See other 9/11 Articles
Title: DR. STEVEN JONES- PNAC-4/14/07- NEW 9/11 EVIDENCE
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
Published: Apr 30, 2007
Author: Steven Jones
Post Date: 2007-04-30 23:57:52 by Critter
Ping List: *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Keywords: 9/11, Truth, Thermate
Views: 7005
Comments: 150
Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 133.
#1. To: Robin, Christine, Diana, Zipporah, Honway, kamala, Aristeides, Red Jones, Ferret Mike, skydrifter, Destro, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser, all (#0)
(Edited)
Good shit from the good doctor.
ROTFLOL! Jones is either a liar or a very sloppy researcher. For example, he claimed this: was a photo of slag from a pool of molten steel. It is not. It is a photo of a chunk of pancaked floors composed of sheet steel, reinforced concrete, rebar, wood and even paper debris with writing still legible on it. And there is photo after photo available proving this: And this is only one of many dishonesties that ex-professor Jones has promoted with respect to 9/11. Here are some more: He has claimed that "there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7". That is absolutely false. Neither he or any in the 911 CT community have named an eyewitness who actually said there were "pools" of molten metal. And the source that Jones cited to back up his claim when he said that didn't name a single eyewitness. In fact, the word "pool" wasn't even mentioned in the article he cited. With regards to the metal observed falling from the South Tower a short while before the collapse, Jones once claimed "the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." As has been proven with a video of that event several times here at 4um, that is patently false. The material falling in the video is at times quite silvery in appearance. He also said "this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color". That too is false, as the video showed quite clearly. And to show how willing Jones is to alter his claimed evidence in order to prove his obsession, he recently switched to describing the falling material as follows: "yellow-white hot molten metal". He said "the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.)" Notice that it is no longer orange or reddish-orange as he initially claimed. Now it's yellow or yellow-white. He changed the color because he learned that molten steel would have to be that color. Perhaps he learned this from Thomas Eager of MIT who has been quoted (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-to-appear-on-view.html ) saying "I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven Jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him." I think Mr Eager is correct. Steven Jones is a DISHONEST sub-atomic particle physicist who wants the lime light. He didn't get it with another research topic he was involved in at BYU ... another scam ... cold fusion. As to his claims about the composition of the dust (the 1.5 mm spheres) and that they prove thermite was used at the WTC site, I have the following comments. First, Jones has clearly lied before about 9/11 evidence so I don't think he is above fabricating data to "prove" his allegation about 9/11. He is that obsessed with proving this since he's staked his career and credibility on the allegation. Second ... there is NO chain of custody in that sample of dust he claims came from the WTC site. According to Jones, it came from Janette MacKinlay, a visual *artist*, who it turns out is also highly obsessed (http://www.communitycurrency.org/blog.html ) with this topic (and making money from it). MacKinlay is the *colorful* lady with the scarf to the right of Jones in the photo below at one of their recent conferences. Curiously enough, Jones also says she took and supplied the photo that Jones claimed showed slag from a pool of molten steel. So she must have known that wasn't true since she must have seen the item up close when she took the picture. Yet she has let Jones misrepresent what the object was in public forums and papers. So she too seems somewhat dishonest and not above fabricating evidence. Which seems to be typical of those running the *truth* movement. Third ... http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/and-now-for-some-science.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/steven-jones-is-experimenting.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-is-steven-jones-on-skids.html
This one must really scare you. You broke out the monster spam post for this, eh? I do believe that the people holding that chunk of whatever it is are the ones that said it was the result of a molten mass. You might wish to check on that.
They are not holding it anywhere? It has been tossed out in the trash? WTF is wrong with you? Are you that retarded? Really? I really can't wait til Christine has had enough of your bullshit. You are the biggest asshole I have ever had the displeasure of meeting on a forum.
Actually, it was in a museum. Or didn't you know that either? I certainly hope that christine has a sense of humor.
OK, I let your dimness get under my skin tonight, and almost went to find a new home. But, I would miss beating the crap out of you on these threads too much, so... here's some more beating. hehehe The USGS has a Particle Atlas of world Trade Center dust: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html It is basically a breakdown of the contents of dust samples. From the USGS spectra analysis of a couple of iron spheres found in the wtc dust samples: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-03.jpg http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04.jpg You will notice (if you're not a US government black op shill of course) that they very closely match what Dr. Jones spectra analysis produced, if you watched the video. Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition? Come on genius. Tell me.
Wow! The government sure went to a lot of effort to cover up this smoking gun, critter. ROTFLOL! But why do you assume the spheres were produced before/during the collapse rather than after ... when no one argues that molten steel wasn't present? Here's what a chemist/metallurgist (rather than a sub-atomic particle physicist ... he he he) has to say about the production of metal spheres: ************ http://www.mujca.com/procrustes.htm The Collapse of WTC 1 and 2: A New Theory F. R. Greening ... snip ... Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers. I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed. Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.” 1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005) 2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006) 3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003. 4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004). The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 mm to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses. In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). We first note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period. Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 mm of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, we may use our previous estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor to conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. We have shown in the first part of this article that if some of the thermal insulation that was applied to floor assemblies in the Twin Towers was spiked with 25 % by weight of ammonium perchlorate and subsequently exposed to jet-fuel fires, it would have heated the steel decking to ~ 1390 °C. Now, since the boiling point of zinc is 908 °C, this degree of heating of a floor assembly would have been sufficient to vaporize the zinc in the galvanized steel! To conclude: we have shown that an AP collapse theory accounts for all four processes that collectively led to the observed level of destruction to WTC 1 & 2, namely: the buckling and fracture of floor elements; the collapse of entire floor sections; explosive spalling and “powderizing” of the concrete; melting of the floor pans. As an aside, we note that the addition of ammonium perchlorate to the thermal insulation on the upper floors of the Twin Towers comes very close to being the perfect crime. The deadly AP-spiked concoction would have been almost identical to the un-spiked coating; it could have been sprayed on selected surfaces with impunity; it required no elaborate detonator devices to be activated – moderate heating worked just fine. And finally, because AP decomposes to gaseous products, it leaves no telltale residues. Of course, I haven’t proved that AP was used in the Twin Towers, but to end with a famous quote: “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth……..” F.R. Greening, March 15th, 2007 ************** Or perhaps professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, writing in Controlled Environments Magazine in December 2003 has the answer (http://www.cemag.us/articles.asp?pid=399 ): "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground." *************** Also, the steel rebar in the concrete floors and steel members in the structure were scraped during the collapse producing tiny particles. The melting point of steel is lower in this form? Think along the lines of the glowing particles coming off a grinding wheel. Perhaps micron size particles formed their spherical shape at the elevated temperature in the falling debris itself just due to mechanical friction? ROTFLOL!
More BS I see. None of that explains the presence of sulfer, manganese etc, in the sphere. Occams razor. Remember that one? You use it all the time. The simplest explanation for the makeup up the spheres is the use of thermate. Too many coincidental anomolies have to take place to produce thermate signature spheres without using thermate. Go chase yoruself.
The idiot's only motive is his desire for war. He doesn't shill because the facts are on his side, he just sees the war and oppression the Bush Administration pushes in the wake of these false flag operations as the sort of reality that appeals to him. He knows he just has to blur the picture to dampen the increasing awareness of the American People to what has happened. He goes for making it seem like a reasonable debate is occurring to discourge people's interest in piercing the psychological thrushhold of not wanting to deal with the horror of having the worst sort of criminals possible in charge of government. He has failed to make his case, and doesn't have the tools to even try. I say react to an attack on getting the truth out that Goldi's biker bar banishment with a quid pro quo banning of Bealiar. It's possible his banning there was contrived in order to send him here to put a damper on the efforts of Truthers here. I would be curious to see if he was suddenly reinstated at LP if banned here; I say he will.
Your post merely proves my point. I can tolerate others with whom I disagree, but you refuse to let me. You ignore my questions and avoid elaborating along lines others and I inquire regarding to do a very focused set of tactics. You avoid developing human relationships and focus on various points more concerned about creating an atmosphere of derision and incredulous scorn anyone would advocate anything other then you advocate. You go for the atmosphere of destroying discussion on this issue, not adding to it I've seen enough of this 'swift boating' sort of modus to getting one's way politically. I am sick of it. Listen bub, I am an environmental activist in real life, but in spite of this I come in here and try to give people a little more then I get, and I listen to what others say and weigh the merits of their words and thoughts. I often pass up environmental threads to make a point I am not here solely to advance personal agendas. I talk of many things in here. But you focus on one issue like it is a job to do so, and you are utterly detached on the personal level from everyone else in forum. You need to do better then that and learn some respect of others as fellow interlocutors in a BBS, or you should leave, or be severed from this virtual community. I move you be terminated as a 'fuckwit,' banning fuckwits has always ben a sound forum management practice. From the source linked below: "Fuckwits park on pavements and in disabled parking spaces when they are not entitled to do so. Fuckwits always believe they have 'right of way'. Fuckwits drop litter in the street. Fuckwits only generally care about themselves and this is evident in their overall attitude toward everything and everyone else. Fuckwits always know absolutely everything in the history of everythingness. Fuckwits talk lots and listen little. Fuckwits never allow evidence to prevent them continuing to be a fuckwit. Fuckwits, basically, are fuckwits. There is no cure." http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm
That statement, combined with your instant dismissal of the Ron Brown allegations makes me suspect you are a democRAT? Could I be right, FM? I think I must be right. Of course not. (sarcasm) Don't believe I've ever done something as uncouth as that. For all you know, I might even be disabled. No, I'm an extremely courteous driver. In fact, I ALWAYS drive defensively. And I usually give others the right of way in hallways, on sidewalks, when entering or exiting elevators ... and I never cut lines. Never. Why I've even been known to pick up other folks litter. People have been known to compliment my generousity. And I always say "you first". I don't pretend to know everything. That's why I never call myself an expert in any topic being discussed. I just do a little research and let others speak for me. I listen. Which is why I always respond to posts and often respond line by line to their content. That is getting more difficult to do around here since christine cut me back to 15 posts a day, though. ROTFLOL! I'm not the one refusing to discuss the facts in this thread. Tell me, FM, do you think this is slag from a pool of molten steel? That's what Ex-Professor Jones claimed. And by the way, does http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm say anything about rudeness?
You claim the pressure for him to resign did not exist in your coy posts taunting others about how people are oft times allowed a measure of dign ity in how they leave, especially when those dooing the firing are wrong. The above quote is coy and sarcastic, meant to muddy the waters of the discussion, not out of a desire for a forthright answer from me much like this dig at Professor Jone's forced resignation. You have ignored much of what I have asked you or points I mentioned as you are doing the cores of a fuckwit -- which you demonstate adherence to by your taunting and derisive remarks answering material I quoted in my post because you think it is so much fun playing fuckwit in here. Without the spam, ad hominem attacks, circular logic meant to stall discussion, there is as much substance to your posts as a serving of cotton candy.
What can I tell you but that Dr Jones, himself, said he was NOT forced to resign. "I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my own choosing," Jones said in a statement released by the university. "I appreciate the wonderful opportunity I have had to teach and serve and do research at BYU for more than 21 years." You don't want to believe him? Fine with me. But believe this ... ********* Synopsis: Structural engineering faculty of BYU repudiate Jones Source: Ira A. Fulton College News Published: November 1, 2005 Author: BYU College of Engineering and Technology For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use. Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions. The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones. *************
Still looking through your "Shill for the State" manual to see how to deal with this video?
They obviously have no credibility. As hot as the inner Earth? It could be that Jones was sold a bill of goods regarding this photo, I don't know. It doesn't matter though, his research into how it was impossible for the towers to come down in the time they did due to a progressive collapse is spot on.
ping to critter's cartoon
It may become a daily continuing saga, if he doesn't respond. hehehe
I don't know if you even noticed but about 6/10ths of the way through that video they show the chunk of material that your Dr Jones told his audiences was slag from a molten pool of steel. In the video, they say it is the pancaked remains of several floors of the building ... steel, concrete, rebar, furniture, etc. In other words, it is not from a molten pool of anything as Dr Jones claimed. Beyond that, I can't help it if the TV personality says it was "exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth". He was talking for effect ... nothing else. And besides, who is to say he was talking about the core temperatures. And the source that Jones used for his photo got to see that chunk of material first hand. And if nothing else, she let him go around claiming that was a chunk of slag from a molten pool of steel. You'd think he'd be angry with her for deceiving him (at the very least) but apparently he's not. They are still good buddies because she also supplied him with that vial of dust he's fallen in love with. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you think that video proves, Critter. But if you think it irrefutably proves anything, by all means, take it to the media like you have all those other smoking guns the CT community has found. Oh wait ... that's right ... ROTFLOL!
Obviously the people curating that "museum" are telling people that it was a product of intense heat as hot as the inner earth. Now, since they are holding all of this captive, out the public view, who is to say what it is really made of. That is my one and only point.
You mean to say, that although you've in the past claimed some experience with buildings, you can't tell that chunk of material in the video and seen in the numerous still photos that I've posted is made of unmelted concrete, steel and rebar (the major components)? Really? Or maybe the truth is getting in the way of you seeing Dr Jones for what he really is? Is it just coincidence that you also couldn't see a hole in the Pentagon that was larger than 20 feet across (when the hole was clearly many times that size across in the photos I posted)? Maybe the truth just got in the way of your *it was a missile or small airplane* theory? Curious that you also couldn't see the sagging floors in those images of the WTC towers that I posted ... floors that were sagging many minutes before they collapsed. Maybe the truth gets in the way of your notion that ordinary fires aren't hot enough to deform steel so thermite bombs must be what brought down the towers. Curious that you couldn't see that the portions of the tower that stood for a moment after the collapse were core components (remember ... you said they were perimeter sections). Maybe the truth gets in the way of your pet theory once again. Curious that you couldn't see that the debris piles were high enough given that most of the towers was composed of air and debris from their collapse spread out over a much larger area than that defined by the tower's original perimeter. Maybe the truth got in the way of your hope that it was the government's fault. Curious that you couldn't see the many fires visibly burning in the towers before it collapsed. Don't you remember claiming there were only 2 isolated pockets of fire, Critter? But then I guess the truth threatened to lift the darkness from your belief that it's all one vast conspiracy involving Bush, his cabal and all the structural engineers, demolition experts, materials experts, experts in fire, and macro-world physicists in the world. Curious that you couldn't see the towers taking about 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 10 or 11 that you insist on because the 911 commission reported that. Of course, the truth would then get in the way of that neat CT claim about them falling at free-fall speeds which is impossible. Curious that you couldn't see that large hole in the south side of WTC 7 in the images I supplied ... a hole right where firemen said there was a hole. But then that would definitely have gotten in the way of your belief that Silverstein said "pull the building" - and they did. Curious that you couldn't see that the molten material seen falling from the South Tower was orange hot. Wait! You did see that. But then why is Dr Jones now trying to claim it was yellow or whitish yellow? In any case, I wonder if there isn't some sort of eyesight problem here?
He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace Well blubber boy, here is an example where you got a sanction exacted on Sky, yet you have been ad homineming all over the place lately. You should ping Christine and have her give you probation. After all, if this is good enough to get done to Sky for his alleged 'crimes,' don't you think you deserve much the same for your ad hominem attacks?
BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace I remember that. I don't however remember the part where BAC said if they don't deal with the comment, he will deal with it himself. What was that suppose to mean? After SKYDRIFTER got put on probation, I got put on probation for a few days by Goldi who admonished me for talking about it further which I did. Then she warned everyone to quit talking about it, but BeAChooser brought it up again, then HE was put on probation for a few days.
Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet. You want to know why? Because you would find that at that time SKYDRIFTER was spending much of his time harassing me with the vilest of comments. He was angry because in late 2003 or early 2004 I caught him pretending to be ZEEGIRL and another poster on the forum when he supposed to be on probation. So he was banned for a time. Then Goldi relented and let him back on. But he came with a grudge to settle. Now I'd basically tried to ignore him during that period. But he wouldn't let go of it. But I finally had enough. So to answer your question, I was telling Neil and Goldi that if they didn't do something to stop his behavior, I was going to start responding in kind and they'd have no excuse to punish me since they would already have let SKYDRIFTER do what he was doing. So instead they decided to give him a rest. Actually, I don't think you have your facts right. Tell you what, why don't you or Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER post a link to that thread and let's see all that transpired.
I thought about doing that bub, but do a search, FROM: Beachooser TO: Diana and they are right damn there. Unlike the posts where I provided because they were from your 375 long pages of mostly spam posts just using a FROM: Beachooser search only, you can find those nuggets with a more specific 'FROM/TO' search.
I was thinking of a different thread, it sounded similar to that one. I know he does not care about the feelings of others, but that is like a handicap for him. I know he is maddening, but somehow I just don't think he should be banned, he can be entertaining and there are probably people out there who like to read threads he is on, his attitude comes across well so it would be difficult to mistake him for the good guy, so he damages his case without even meaning to.
I see your point and admire how you hold your own on this point. But his tactic is to create a climate where the casual lurker is not drawn into 9 11 threads to learn -- often for the first time -- about the criminal acts perpitrated by NeoCons generally and the Bush Administration specifically. He strives to create a climate that wards off momentum and growth in the Truth Movement in the micro 4UM level, and likely uses what he learns from practice in here to effect things on the macro level of other sites he works on geared to more globally 'Swift boat' the Truth Movement. He is coy, smug, antisocial and savvy enough about programming and other computer and Internet skills to do more harm then is apparent here. I see and have seen people who piss on people's feet and claim it's raining and who keep the discussion on an issue stalled and running in circles banned as fuckwits many times. It is a sound management tactic to weed out the bad to make room to seed in people who are more honest, social and less agenda ridden as BAC. I wish him all the luck in the world elsewhere, but my experiance and strong gut instincts say ban him. And with all due respect to your very admirable compassion and desire for fairness, you are wrong in regards to a banning of him I would agree with you if things with him were as face value as you make the leap of faith that it is. But my spider sense is screaming, it says, "let him go, let him be free to fly away. And I never ignore such strong gut instincts, as it took just too long and too much experiance sharpening them. I am usually very sorry when I do, and so I am loathe to do so here.
You see, Diana, Ferret Mike is still afraid to provide a link to the thread he quoted. Instead he insults ME by suggesting I don't know how to search posts at LP. Well I had no intention of dredging up the old dispute with SKYDRIFTER but he seems to want it so just to prove he's wrong and show you and everyone else who might encounter this thread the whole story behind the quote Ferret Mike and he took out of context, here is the thread in question (btw, I suspect Ferret Mike was posting as ferret on that thread): http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46273&Disp=All&#C59 First, look at the context of the thread. Neil McIver was expressing angst at painting Muslims with a broad brush. So I asked Neil about that and here is what followed: ************* 49. To: Neil McIver, Red Jones (#47) If you support Bush, then you accept everything the nazis stood for, period. Neil, I note your angst at Muslims being painted with a broad brush. You have any problem with this statement by Red Jones? Or is that "OK" in your mind? BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 13:43:39 ET Reply Trace ---------------- 50. To: Red Jones (#47) Granted, Bush (his gang) are not openly using the term "Nazi," but other than that, they are, so far, following the Nazi model, less the obvious mistakes. Reichstag Fire, Enabling Acts, Blitzkreig invasions, etc. Secret detentions, political prisoner camps, extra-judicial punishments, Gestapo powers, War Crime invasions, etc. The "Emergency Health Powers Acts" are clearly a pretext for private property confiscation and concentration camps. Next-Generation Nazism, for damned sure. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-21 13:51:24 ET Reply Trace -------------- 51. To: BeAChooser (#49) I see BAC has his little list of acceptable views. and is seeking censorship. Red Jones posted on 2004-04-21 15:12:41 ET Reply Trace ----------------- 52. To: Red Jones (#51) Be-A-Crybaby is a little bit famous for the sob routine. A "real" man, there. ("Goldi! Goldi!") He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-21 15:17:13 ET Reply Trace ----------------------- 53. To: Red Jones (#51) I see BAC has his little list of acceptable views. The notion that anyone who supports Bush accepts everything the nazis stood for is neither an acceptable or rational form of debate. But then I no longer expect anything rational from you, SKYClone. As to me trying to censure you, no ... I justed want some clarification why one set of dogmatic statements isn't criticized by forum management but another is. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:07:58 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 54. To: Red Jones (#47) If you support Bush, then you accept everything the nazis stood for, period. That's BS Red and you know it. Marine Inspector posted on 2004-04-21 19:12:51 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 55. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER, Diana (#52) He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace ******************* You see, the context matters. What Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER didn't tell you is that SKYDRIFTER got in even more trouble the very next day in this thread: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46534&Disp=All&#C67 Notice that SKYDRIFTER joins the thread at #50. Here's his post and my reply, followed by Neil's reply: ************** 50. To: rotten (#21) Don't forget to remind Be-A-Crybaby that the 50% who have stayed (in theory) won't fight. So that leaves the entire effort approaching zero - as Vinnel, Dyncorp, MPRI, etc. walk away with millions at a time, for having produced nearly zilch. Be-A-Crybaby seems pleased with all that. All being in the realm of War Crimes. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-22 14:37:42 ET Reply Trace ------------------- 51. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#50) So that leaves the entire effort approaching zero - as Vinnel, Dyncorp, MPRI, etc. walk away with millions at a time, for having produced nearly zilch. Be-A-Crybaby seems pleased with all that. Neil ... a while back you dumped Badeye in part for supposedly deliberately mischaracterizing the views of another. SKYDRIFTER is doing the same here. And he didn't even bother to ping me so you could hardly call his an attempt at debate. It is disruption, plain and simple ... another reason you gave for booting a convervative poster in the past. Perhaps a caution to "sky" is in order? BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-22 15:27:03 ET Reply Trace ---------------- 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#50) Sky, I'm shutting down your account indefinitely. Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-22 20:09:24 ET Reply Trace ------------ 63. To: Neil McIver, SKYDRIFTER (#56) Sky, I'm shutting down your account indefinitely. Neil, I would ask that you not go to this extreme for this particular offense. Limit (really limit as in 3 per day or 5 per day) his posting privileges if you deem it deserving, but don't prohibit him from posting at all. That was not my intent. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-23 15:13:58 ET Reply Trace ********************** So not only did SKYDRIFTER do it to himself, I even fought to keep him from being banned. I told you that Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER had a reason for not posting the URL to the thread they took the quote from. And just for the heck of it, what follows are some posts from threads that followed SKYDRIFTER's return on 5/1/2004 from what turned out to be a week long suspension (which is what Neil changed the indefinite banning into because I told him I didn't want that ... he said that on a thread later). You see, on returning SKYDRIFTER couldn't help himself. He immediately set about provoking me. Here's the first of many highly uncivil and provoking posts he aimed at me on a thread just two days after his return (that thread is filled with such posts): ************* http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48018&Disp=All&#C220 108. To: Diana (#38) Along with his other NGN positions, BAC obviously approves of these War Crimes. The prison is illegal, the interrogations are illegal and there is zero effort to rectify the situation. With MI running the prison, it's a GESTAPO operation, pure and By-God simple. BAC obviously approves; no surprise! SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-05-03 01:55:34 ET Reply Trace ************* And it didn't stop. Finally, I began to complain to Neil. For example: ************** http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48337&Disp=7#C7 7. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#4) BAC is losing it; his arguments are getting weaker. He didn't resort to lies, for the longest time. That was the evidence of his being a trained disinformationist. Then he got busted for lying a couple of times. I think that was when his handlers cut him loose. It's okay to hit a dead end; it's not okay to lie. Lately, he keeps calling for help. His handlers have apparently cut him loose. He used to present good logic, however perverted it was; he can't even manage that now. But, slime is what slime does. Strictly a disposable utility function. Given enough time, slime just dries up & fades away. Even the smell stops. We wait! Neil, Goldi, how much longer must I be subjected to nothing but bogus, adhominem abuse from SKYDRIFTER? As you can see in thread after thread since returning, he isn't joining the threads to debate me since he doesn't even bother to ping me. He doesn't even discuss the topic really. It's just about *me*. A vendetta, I suppose, for thinking I had him thrown off the forum last time. Now you have thrown folks off the forum in the pass for HARASSMENT and for being DISRUPTIVE. Do you wish to tell me that the current behavior of SKYDRIFTER isn't? Where do you draw the line now? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-05 14:26:47 ET Reply Trace ------------------ 15. To: BeAChooser (#7) You started the name calling with your "liar," "America Hater," etc. Be a man, for Crissake! Quit your damned whining. Goldi & Neil are tired of it - judge the message in their silence. You want it to stop; quit the provocation with your own name-calling, labelling Etc. That's all it takes. Oh yeah, quit lying, while you're at it. Nobody has a problem with a "different" perspective. You're the only one whining to Goldi & Neil. Notice that one has to stand in line to tell you to be a man. On occasion somebody goes over the line with language, graphic postings, etc. That's the time to ping the moderators; not when you get caught distorting information, get caught in blatant deceit - or a lie, or just start to lose a debate. You used to be good at debating; what happened? SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-05-05 18:10:00 ET Reply Trace ----------------- 16. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#15) Neil, I'm asking you to tell SKYDRIFTER to cease and desist. I've tried to ignore him since you allowed him, at my request, back on the forum, posting to him only when he's made a comment that I found particularly distasteful or when commenting on a specific statement he made about the topic of that thread. I've stayed on topic and tried to be civil. But I wouldn't have asked you to reinstate SKYDRIFTER if I'd known the result would be non-stop behavior like this. And that's not all. He's also posting this garbage on FU where I'm not even allowed to defend my self or my views. I've had it. Now is this or is this not going to be a forum for civil debate of issues with facts and opinions? He says I started this. Not ever and certainly not this time. When I've have called him a liar in the past, in every case I've always been able to offer sourced proof to back up my charge. He never does. Asking people whether they really care about American troops when they show no concern that CBS posted photos sure to incite more violence against Americans is not being uncivil. It is getting at the core of the issue and consistency of the opposition. But engaging in the sort of childish behavior SKYDRIFTER is now doing, is uncivil and very disruptive. So do you want civil debate on this forum or not? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-05 18:35:14 ET Reply Trace **************** But Neil didn't do anything and SKYDRIFTER continued his disruptive tactics. And again I appealed to Neil and Goldi. **************** http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47857&Disp=All&#C359 You'll note starting in post 90 that SKYDRIFTER joins the thread and begins to provoke me. Pay particular attention to my posts #311, #316, #334, #336 and #338. Especially the last two because they show the extent of his rude and uncivil behavior. In fact, why don't I just repost #336 and #338 to remind you what was going on at that time. ************** 336. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-lox, Mark_Felton, Diana, SKYDRIFTER, all (#335) Neil, ... knowing that your time is precious, I thought I might help you out by showing you the sort of verbal assault I've been subjected to by SKYDRIFTER here and at FU since you let him back on the forum. You tell me that this doesn't qualify as harassment ... something you've booted people from this forum for doing previously ... or at least warned them not to do. These are all phrases directed at me that were extracted from SKYDRIFTER's recent flurry of posts. And, by the way, only in a fraction of the cases was I pinged. .............. "limp-wristed" "whining" "Maybe he's in the closet, come to think of it." That implies something rather uncivil, wouldn't you say, Neil? "Mossad asset" "Maybe his own have been given the word to cull him from their litter" "insane" "He's one slimey piece of ####" Neil, to spare your sensitivities, I masked the foul word he used. "He came up with some stuff in sealed records (client-attorney information)" That's not just nonsense, but an outright LIE, Neil. Ask him to prove it. "Next-Generation Nazi" "So, I took on the added task of using BAC as an example of the resurrected Nazism." Doesn't that indicate a plan to stalk me, Neil? "not an original American" "In essence, I spent the day calling him everything short of "#####." He boasts at FU of being able to say virtually anything he likes, right under your nose, Neil. "slime' "You regularly wet yourself behind Goldi's skirts" He sure doesn't seem to hold the co-owner of this forum in much regard, Neil. "Slimey SOB" "disinformationist" "institutionalized disinformationist" "woman- hating" "BAC obviously approves of these War Crimes" "You don't command the respect of a "ping." "Or, in your usual disinformationist logic distortion, typical of the argument that child molestation can be re-classified as child "love," Is this sort of analogy ok with you, Neil? I just need to know for future purposes. "Do you even believe in God, for example? Christianity, per chance?" How would you like your faith questioned, Neil, when that isn't even remotely the topic of the thread? "Slither on up to the microphone" "persistent fool" "You and your slime!" "That's BAC's job, to rationalize why the Next-Generation Nazism is okay. Maybe for slime such as himself" "BAC can't cite any kind of honorable position (stand)" "His rationalization of the mercs, is additional testimony as to his sleaziness." Not sure I've even said something about mercs, Neil. "Mercs are the extreme male version of the street whore; BAC seems to think they are okay people." Really, Neil, is this sort of debating tactic ok with you? Be honest. "BAC's got this courage problem" "It's time for BAC to fight like a man - or quit." "The torture is just icing on the Next-Generation Nazi cake. BAC does love it, though." What was that you told Badeye before you kicked him off, Neil? Something about misrepresenting others opinions? Right?" "A 'good' person would evade the prison torture issue & focus on that 'bad' media coverage." "I can't quite make up my mind whether his handlers are CIA or Mossad." And yours, Neil, are the ADL or *whoever* got to Jim Robinson. At least that's what SKYDRIFTER said. "A long time ago, BAC very quickly posted some information which could only have come from a government computer - evidenced by the correct formatting of the material." Another outright lie, Neil. Ask SKYDRIFTER to prove this. Bet he can't. ""It's not murder - it was 'euthanasia." ( Is that your style? )" "Gestapo, Inc., are you proud of that?" "The records don't go back that far" Neil, here he is trying to spin his way out of another lie, but do the *records* really not go back to his first interchange with me? "Go ahead, BAC show your steamy brown colors!" "Let's see if BAC has such a fine sense of manhood & decency as to open up a can of "Goldi Goldi! Woop- ass" on you." "There you go with your lying bullsh*t again." And you call this a *family* forum, Neil? "You're a shameless liar!" Cite a lie I've made, Neil? Go ahead. You too, Goldi. Now look me in the eye and tell me you don't think SKYDRIFTER has lied on this forum. Ask ANYONE on this forum to look *you* in the eye and claim that. "Are your socks gettin a bit damp & yellow? No skirt for you to hold onto?" "You're less than sincere - PHONY!" "You're only worried - obviously - about the American Gestapo Prison System being exposed." etc. etc. etc. ************ That's only a FRACTION of what's he's posted since returning. He's repeatedly distorted my stated positions. Isn't that a bootable offense? And he's distorted and lied repeatedly about historical events. Isn't it wonderful knowing your forum is being used to spread misinformation? That's just what we need in these troubled times. Right, Neil? And what have I called SKYDRIFTER in return during this period, Neil? Why don't you make a list and we'll compare them. Ok? Let's see how fair you are in your characterization of whose to blame. Fair enough? And even before April, what "names" have I really called him EVER, Neil? Liar? Yes. But never not without proving it with sources and his own statements. Anti-American. Yes. IN CONTEXT. There are people whose combined works mark them as such. Fool? Yes. After *you* suggested that would be more appropriate. But have I EVER engaged in the sort of attacks listed above. NO. Have I ever used foul language? NO. And while I'm at it, let me remind you that the first thing that SKYDRIFTER posted on being let back on your forum was "Thank you Neil; I'll try to control my temper." Do you think he has succeeded, Neil? Or was he just lying to you too, while talking about *your* handlers and the source of the money supporting *your* forum behind your back? And do you think he meant this "To BAC, thanks for your support; it is sincerely appreciated" when he said it that day? And here's one more challenge to you Neil. Identify what caused SKYDRIFTER to begin this assault. As far as I can tell, it began here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47916&Disp=61#C61 . Do you think my response in post #65, that the CBS bears some responsibility for harming our troops unnecessarily, merited this sort of rampage? YES OR NO? Because your answer will tell us a lot about whether you and Goldi are really serious about this being a place for honest debate of current events and political issues in a civil manner. Or was the reason SKYDRIFTER lost his temper this post http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47857&Disp=90#C90 ? Is his *real* anger, not about my position on the issues, but the fact that I asked you to reign in bluedot30 for making a comment that was WAY overboard (but not that far from some SKYDRIFTER himself has made in the past)? Did I really deserve this assault for asking you to do *something* about bluedot30 (and mind you, bluedot's statement to me wasn't the only reason you dumped him). Why don't you ask SKYDRIFTER why this started when it did. It certainly wasn't any name I called him after he returned. Because I hadn't called him a name. And in case you haven't noticed. SKYDRIFTER has already turned his attention on others. Using the same tactics. Mark_Felton, for instance. Is that ok with you too? This isn't going away until it is resolved, Neil. The questions I'm asking are valid and deserve an answer. BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-07 13:38:13 ET Reply Trace -------------------- 338. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-lox, SKYDRIFTER (#337) Neil let me add these to the list "You're the master of disinformation and deceit." "You're the one who originated the "disinformation wolfpack." "You're now famous for your whining" "Check FU if you want to see where all that's gotten you." That's right, Neil, the place where I get talked about regularly without being able to post. But I'm not the only one whose considered a joke over there, Neil. YOu and Goldi get your fair share of barbs too. Did SKYDRIFTER mention that? "your attack style - or deceit style" "You're the censor-monster" "You never contribute" Now Neil, you and I both know that isn't true, don't we? "you're famous for your negativity - unless cheering the clearly Nazi operations is somehow positive in your obviously distorted mindset" And that's from just one post. When is this going to end, Neil? Have you been reading the other thread and the saga of the three "holes"? And what about my observations on that thread concerning your stance on Badeye? You going to respond? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-07 16:39:37 ET Reply Trace ***************** And because of the provoking SKYDRIFTER was doing and my response (above) to it, Goldi decided to limit our posts to 5/day for a while (see post #363). And you'll note that in the end I did NOT use the bozo filter (I refused to) but I got my full posting rights back. And in the end, SKYDRIFTER couldn't help himself and got kicked off LibertyPost permanently. But Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER weren't going to mention that. Now I'm perfectly willing to let sleeping dogs lie and not bring this subject up again. But that really depends on Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER, not me. And perhaps you, since you always seemed to be in the thick of things in these threads.
Heehee, ferret is my longtime and openly FReeper handle. I was a poster in good standing at FR for three years as ferret. Infact, I made some posts today as ferret on FreedomUnderground. As for the link crap, do your own work. Stop whining, it's lame. It's easy to use the search feature. You only reveal how much of a fussbudget you are.
There are no replies to Comment # 133. End Trace Mode for Comment # 133.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Critter, ALL (#1)
This is incredible! I love this guy!
Good shit from the good doctor.
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" 
#11. To: BeAChooser (#10)
(Edited)
#13. To: Critter, ALL (#11)
I do believe that the people holding that chunk of whatever it is are the ones that said it was the result of a molten mass.
"People holding"? What in the world are you talking about, Critter? No one is holding that chunk of material that Steven Jones claimed in his viewgraph presentation was slag from a pool of molten steel. Are you experiencing the same eyesight problems that kept you from seeing that the hole in the Pentagon was more than 20 feet wide? ROTFLOL!
#14. To: BeAChooser (#13)
#19. To: Critter, ALL (#14)
They are not holding it anywhere? It has been tossed out in the trash?
I really can't wait til Christine has had enough of your bullshit.
#24. To: BeAChooser (#19)
#29. To: Critter, ALL (#24)
Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition?
The Sign of Four by Arthur Conan Doyle
#30. To: BeAChooser (#29)
#31. To: Critter, christine, Minerva (#30)
(Edited)
#44. To: Ferret Mike, Critter, ALL (#31)
The idiot's only motive is his desire for war. He doesn't shill because the facts are on his side, he just sees the war and oppression the Bush Administration pushes in the wake of these false flag operations as the sort of reality that appeals to him.
#53. To: BeAChooser, christine, Minerva, lodwick, Jethro Tull, IndieTX, Skydrifter, RickyJ, all (#44)
(Edited)
#62. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#53)
I've seen enough of this 'swift boating' sort of modus to getting one's way politically. I am sick of it.
I am an environmental activist in real life,
I am not here solely to advance personal agendas.
I move you be terminated as a 'fuckwit,' banning fuckwits has always ben a sound forum management practice.
From the source linked below:
"Fuckwits park on pavements and in disabled parking spaces when they are not entitled to do so.
Fuckwits always believe they have 'right of way'.
Fuckwits drop litter in the street.
Fuckwits only generally care about themselves and this is evident in their overall attitude toward everything and everyone else.
Fuckwits always know absolutely everything in the history of everythingness.
Fuckwits talk lots and listen little.
Fuckwits never allow evidence to prevent them continuing to be a fuckwit.
#71. To: BeAChooser (#62)
"Tell me, FM, do you think this is slag from a pool of molten steel? That's what Ex-Professor Jones claimed."
#75. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#71)
The above quote is coy and sarcastic, meant to muddy the waters of the discussion, not out of a desire for a forthright answer from me much like this dig at Professor Jone's forced resignation.
#79. To: BeAChooser (#75)
#81. To: Critter (#79)
#83. To: RickyJ, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser (#81)
(Edited)
#85. To: Critter, Kamala, ..., Minerva, Red Jones, RickyJ, Nostalgia, robin, HOUNDDAWG, Jethro Tull (#83)
(Edited)
#87. To: christine (#85)
#89. To: Critter, RickyJ, ALL (#87)
It may become a daily continuing saga, if he doesn't respond. hehehe
#90. To: BeAChooser (#89)
#91. To: Critter, ALL (#90)
Now, since they are holding all of this captive, out the public view, who is to say what it is really made of. That is my one and only point.
#102. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, Diana (#91)
55. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER, Diana (#52)
#112. To: Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#102)
Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself.
#117. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER, Ferret Mike, ALL (#112)
I remember that. I don't however remember the part where BAC said if they don't deal with the comment, he will deal with it himself. What was that suppose to mean?
After SKYDRIFTER got put on probation, I got put on probation for a few days by Goldi who admonished me for talking about it further which I did.
Then she warned everyone to quit talking about it, but BeAChooser brought it up again, then HE was put on probation for a few days.
#120. To: BeAChooser (#117)
(Edited)
"Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet."
#124. To: Ferret Mike (#120)
"Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet." I thought about doing that bub, but do a search, FROM: Beachooser TO: Diana and they are right damn there.
#125. To: Diana (#124)
#132. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, Neil McIver, christine, ALL (#125)
#133. To: BeAChooser (#132)
"(btw, I suspect Ferret Mike was posting as ferret on that thread):"
Replies to Comment # 133.
