened since 1963. So, my above post was more
of an emotional lament than policy statement. I knew you'd understand.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me try this: Were the 8 years of
the Obama administration run by "evil people"?
No, the 6 years of the Congress were.
Post by Mark
Mark
Mark
2018-09-25 01:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
You have caught the extreme left wing bug bad. Mark
bigdog
2018-09-25 15:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
The Constitution was never intended to apply to private citizens. It
delineates the powers of the federal government as well as placing
restirictions upon it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-09-25 15:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
In case yyou didn't know, THIS is a public newsgroup not a private blog
or forum. It is run by UseNet which sets the rules.
Piotr Mancini
2018-09-27 01:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1***@mail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Too bad the constitution doesn't apply to "private" censors, or government
murder of the president, or anything the rich don't want it to apply to.
In case you didn't know, THIS is a public newsgroup not a private blog
or forum. It is run by UseNet which sets the rules.
Can't even spell the name of an entity of which I was pioneer and
co-creator, hm?

I helped write those rules: in short, there are no rules (well, minimal).

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Anthony Marsh
2018-09-24 17:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Piotr Mancini
Let's keep a record of posts blocked by the self designated holders of the
truth and good manners.
No, contrary to popular belief, they are not always on the LN side. They
are indeed predominantly of that persuasion, but as you will learn, there
are dishonorable exceptions to that rule.
Yesterday, I posted in the most successful JFK Forum something about David
Mantik, John Costella, Doug Horne, etc. having a self appointed agent in
forumland. "You have to go through me, Ramon. Just give me what you have
[the latest scientific achievement on detailed numerical description of a
human brain impacted by a bullet] and we will let you know whether it is
worthwhile."
Well, since I misspelled the name of "Greg Burnham", calling him "Greg
Durham", and was immediately fiercely attacked (the LNs are always ready
"Oh, yes, it is "Burnham", of course. What happened is that I had this
movie in my mind"
OMG! Someone made a typo! Off with his head.The Grammar Nazis are posted
here to take advantage of any such mistakes to avoid debating the
evidence honestly.
Post by Piotr Mancini
http://youtu.be/v8rUk5MWMx8
My explanation saw the light of day for less than 15 minutes. The
"moderators" (actually, singular) of that extremely successful travesty
Well, in the old days before the coup there indeed were 3 moderators.
Now all we have is a dictator, a mini-Trump.
(Homage to Goldmember)
Post by Piotr Mancini
don't want you to watch the JFK Numbers YouTube channel.
Note: There is no need to reply to this (unless you want to, this is
America). I have a whole collection of failed posts. The ones that hurt me
the most are those blocked by my former e-employer, JFK Facts.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
So you don't want anyone to reply because you don't want any support?
Whatever happened to JFK Figures?
Piotr Mancini
2018-09-27 01:52:14 UTC
Permalink
All righty, if you folks (The People) want this to become a multi-poster
thread, it is fine by me.

-RFH
Piotr Mancini
2018-09-27 01:57:24 UTC
Permalink
[The following post was just removed by Duncan McRae from the The JFK
Assassination Forum]

========================================================
From: ***@jfknumbers.org
Subject: Breaking News: Putin and Trump will appear in the upcoming PBS
Nova documentary about JFK
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 04:45:05 -0500

White House sources confirm that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin and
president Donald Trump will appear in the upcoming PBS Nova documentary
about JFK.

There you go:

Loading Image...

Now, seriously. Probably many of you remember "Basic Instinct" where
author of murder novels Catherine Tramell had a very short skirt that made
the cops sweat (bullets, of course) during interrogation? Well, in the
Oscar ceremony Betty White (the only surviving Golden Girl) presented an
award to the producers and told them:

"Let's hope that now you can afford to buy some panties for Sharon"

Well, we -the producers of the Free Open Source 3D Model of Dealey Plaza-
are in the same situation of poverty:

Could not afford the suits. :-(

Your generous contributions are welcome.

Now, really, really seriously.

For the life of me I cannot understand why red blooded American patriots
prefer to watch canned, old fashioned 3D (Myers, Nova) documentaries where
the scenes are pre-chosen, the numbers are secretly kept when we can/will
have our own. Did I mention interactive? On demand scenes? It could be one
of the greatest real life achievements of this forum. Specially given the
fact that the people who are working on the SBT/MBT scenes met right here
in these pages.

I would like to express our collective appreciation to Paul Ernst and
Martin Hinrichs. Paul is working diligently on this one.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

ps: John Iacoletti: Does this still qualify as vaporware? It is a only a
portend of things to come.
Loading...