On Jun 10, 11:07*pm, Government Shill #2 wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:37 pm, Government Shill #2 wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:34:38 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, Government Shill #2 wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 10, 12:25 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:07:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth
:

On Jun 10, 10:36 am, HVAC wrote:
On 6/10/2011 9:55 AM, John Smith wrote:
Funny that I've never read that before.
You wouldn't mind give me a cite, would you?
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea
of God. -- Albert Einstein
John... Do you know what a cite is?
I just cited to you, a quote from Einstein, on the matter you inquired
about, you have google before you, do you understand how to use a search
engine?
Instead of the histrionics, just say that you *don't* know
what a cite is and move on......
Your whole live is a pathetic derivative of social/political/religious
voodoo and cabal policies, doing only whatever you've been
indoctrinated to do and say. In other words, you and your remorseless
killing machine kids would have been ideal for Hitler or any other
warlord that happen to be in charge. In a few other words, you and
your robot borg like kids go along with the mainstream flow of the
moment, no matters what the consequences, doing only exactly as you
were either instructed and/or allowed to do because you either can't
or wouldn't dare think or rationalize anything through for yourself.

This must be the primary reason there's a record percentage level of
military family dysfunctions and suicides. Way to go, HVAC. Perhaps
GW Bush and Dick Cheney should have given you and your deaf, dumb and
blind "follow the leader" kids the highest medal of honor, starting
off with your butt-sucking generation getting JFK killed.

Wrong newsgroup; alt.rants.free-association.non-sequiturs is
over that way...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

So your being a ZNR is good for business?

So, if you wrote in a form that English speakers could follow, some people might
engage you in debate.
Why don't you start by setting a good example?

Tell us why someone closely associated with our CIA, Operation 40, and
even well enough known by MI that knew about Operation 40 that took
out JFK?

Are you saying that each and every tidbit of investigative information
from William Mook is bogus?

No. I'm saying 90% of your writing is incomprehensible rubbish. If there are
cogent arguments in what you write they are buried under convoluted ramblings
and bizarre syntax.

Are you saying that religion never gets involved with politics?

Religion always gets involved in politics Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth,
BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet . That's one of the many bad things about religion.

What I *am* saying is religion is one of the worst forces on the planet today.
All religions. Not just the ones *you* don't like.

You are way off topic. *When do you plan on fixing that?

Just answering *your* questions *Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG /
Guth Usenet ; ie "Are you saying that religion never gets involved with
politics?"

I guess the person responsible for taking the thread off topic would be.... you!

When do you plan on fixing that?

Shill #2
--
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle. * * * *
*Vique

So, Mr. all-knowing wise guy spook/mole, tell us why the version of
history that involves JFK, as interpreted and told by William Mook is
wrong.

On 6/11/2011 6:00 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


I guess the person responsible for taking the thread off topic would be... you!

When do you plan on fixing that?

Shill #2
--
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
Vique

So, Mr. all-knowing wise guy spook/mole, tell us why the version of
history that involves JFK, as interpreted and told by William Mook is
wrong.


Who the **** is William Gook?








--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On Jun 11, 3:43*am, HVAC wrote:
On 6/11/2011 6:00 AM, Brad Guth wrote:



I guess the person responsible for taking the thread off topic would be... you!

When do you plan on fixing that?

Shill #2
--
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
* Vique

So, Mr. all-knowing wise guy spook/mole, tell us why the version of
history that involves JFK, as interpreted and told by William Mook is
wrong.

Who the **** is William Gook?

Real funny, but then aren't all FUD-masters.

On 6/11/2011 6:46 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


So, Mr. all-knowing wise guy spook/mole, tell us why the version of
history that involves JFK, as interpreted and told by William Mook is
wrong.

Who the **** is William Gook?

Real funny, but then aren't all FUD-masters.


I'll tell you what's REALLY funny. Kooks like you *never* have
a sense of humor and seemingly take zero pleasure in life.

Why is that, Bradley?

In the words of the Joker....Why so serious?











--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On Jun 11, 3:55*am, HVAC wrote:
On 6/11/2011 6:46 AM, Brad Guth wrote:



So, Mr. all-knowing wise guy spook/mole, tell us why the version of
history that involves JFK, as interpreted and told by William Mook is
wrong.

Who the **** is William Gook?

Real funny, but then aren't all FUD-masters.

I'll tell you what's REALLY funny. Kooks like you *never* have
a sense of humor and seemingly take zero pleasure in life.

Why is that, Bradley?

In the words of the Joker....Why so serious?

--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube..com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

In other words, William Mook's interpretation of what got JFK and RFK
each killed isn't in dispute.

It's good to know what skulduggery side a devout ZNR redneck like
yourself is on.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 6/11/2011 7:15 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


Real funny, but then aren't all FUD-masters.

I'll tell you what's REALLY funny. Kooks like you *never* have
a sense of humor and seemingly take zero pleasure in life.

Why is that, Bradley?

In the words of the Joker....Why so serious?

--

In other words, William Mook's interpretation of what got JFK and RFK
each killed isn't in dispute.

It's good to know what skulduggery side a devout ZNR redneck like
yourself is on.


Again, do you EVER laugh?

Do you EVER have fun?









--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On Jun 11, 4:22*am, HVAC wrote:
On 6/11/2011 7:15 AM, Brad Guth wrote:











Real funny, but then aren't all FUD-masters.

I'll tell you what's REALLY funny. Kooks like you *never* have
a sense of humor and seemingly take zero pleasure in life.

Why is that, Bradley?

In the words of the Joker....Why so serious?

--

In other words, William Mook's interpretation of what got JFK and RFK
each killed isn't in dispute.

It's good to know what skulduggery side a devout ZNR redneck like
yourself is on.

Again, do you EVER laugh?

Do you EVER have fun?

For an old and cranky fat guy on a IV drip, you seem overly concerned
about my not having enough fun.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 04:15:49 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth
:

On Jun 11, 3:55*am, HVAC wrote:
On 6/11/2011 6:46 AM, Brad Guth wrote:



So, Mr. all-knowing wise guy spook/mole, tell us why the version of
history that involves JFK, as interpreted and told by William Mook is
wrong.

Who the **** is William Gook?

Real funny, but then aren't all FUD-masters.

I'll tell you what's REALLY funny. Kooks like you *never* have
a sense of humor and seemingly take zero pleasure in life.

Why is that, Bradley?

In the words of the Joker....Why so serious?

--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

In other words, William Mook's interpretation of what got JFK and RFK
each killed isn't in dispute.

Since no one knows what that "interpretation" consists of,
or what it's based on, how can we know? Knowing you from
your posts, however, I'd venture that it's not in dispute
because it's imaginary.

Here's a suggestion, Sparky: If you'd like to see how *real*
forensic analysis is done, pick up and read the book "Mortal
Error" by Bonar Menninger, ISBN 0-312-08074-3. He makes a
strong argument, based on actual physical evidence,
regarding how JFK died.

It's good to know what skulduggery side a devout ZNR redneck like
yourself is on.

What's a "ZNR"? And just to satisfy my curiosity, what's
your personal definition of "redneck"?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On 6/11/2011 12:57 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:


In other words, William Mook's interpretation of what got JFK and RFK
each killed isn't in dispute.

Since no one knows what that "interpretation" consists of,
or what it's based on, how can we know? Knowing you from
your posts, however, I'd venture that it's not in dispute
because it's imaginary.

Here's a suggestion, Sparky: If you'd like to see how *real*
forensic analysis is done, pick up and read the book "Mortal
Error" by Bonar Menninger, ISBN 0-312-08074-3. He makes a
strong argument, based on actual physical evidence,
regarding how JFK died.

It's good to know what skulduggery side a devout ZNR redneck like
yourself is on.

What's a "ZNR"? And just to satisfy my curiosity, what's
your personal definition of "redneck"?


I think guth is busy "fixing things".






--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:57:05 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova :

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 04:15:49 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth
:

On Jun 11, 3:55*am, HVAC wrote:
On 6/11/2011 6:46 AM, Brad Guth wrote:



So, Mr. all-knowing wise guy spook/mole, tell us why the version of
history that involves JFK, as interpreted and told by William Mook is
wrong.

Who the **** is William Gook?

Real funny, but then aren't all FUD-masters.

I'll tell you what's REALLY funny. Kooks like you *never* have
a sense of humor and seemingly take zero pleasure in life.

Why is that, Bradley?

In the words of the Joker....Why so serious?

--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

In other words, William Mook's interpretation of what got JFK and RFK
each killed isn't in dispute.

Since no one knows what that "interpretation" consists of,
or what it's based on, how can we know? Knowing you from
your posts, however, I'd venture that it's not in dispute
because it's imaginary.

Here's a suggestion, Sparky: If you'd like to see how *real*
forensic analysis is done, pick up and read the book "Mortal
Error" by Bonar Menninger, ISBN 0-312-08074-3. He makes a
strong argument, based on actual physical evidence,
regarding how JFK died.

Have you checked this out yet, Sparky?

It's good to know what skulduggery side a devout ZNR redneck like
yourself is on.

What's a "ZNR"? And just to satisfy my curiosity, what's
your personal definition of "redneck"?

[Crickets...]
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless