existentialist
Tired and unemotional
That's SOP. I think he does that even when he DOES have a response to the question, just to keep his hand in
Cynthia McKinney, Monday 8th March
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
There's no depth too low to stoop to for you in making yourself right, is there?
Admittedly, needs must, in your case, but even so...
Since when is correcting a statement that is the inverse of what it should be a 'depth'?
I correct you because someone might take the wrong end of it and I'd be here for the next ten pages of thread sorting it out.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
That problem being so much greater for you because of your long and dishonourable history of wriggling, hair-splitting and prevaricating at every opportunity you get.
It's no wonder you feel you have to be quite so careful. I, on the other hand, flatter myself that, if nothing else, my postings are genuine and honest enough that a double negative that creeps through is very unlikely to be taken by anyone as anything other than a genuine mistake. Anyone, that is, who is reading and posting in good faith...
If you had a semblence of decency about you existentialist you'd have had the grace to apologise for some of your rubbish, like teuchter and kyser soze did. But no, you accused me of 'disgracing myself' because I had actually bothered to give full and frank answers to questions, then when people realised that and I made a small point about it, you accused me of 'righteous indignation' - completely forgetting that you had made the most judgmental post yourself even when you admitted you couldn't actually see what the problem was!
I suggest that you cease to act like butchersaprons gimp, this will get you nowhere.
I suggest that you cease to act like butchersaprons gimp, this will get you nowhere.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Ok, NOW I'm convinced you're inhabiting an alternate reality
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Come on jazzz, we all know that you've been caught out time after time in this thread - even today you simply invented something in the hope that no one would check up on your claim, too bad that they did, and you got caught with your pants down as a result. That's an unfortunate result of your history of weaseling, dissembling and lack of independent though - unfortunate for you that is, as people are now aware they can catch you out simply by following the links you give and exposing the gap between what they say and what you claim that they say.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
*dons gimp suit and hops along behind butchersapron, hoovering up any scraps that drop off...*
yawn. I'm really not bothered by this utter rubbish
I have no doubt that your supply of it is infinite!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
See 
Jazzz you claimed that this clip showed CM supporting the late great sky saxon's claim that 911 was an 'inside job' with her body language when he made that claim.
1) She wasn't in shot when he made that claim
2) She did indeed indicate considerable support via her body language for a point he made - that point though was that the US executive took away power from congress post 911, not that 911 was an 'inside job'.
I point this out and you, instead of saying oh yes, i was wrong, apols, you choose to simply ignore me. You're wandering into the territory of outright lying here. That's what continued defence of this body language claim amounts to now.
Jazzz you claimed that this clip showed CM supporting the late great sky saxon's claim that 911 was an 'inside job' with her body language when he made that claim.
1) She wasn't in shot when he made that claim
2) She did indeed indicate considerable support via her body language for a point he made - that point though was that the US executive took away power from congress post 911, not that 911 was an 'inside job'.
I point this out and you, instead of saying oh yes, i was wrong, apols, you choose to simply ignore me. You're wandering into the territory of outright lying here. That's what continued defence of this body language claim amounts to now.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Who were they talking to? Do you know? Did Reinvestigate 911 hire a room in Parliament and gave a talk - is that it? That's not a 'Parliamentary meeting'. What light can you shed on how this was organised and who attended?
MPs, aides and researchers. I understand the last one had 50 or so total including aides for Liberal Democrats at shadow cabinet level (Ian Henshall revealed that on the public meeting, so I guess I can relay it).
These meetings are being held under the Chatham House Rule, which protects the anonymity of those attending.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Rather handy eh?
Well, it's handy because it allows issues to be freely discussed amongst MPs and aides without fear that there will be problems due to association with the event. So this allows the meetings to take place and be worthwhile until a 'tipping point' is reached when that will no longer be such an issue.
Of course, when it comes to convincing twats on urban75 of the merits of the 9/11 Truth Campaign, then it's no use at all.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
It's not possible?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Correct!
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Indeed. So perhaps unwise to cite it as your evidence that the campaign was being taken seriously here...?
Only a handful of people who are not MPs or their aides are there and they are involved in putting on the show/security to keep press out.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Were you there jazzz?
I thought I was explaining to butchersapron why there were no audience shots.
No, I wasn't needed.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Well, if you say so, it must be true.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Have you been at other "parliamentary meetings"?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm really getting bored of this. If you will excuse me, I have work to do for the campaign and answering your endless questions really doesn't feature as a priority.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I sense we were getting too close to the truth - again.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I'd get on with that. I think the campaign needs a lot of work, judging by its effectiveness here
.
The meeting is just for MPs and their aides. That's precisely why I wasn't there. I am in close contact with this campaign, so you might want to take my word for it, alternatively you may contact the campaign on crisisnewsletter@pro-net.co.uk to clarify
Similar threads
