The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
rollo the ganger
Posts: 5576
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:47 pm

Been There wrote:Answer my nine questions. Then I'll answer your questions posed here.
Is it deal?

Otherwise this isn't a dialogue.

Did you see the evidence of the windshield bullet hole?
Well... okay... just this once. I'm not going to make a habit of it. We could go 'round & 'round forever with pointless questions and I'm not going to play that game. I'll answer as I see fit and if you are not satisfied then that's just the way it is. Here goes:

Q1. Is an unspecific reference to two 'officially' sanctioned books a helpful reply to specific evidence?
A. It could but it really all depends on the evidence, etc., and what the references are.

Q2. did you watch the filmed interview of Dino Brugioni or not?
A. I watched most of it. It seems to me that the "missing frames" are more from his poster board and not the Z-Film itself other than the frames around 313 which Zapruder asked to be omitted from public viewing. I see nothing significant in that.

Q3. did you read the rebuttal by Dr. Crenshaw or not?
A. I read it. I don't take any stock in it or his story. Dr. Crenshaw had little, if anything, to do with attending to JFK's wounds at Parkland.

Q4. Where is the autopsy photograph of the "smaller hole" entry wound supposedly at the back of Jack's head?
A. Scott showed you that.

Q5. Where is the testimony of medical staff witnessing the "smaller hole" alleged head entrance wound?
A. Read the Warren Commission testimony of the Doctors who actually tended to JFK at Parkland and you will have your answer.

Q6. Did you watch the parts of Dr. McClelland's and Dr. Jone's testimony that I just took the time to give specific timeline references for?
A. Only partly. I've been travelling. I have read their testimony given to the Warren Commission. When I get more time I'll watch most of it.

Q7. Did you watch the Dr. Crenshaw video with the specific timeline reference I gave?
A. Same as above except that Dr. Crenshaw did not testify before the Warren Commission. I give his theories on the JFK assassination no credence.

Q8. Are you aware of all this?
A. I see no evidence of any forging of any evidence anywhere.

Q9. Why would anyone need to forge all this evidence?
A. No one did.

As far as the windshield the proper thing to do is to examine "the best evidence". Witness testimony takes a back seat to physical evidence everytime. Witness statements may support the physical evidence but they cannot contradict it.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 1945
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 9:43 pm
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by Scott » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:47 pm

Been-There, Marxists and Zionists are on the same team, just using different appendages or claws.

To use another metaphor, one side of the coin promotes Global Capital and the other side promotes Banker Socialism. Don't you get that? Churchill explained the dichotomy back in 1920.

In my country the corporate mass-media somehow just decided that Republican states would now be called "Red" and Democrat "Blue." This makes it easier to control the opposition, and harder to visualize Liberals in terms of what they represent--i.e., Pinkos or "pink right down to their underwear" as Nixon once put it. Today this means that they are watered-down Marxists who tend to like money and compound interest, and many qualify to flee to Israel when they get caught. Today the (((Establishment))) promotes neo-Liberal economics and neo-Conservative statecraft; the difference is academic and mainly depends on which way you approach the issues. But most of the names (((echo))) so to speak.

Anyway, Kennedy WAS the (((Establishment))) back in 1963. He postured as a Cold Warrior but at best he was their "Sabbath Gentile." Kennedy Assassination conspiracy-theory has to deny that fact first.

Killing Kennedy made no sense unless you were one of two brands of nutjob--a racist Redneck anti-Semite without portfolio like Tim McVeigh, or thought that you were a misfit Communist outsider fighting Fascism and promoting Marxist-Leninist talking points like, um, Lee Harvey Oswald.

:)

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7490
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:37 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:47 pm
Been There wrote:Answer my nine questions. Then I'll answer your questions posed here.
Is it deal?

Otherwise this isn't a dialogue.

Did you see the evidence of the windshield bullet hole?
Well... okay... just this once. I'm not going to make a habit of it. We could go 'round & 'round forever with pointless questions and I'm not going to play that game. I'll answer as I see fit and if you are not satisfied then that's just the way it is. Here goes:

Q1. Is an unspecific reference to two 'officially' sanctioned books a helpful reply to specific evidence?
A. It could, but it really all depends on the evidence, etc., and what the references are.

Q2. did you watch the filmed interview of Dino Brugioni or not?
A. I watched most of it. It seems to me that the "missing frames" are more from his poster board and not the Z-Film itself other than the frames around 313 which Zapruder asked to be omitted from public viewing. I see nothing significant in that.

Q3. did you read the rebuttal by Dr. Crenshaw or not?
A. I read it. I don't take any stock in it or his story. Dr. Crenshaw had little, if anything, to do with attending to JFK's wounds at Parkland.

Q4. Where is the autopsy photograph of the "smaller hole" entry wound supposedly at the back of Jack's head?
A. Scott showed you that.

Q5. Where is the testimony of medical staff witnessing the "smaller hole" alleged head entrance wound?
A. Read the Warren Commission testimony of the Doctors who actually tended to JFK at Parkland and you will have your answer.

Q6. Did you watch the parts of Dr. McClelland's and Dr. Jone's testimony that I just took the time to give specific timeline references for?
A. Only partly. I've been travelling. I have read their testimony given to the Warren Commission. When I get more time I'll watch most of it.

Q7. Did you watch the Dr. Crenshaw video with the specific timeline reference I gave?
A. Same as above except that Dr. Crenshaw did not testify before the Warren Commission. I give his theories on the JFK assassination no credence.

Q8. Are you aware of all this?
A. I see no evidence of any forging of any evidence anywhere.

Q9. Why would anyone need to forge all this evidence?
A. No one did.

As far as the windshield the proper thing to do is to examine "the best evidence". Witness testimony takes a back seat to physical evidence everytime. Witness statements may support the physical evidence but they cannot contradict it.
The last reply alone demonstrates you are deluding yourself. I provided numerous photographs of the bulllet hole in the windscreen. That is physical evidence isn't it? :roll:

I have pointed you to Warren Commission testimony that Dr. Crenshaw was a part of the team attending the dead or dying President.

You clearly don't understand the filmed testimony of Dino Brugioni concerning deleted frames and manipulation of the ones remaining in the forged Zapruder film presented as the original.

Dr. McClelland demonstrated the ridiculous and highly improbable nature of the single bullet theory AND the way it was supposedly discovered at the hospital.

Etc., etc.

But this seems pointless. Your answer to question 1 confirms that you aren't approaching this as you would the holocaust. I don't think you would accept such an answer to specific evidence regarding the Holocaust, would you?
E.g.
B-T: there is no evidence of ground disturbance at the Babi Yarr site. Aerial photography of the site before and after the alleged massacre and burial proves that.
RtG: You are wrong. Just read the books by Hilberg and Friedländer.

DO YOU REALLY believe that is a sufficient reply to specific evidence refuting many specific parts of the overall narrative??
rollo the ganger wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:06 pm
been-there wrote:Well... This seven minute "ramble" was his introduction to a lecture. You didn't understand even that much? :?
Thanks for the warning. I won't be watching the rest. You made it sound like there was something significant in that video. Are you now bragging; "Made you look"...?
I DO believe there was something significant in that video. If you couldn't understand what the significance was, that again demonstrates a comprehension disability due to cognitive dissonance and indoctrinative brain-washing from childhood. Just as people can't logically, reasonably and intelligently comprehend the deception they have been indoctrinated with called 'THE Holocaust'.
rollo the ganger wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:06 pm
You didn't answer MY question... Why do you keep showing that fake picture of a Kennedy doppleganger with it doctored to look like the back of his head is blown out? REALLY amateur Been There. Where did you get that picture by the way?
It shows what the autopsy photos would have looked like, if they had genuinely wanted to record for posterity the wounds caused. It also shows what the head would have looked like according to the testimony of the Doctors present at Parkland Hospital.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7490
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:52 pm

Scott wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:47 pm
Been-There, Marxists and Zionists are on the same team, just using different appendages or claws.

To use another metaphor, one side of the coin promotes Global Capital and the other side promotes Banker Socialism. Don't you get that? Churchill explained the dichotomy back in 1920.

In my country the corporate mass-media somehow just decided that Republican states would now be called "Red" and Democrat "Blue." This makes it easier to control the opposition, and harder to visualize Liberals in terms of what they represent--i.e., Pinkos or "pink right down to their underwear" as Nixon once put it. Today this means that they are watered-down Marxists who tend to like money and compound interest, and many qualify to flee to Israel when they get caught. Today the (((Establishment))) promotes neo-Liberal economics and neo-Conservative statecraft; the difference is academic and mainly depends on which way you approach the issues. But most of the names (((echo))) so to speak.

Anyway, Kennedy WAS the (((Establishment))) back in 1963. He postured as a Cold Warrior but at best he was their "Sabbath Gentile." Kennedy Assassination conspiracy-theory has to deny that fact first.

Killing Kennedy made no sense unless you were one of two brands of nutjob--a racist Redneck anti-Semite without portfolio like Tim McVeigh, or thought that you were a misfit Communist outsider fighting Fascism and promoting Marxist-Leninist talking points like, um, Lee Harvey Oswald.

:)
Dimona.

US policy to Dimona under JFK and under LBJ.

Do you understand?
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5576
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:07 am

I really didn't intend for this to become TOO ad hominem but I must point out something very concerning about your approach to this discussion Been There...

Examine my reply and your response here to it very closely...
RtG wrote:As far as the windshield the proper thing to do is to examine "the best evidence". Witness testimony takes a back seat to physical evidence everytime. Witness statements may support the physical evidence but they cannot contradict it.
Been There wrote:The last reply alone demonstrates you are deluding yourself. I provided numerous photographs of the bulllet hole in the windscreen. That is physical evidence isn't it? :roll:
Your response is totally non-sequitur to my reply.
Been There wrote:I have pointed you to Warren Commission testimony that Dr. Crenshaw was a part of the team attending the dead or dying President.
Crenshaw retrieved and accompanied Dr. McClelland up to the emergency room but Crenshaw himself didn't perform any official function in attending to JFK. Crenshaw could not have fully observed JFK's head wounds for the same reason Dr. Jones claimed he could not as the video you showed demonstrates.
Been There wrote:But this seems pointless. Your answer to question 1 confirms that you aren't approaching this as you would the holocaust.
My answer to question 1 (Is an unspecific reference to two 'officially' sanctioned books a helpful reply to specific evidence?) was this...
RtG wrote:A. It could, but it really all depends on the evidence, etc., and what the references are.
It is a non-committal response. It could... and then again it couldn't. All depends. If certain information is contained in these books and the information is well cited then I don't see a problem. Why do you? I may not agree with the conclusion but the real issue to anything is the evidence.
Been There wrote:It shows what the autopsy photos would have looked like, if they had genuinely wanted to record for posterity the wounds caused.
Why didn't you say this earlier when you posted the picture? Did you realize you were caught in an attempt to deceive and no one was buying into it?
Been There wrote:It also shows what the head would have looked like according to the testimony of the Doctors present at Parkland Hospital.
"... according to the testimony of the Doctors (plural) present at Parkland Hospital."

Hmmm? Let's look into that later. For now I have some pressing matters I need to attend to. I'll get back to this...

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7490
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:27 am

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:07 am
I really didn't intend for this to become TOO ad hominem but I must point out something very concerning about your approach to this discussion Been There...

Examine my reply and your response here to it very closely...
RtG wrote:As far as the windshield the proper thing to do is to examine "the best evidence". Witness testimony takes a back seat to physical evidence everytime. Witness statements may support the physical evidence but they cannot contradict it.
Been There wrote:The last reply alone demonstrates you are deluding yourself. I provided numerous photographs of the bulllet hole in the windscreen. That is physical evidence isn't it? :roll:
Your response is totally non-sequitur to my reply.
Been There wrote:I have pointed you to Warren Commission testimony that Dr. Crenshaw was a part of the team attending the dead or dying President.
Crenshaw retrieved and accompanied Dr. McClelland up to the emergency room but Crenshaw himself didn't perform any official function in attending to JFK. Crenshaw could not have fully observed JFK's head wounds for the same reason Dr. Jones claimed he could not as the video you showed demonstrates.
Been There wrote:But this seems pointless. Your answer to question 1 confirms that you aren't approaching this as you would the holocaust.
My answer to question 1 (Is an unspecific reference to two 'officially' sanctioned books a helpful reply to specific evidence?) was this...
RtG wrote:A. It could, but it really all depends on the evidence, etc., and what the references are.
It is a non-committal response. It could... and then again it couldn't. All depends. If certain information is contained in these books and the information is well cited then I don't see a problem. Why do you? I may not agree with the conclusion but the real issue to anything is the evidence.
Been There wrote:It shows what the autopsy photos would have looked like, if they had genuinely wanted to record for posterity the wounds caused.
Why didn't you say this earlier when you posted the picture? Did you realize you were caught in an attempt to deceive and no one was buying into it?
Been There wrote:It also shows what the head would have looked like according to the testimony of the Doctors present at Parkland Hospital.
"... according to the testimony of the Doctors (plural) present at Parkland Hospital."

Hmmm? Let's look into that later. For now I have some pressing matters I need to attend to. I'll get back to this...
But you provide literally NOTHING of any evidence yourself.
Nor do you even attempt to refute the mass of evidence I have now supplied, with anything credible or verifiable.
So your response concerning ad hominem I find to be laughable.

I have provided photographic evidence of the windshield, plus numerous supporting testimonial evidence, plus a diagram of the damage made by investigators at the time. You have provided NOTHING that refutes ANY of that.

Plus we have the irrefutable fact that the windshield evidence was destroyed. Why would the government destroy crucial empirical evidence? Think! Use your analytical powers and think it through afresh. You have been duped for decades but try thinking it through for yourself now.

E.g.
Dr. Crenshaw DID attend upon JFK in the trauma room at Parklands hospital on the 22nd November 1963. Therefore he could — and almost certainly would — be able to see and would be interested to understand the nature of the wounds that JFK had received.
I have provided so much evidence confirming Dr. Crenshaw's prescence there in his role as a part of the team of Doctors dealing with emergencies, that to keep denying it — and to now move the goalposts to claiming he was there but unable to see properly — shows either dishonesty or stupid self-delusion.
I genuinely do think it comes back to the usual question of whether a person is refusing to deal with factual reality because they are being dishonest or being stupid. Intelligent people CAN and often do behave stupidly in certain situations for various reasons.

. . .

Regarding the limousine windshield, here is even more for anyone who has not become almost brain-dead regarding this subject and who still is able to take in new information.
In an article published in The New Republic on December 21st 1963, St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Richard Dudman wrote:“A few of us noted the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
Evalea Glanges' filmed testimony:


George Whitaker Senior's audio testimony:
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5576
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:49 am

Before I head out let's look at Been There's remark here:
Been There wrote:Regarding the limousine windshield, here is even more for anyone who has not become almost brain-dead regarding this subject and who still is able to take in new information.
Focusing on that point, the windshield, in this post let's review Been There's original question:
Been There wrote: Did you see the evidence of the windshield bullet hole?
The minimal response to this question to satisfy it would have been a simple "yes" or "no". For me that would be "yes". I've seen these photos and I'm familiar with the controversy.
I have provided photographic evidence of the windshield, plus numerous supporting testimonial evidence, plus a diagram of the damage made by investigators at the time. You have provided NOTHING that refutes ANY of that.
You didn't ask me to refute anything. What is YOUR point here? I see the photos of the windshield. I see the drawn diagram and I've heard or read the testimony of these people. Point out your issue here Been There:

Is there something wrong with the photos?

Is there something wrong with the diagram?


What, exactly, is the issue here regarding this windshield that you wish for me to address?

I'll address Crenshaw later. No one said he wasn't there. The issue was whether he was in a position to fully inspect the head wound of JFK. In your reunion video of Dr. Jones and Dr. McClelland, Dr. Jones expresses the fact he was unable to fully examine the back of JFK's head because of his position in the room.

Here is an interesting link. I don't provide it as evidence but it MAY be helpful in understanding the the emergency room at Parkland Hospital where JFK was initially treated and a "general" idea of where people were positioned in the room. I'm providing for informational purposes only and it is NOT an official website or evidence:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Trauma1.html

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7490
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:31 am

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:49 am
Before I head out let's look at Been There's remark here:
Been There wrote:Regarding the limousine windshield, here is even more for anyone who has not become almost brain-dead regarding this subject and who still is able to take in new information.
Focusing on that point, the windshield, in this post let's review Been There's original question:
Been There wrote: Did you see the evidence of the windshield bullet hole?
The minimal response to this question to satisfy it would have been a simple "yes" or "no". For me that would be "yes". I've seen these photos and I'm familiar with the controversy.
I have provided photographic evidence of the windshield, plus numerous supporting testimonial evidence, plus a diagram of the damage made by investigators at the time. You have provided NOTHING that refutes ANY of that.
You didn't ask me to refute anything. What is YOUR point here? I see the photos of the windshield. I see the drawn diagram and I've heard or read the testimony of these people. Point out your issue here Been There:

Is there something wrong with the photos?

Is there something wrong with the diagram?


What, exactly, is the issue here regarding this windshield that you wish for me to address?
This reply demonstrates the answer to the dichotomy of stupidity or dishonesty. In this case it is the former. Rollo is simply too stupid to understand the significance of destroyed forensic evidence proving at least one shot was fired at Kennedy from the front of his cavalcade. :?

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:49 am
I'll address Crenshaw later. No one said he wasn't there. The issue was whether he was in a position to fully inspect the head wound of JFK. In your reunion video of Dr. Jones and Dr. McClelland, Dr. Jones expresses the fact he was unable to fully examine the back of JFK's head because of his position in the room.
And this reply ALSO demonstrates the answer to the dichotomy of stupidity or dishonesty. Only in this case it is the latter.
Because of this written here :
Rollo wrote: "How many times does it have to be said? Dr. Charles Crenshaw was neither part of the team that attended to JFK at Parkland nor part of the forensic autopsy team in Bethesda. He did not clinically examine JFK in any way and the other doctors claim he had nothing to do with it."

Dishonest because Crenshaw WAS part of the team according to Dr. MeClelland's filmed testimony already provided with an exact timeline of when he stated this. And thst is supported in the link he himself just provided.

Other Doctors testified he was there and a part of the team to the Warren Commission investigation, as has also already been referenced, (and ignored). And as is confirmed also by the link he himself just provided.

As an experienced trauma team Doctor he had many years experience of seeing gunshot wounds. As already referenced, the teams at Parkland Hospital saw on average three patients EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR with gunshot wounds. So OF COURSE if he was in the room he had an opportunity to see the wounds and make a clinical assessment based on his years of experience. Only a dishonest or stupid person would deny this. Someone not involved in a specific task would be able to move around and observe. As is ALSO confirmed by the link you yourself just provided.

Finally NO-ONE has ever suggested Crenshaw was a part of the military autopsy at Bethesda. This is dishonesty as well as a stupid miscomprehension of what is being explained, to repeat that strawman again.

Summary: As can be seen from this (and previous replies) Rollo is an example of a person in deep denial. Denial due to both stupidity and dishonesty.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5576
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:25 pm

So let's go back to the windshield.

Why Been There won't clarify what his issue is with the windshield is a bit disconcerting. Is he scared of something?

Okay... the windshield. Here's a picture of the "damage" to the windshield:

Image

and here's a picture of a bullets through a windshield of a different car:

Image

Obviously there's a difference.

Then there's the Zapruder film frame 260 AFTER both JFK and Connally had been hit but before the headshot:

Image

It's obvious that the windshield of the car has not been hit by a bullet at that point. If it was the head shot that went through the windshield then there is the issue of the trajectory. Maybe Been There can explain that.

Then there is the drawing of the windshield that Been There showed us. I can't tell whether Been There is asserting that drawing supports the theory of a bullet coming through the windshield from the front or something else. Maybe Been There will be kind enough to explain.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7490
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Exceptionally EVIL American Empire --and why not?

Post by been-there » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:12 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:25 pm
So let's go back to the windshield.
Why Been There won't clarify what his issue is with the windshield is a bit disconcerting. Is he scared of something?
Okay... the windshield. Here's a picture of the "damage" to the windshield:
Image
and here's a picture of a bullets through a windshield of a different car:
Image
Obviously there's a difference.
Then there's the Zapruder film frame 260 AFTER both JFK and Connally had been hit but before the headshot:

It's obvious that the windshield of the car has not been hit by a bullet at that point. If it was the head shot that went through the windshield then there is the issue of the trajectory. Maybe Been There can explain that.

Then there is the drawing of the windshield that Been There showed us. I can't tell whether Been There is asserting that drawing supports the theory of a bullet coming through the windshield from the front or something else. Maybe Been There will be kind enough to explain.
Ho-hum. Yet more stupidity.
As has been evidenced multiple times now, THE ZAPRUDER FILM WAS ALTERED/MANIPULATED.
Only a deeply delusional person would keep stupidly referring to it as pristine, untampered proof of anything. Its as stupid as our Loch Ness troll referring to Yankel Wiernik's book on Treblinka as proof girls jumped naked over seven foot fences and guards ripped babies in half with their bare hands.

Three credible witnesses with no apparent axe to grind, no revenge to exact, no glory to revel in — previously cited — stated categorically they saw a bullet hole in the windscreen that entered from the front.

See here and here.

Deal with it. :roll:

Or stay deluded. (Sheesh!)
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests