For Keith Willshaw...

and so you head off into the land of the lunatics.


Do you really think that you can supress the truth for forever by resorting to
Ad Hominem attacks?Or to put another way, paranoid dip****s like yourself
learn to "read"
anything that matches your delusions into being "truth".

What an "interesting" world you must inhabit, where your totally unsupported
opinion = "truth".

The other name for that condition is "insanity".

Your nervousness is understandable and fully justified.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
and so you head off into the land of the lunatics.


Do you really think that you can supress the truth for forever by
resorting to
Ad Hominem attacks?

The truth is already well known, and I like insulting the insane. call it a
foible.


Or to put another way, paranoid dip****s like yourself
learn to "read"
anything that matches your delusions into being "truth".

What an "interesting" world you must inhabit, where your totally
unsupported
opinion = "truth".

The other name for that condition is "insanity".

Your nervousness is understandable and fully justified.

Nervousness that you are insane? - I find it amusing, not scary.

The truth is already well known, and I like insulting the insane. call it a
foible.

Whose truth?

Those who favor the reopening Pearl Harbor case are in majority today.

As far as I know Sacco&Venzetti too were convicted according to the "truth that
was very well known".

Nervousness that you are insane? - I find it amusing, not scary.

Glad to hear that.

On 12 Jun 2004 01:01:35 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

The truth is already well known, and I like insulting the insane. call it a
foible.

Whose truth?

Those who favor the reopening Pearl Harbor case are in majority today.

Really? Can you provide a cite for that? Or is it contained in a scret
document suppressed by the guvmint?

Peter Kemp

In article ,
on 12 Jun 2004 01:01:35 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

The truth is already well known, and I like insulting the insane. call it a
foible.

Whose truth?

Those who favor the reopening Pearl Harbor case are in majority today.

In which alternate reality ?

Or is it just all those voices ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In which alternate reality

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

This kind of operations should be a thing of the past,but you can not prevent
the recurrence of such events by covering them up.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
In which alternate reality

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

This kind of operations should be a thing of the past,but you can not
prevent
the recurrence of such events by covering them up.


Relisting them does not equal proving them. but feel to relist them a few
more times.

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

Relisting them does not equal proving them. but feel to relist them a few
more times.

It establishes the existence of a pattern or govenment culture.

Its always easier to get an Arson suspect with prior Arson convictions
convicted than an Arson suspect without any prior convictions.

In article ,
on 12 Jun 2004 05:51:59 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

In which alternate reality

1)Ft.Sumter
2)USS Maine
3)Pearl Harbor
4)9/11

This kind of operations should be a thing of the past,but you can not prevent
the recurrence of such events by covering them up.


You are making less and less sense.
Please try providing some proof, some ducumentation of what it is you are
trying to say.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
The truth is already well known, and I like insulting the insane. call it
a
foible.

Whose truth?

Those who favor the reopening Pearl Harbor case are in majority today.


And the "figures" for that come from another of your "truths" do they?