During the month of July 2009 JM's Enterprises, 1215 Willow Pass Road * Pittsburg CA,(925) 439-8118 was the host to a powerful demonstration, the Creator has given me the ability to speak in the tongue of angels in order to provide a wake-up call that will in time include the salvation of the entire world.
You too can witness what the world believe's is impossible to produce! email: godsdesire@rocketmail.com. DON'T MISS OUT!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12,462 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 7201 – 7400 of 12462 Newer› Newest»"What is the end result you are looking for Nagarjuna? Are you going to have me banished from the pedophile blog?"
The "end result" is, frankly, to get a sense of your integrity. I have the sense, as mistaken as it may be, that the "regulars" here are presenting themselves pretty much as they are. I was just wondering if I can make the same assumption about you. Have you TRULY only posted here under JeffSees? Are you TRULY male? Not that you've definitively answered THAT question of mine yet. Can I trust that other representations you make of yourself from here on it are true?
That is why I'm asking these preliminary questions, "Jeff."
do you guys know that there is a anne frank video that was released and is on you tube right now its the only known video of anne frank.. wow..
""Of course I've been labeled as "vicious" and "a nag follower" and accused of being denise."
A "nag follower"? I thought you were one of my manifold incarnations here. :-)
"I am heartbroken over this poor boy that was burned by his peers "
That is a shocking (even in this debased age) and very sad story, Brenda.
JeffSees,
Happy La la LOL.... :)
la la la (skip) la la la (skip) la la la..
:) hee hee.. thank you for the laugh.
being burned alive i just am horrified that kids could do that to a poor boy or anyone or anything for that matter...... do you guys remember the story "David" he was burned alive by his own father and he survived? That story has stayed with me my whole life...very very sad story...something really needs to be done on how much violence we allow our children to view and play... I think violence is way to excepted these days..
Oh B* I had read that story the other day about that poor teenager set on fire. How hateful!!
its just a truly, truly vicious crime, truly ... im so sad for that child.. right now and his mother.. its heartbreaking really it is..
"JeffSees,
Happy La la LOL.... :)
la la la (skip) la la la (skip) la la la..
:) hee hee.. thank you for the laugh.
What are you laughing at, Brenda? Or is it not so much a matter of genuine laughter as it is of more "sucking up"?
Nag,
I think the final verdict is I am a "Nag follower".
And I am vicious.
Nag,
Feel free to defend me any time...........
:)
"do you guys remember the story "David" he was burned alive by his own father and he survived?"
Yes, I do remember that story, Brenda. There was even a TV movie made about it that I watched. As I recall, the father got out of prison pretty soon after he was convicted. I felt outrage over that. I thought he should have spent the rest of his life quarantined from his son and the rest of society, just as I think the same fate should and will befall Garrido.
"Defend" you from what, Coonhound? :-)Nobody HERE would be so silly as to accuse you or be sympathetic to anyone accusing you of being "vicious," would they? :-) If they would, let them come forward, so I can slap the pi*s out of them. :-)
"What are you laughing at, Brenda? Or is it not so much a matter of genuine laughter as it is of more "sucking up"?"
Hey, White. I didn't think that Nazi camp got out until eight. Did you decide to skip arts and crafts? ~Dodgeball Peter La Fleur
lol...
:)
Typical evasion of a legitimate question, Brenda.
Nagarjuna,
Its been stated more than once:(
I guess you missed it my friend while you were busy on other topics.
What WERE you "laughing" about? It seemed to come out of nowhere. Care to share?
Nag, maybe JeffSees gender doesn't matter, even in the "what personal pronoun am I going to use?" sense. One of my best friends was born with ambiguous genitalia, was raised as one gender, eventually switched to the other. This friend always uses the words "they" and "them" when referring to ANYbody.
The second person singular forms "thou" and "thine" gave way to "you" and "your" being used for both the singular and plural. Maybe this will happen with "he" and "she."
(Isn't language fun?)
La la, la la la laaaaa
Unavoidably detained for a few minutes.
Still working the control of the Pedophile Blog I see Nagarjuna. I do not think you will be getting anywhere.
My words to BrendaStar are cordial and kind. Try it. It's not sucking up you won't get into a mess as you have in your other words.
Coonhound, WHAT has been stated recently? Yes, maybe I missed something outisde my "laserlike focus." :-)
"Jeff," now that you are back, will give us your definitive answer to the question: Are you male or female??
BrendaStar do you have the link to the Anne Frank video?
"Nag, maybe JeffSees gender doesn't matter, even in the "what personal pronoun am I going to use?"
Goblinbee, the gender doesn't matter nearly as much to me as the integrity of the person I'm dealing with. As I said, I was just trying to get a sense of that. I guess it could be said that this doesn't or shouldn't matter much either. After all, we're all just words in cyberspace, or something like that. But I don't feel that way about it. Do you?
Whose integrity should be in question?
You are the judge of another's integrity? What power you give yourself.
Coonhound,
I for one think you are you and you alone.. i have stated repeatedly that I like you a lot very much I in no way shape or form think you are a vicious person yet quite the opposite my friend... i like you A LOT!!! :)
now ill be accused of kissing your butt but...so be it.. :)
"My words to BrendaStar are cordial and kind. Try it. It's not sucking up you won't get into a mess as you have in your other words."
Some of my words to Brenda have been "cordial and kind" as well. And some of my words to her have questioned or criticized her regarding things that I thought should be questioned and criticized. Some of YOUR words to me have been cordial and perhaps even kind. And some of your words to me have questioned or criticized things that you apparently thought should be questioned or criticized.
So, perhaps, just perhaps, we are not so different in that way as you seem to imply.
I do care about the sense I get of other people's integrity.
Jeff,
It is very short 21 sec. long but its is the only existing video of her just released shes in the balcony.
oops heres the link Jeff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEXuviihrrs
"now ill be accused of kissing your butt but...so be it.. :)"
No, because that seemed sincere AND justified. On the other hand, if you were to say such things to Boogie, I would think you either insincere or outrageously off the mark.
What gives you the right to do this:
"some of my words to her have questioned or criticized her regarding things that I thought should be questioned and criticized"
Who are you that you can criticize anyone? Why can you not get this? BrendaStar can be anyone and do anything she wants.... who are you to tell her how to live her life? Or anyone's life for that matter? Why must you try to force people out of this public blog for not being and thinking like you? Why do you not leave instead of bring out others and trying to force others to agree with you or you will hound them until they do leave? What is this control issue with you caused by.
Thanks Nag!
I needed a hug and warm fuzzies****
I think a lot of you too!
And Denise, B*, goblinbee, Tara.
We are all unique and special.
Xoxoxo
Maybe you have not read this, it is important:
Researchers have only very recently begun to consider the effects of psychological abuse, focusing particularly on female victims. Many feminists, who suggest that the motive behind male-perpetrated violence against women is oppression and control, would surely suggest that control is the motive behind psychological abuse as well. This paper explores the possibility that it is the underlying control behind physical and psychological abuse that has the most negative effect on not only women, but on men as well. In a society where men are historically expected to be dominant over women, it may be particularly detrimental to a man’s mental well-being to be dominated – physically or psychologically – by a woman. The findings suggest that for both men and women, coercive control seems to have the most harmful effect in terms of depression compared to verbal and physical aggression. Not only does coercive control have the strongest bivariate relationship with depression, but it also appears that the effects of verbal aggression and physical abuse are both mediated by coercive control.
You need to ask yourself where your need to act on these controlling tactics comes from and deal with it.
Nobody has to be like you to make friends Nagarjuna.
Quite the contrary Nag I like Boogie too..
but Coonhound is Coonhound and Boogie is Boogie They are there own separate human beings.. and yes i like them both for different reasons...
"Who are you that you can criticize anyone?"
Who, then, are YOU to criticize ME?
"BrendaStar can be anyone and do anything she wants.... who are you to tell her how to live her life?"
Why, then, can't I be anyone and do anything I want? Who are YOU to tell ME how I should live MY life and conduct MYSELF on this blog?
"Why must you try to force people out of this public blog for not being and thinking like you?"
Why, then, are YOU trying to force ME out of this public blog for not being and thinking like YOU?
"Why do you not leave instead of bring out others and trying to force others to agree with you or you will hound them until they do leave?"
Same question back at YOU.
"What is this control issue with you caused by?"
Same question back at YOU?
Goblinbee,
I noted where you had asked me to explain a remark/question. I'm not ignoring you. I'm working on other stuff and will get to it later, maybe tonight.
Thank you Brenda. Is it okay to call you Brenda? I keep going back and forth when I see others calling you BrendaStar.
The Diary of Anne Frank has been a repeat read for me for many years.
"Quite the contrary Nag I like Boogie too.."
Quite the contrary to WHAT, Brenda? Are you saying that if you said those nice words to Boogie you would be being both sincere AND accurate? If so, shall we explore the accuracy of your perception?
"but Coonhound is Coonhound and Boogie is Boogie They are there own separate human beings.. and yes i like them both for different reasons..."
Do you RESPECT Boogie for her behavior here, Brenda?
Noone is criticizing you but with your own words Nagarjuna.
Several attempts have been made to get you to see what you are doing. Noone wants to argue but you. When you criticize others, there is always going to be a splash back.
Why do you just not stop?
Hey Freak,
here is the press conference for Jennifer Schuett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DYIaLHbA6Y
and the police comments at press conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZlMfmbMpe0
The question is, do you RESPECT your own behavior here Nagarjuna?
whose a freak?
Nag does not control this blog or us woman.
He's like our LIL' SAUCEY CABANA BOY!
(Giggle)
Sorry, I figured it out.
"Noone is criticizing you but with your own words Nagarjuna."
Please explain.
"Several attempts have been made to get you to see what you are doing."
What AM I doing?
"Noone wants to argue but you."
Then why do they do it?
"When you criticize others, there is always going to be a splash back."
So? If I think it's merited, I'll "splash back" against the "splash back." If I don't think it is, I won't.
"Why do you just not stop?"
Why do YOU just not stop?
Because you are out of control.
"Whose integrity should be in question? You are the judge of another's integrity? What power you give yourself."
JeffSees, I know this was written to Nagarjuna, but I would like to respond; these are interesting questions.
It does seem that for self-preservation reasons people try to get a sense of other people's integrity in most human interactions. If we meet someone, we want to know: how "real" is that person, how up-front, how believable and honest? I think these "judgments" go on at a subtle level all the time. We don't want to be taken in by a phony, but it happens, even when the interactions are taking place face-to-face.
I don't mean that we need to be suspicious or paranoid, just that humans tend to be on the alert at some level. It is one reason that, if our families are mentally healthy, home can be such a comfortable place. It is one of the places we don't have to be careful. And that is one more way that dysfunctioanl families are damaging to their members. It means there is no place to go where one can relax and be vulnerable.
The internet is so anonymous; our "phony baloney" detectors probably go into a higher gear when we are on here. I think we are all coming to all sorts of judgments about each other, based on what each person presents, while also knowing that someone could very easily be misrepresenting themselves. So, I have my feelings about who I think has integrity and who I think does not, but of course I don't really know.
"Nag does not control this blog or us woman."
But I DO control the vertical, and I DO control the horizontal. :-)
I understand. So you have nothing to say then.... except to argue. Why? Are you not the one making the first splash?
There is that need for control.
nag
"But I DO control the vertical, and I DO control the horizontal. :-)
"
So another one who hogs the TV remote (grin)
JeffSees,
Nagarjuna can only control those that allow him to do so.
Wouldn't you agree?
"Nobody has to be like you to make friends Nagarjuna."
Who said they did? Certainly not I. But I am not here to "make friends," my friend. I am here to discuss. If I make friends in the process, that is proverbial icing on the cake, but it's not my primary intent. And I would like to think I have made friends of a sort here. I think Denise and I have become friends to some degree, and perhaps Coonhound and Goblinbee and me as well. And I think it's fair to say that none of them are anything like me. :-) Wouldn't you agree, ladies? :-) And they have even questioned and criticized some of my behavior. But we are still on cordial if not downright friendly terms.
So, with all due respect, I think you are barking up the wrong tree, trying, if I may mix my metaphors, to conform me to the Procrustean bed of your possibly simplistic psychodynamic interpretation of my motivation and conduct.
Coonhound, take your time.
I should have said before that I'm a feminist. If I don't state that clearly, I am setting you up. (Working on my integrity here.)
"Nagarjuna can only control those that allow him to do so."
Coonhound, the implications of this are wise indeed.
Yes, Goblinbee you are correct! Integrity of another person is crucial as the deciding factor whether another would want to have any relationship with another.
This does go to "one" of my points. If the integrity in question is of disdain, why not walk away (in a blog) as you would on any street, office, or park?
We are also talking about control. Why would Nagarjuna in this case be so determined to pull/control the will of others to get them to walk away from what "he finds disdaining".
Why would Nagarjuna continue to berate others to try to accomplish pulling others away from other individuals they do not have a problem with. Does this, and the actions taken by Nagarjuna not say something about his character? So then, who is he to judge?
How has his critical words of Brenda (BrendaStar) helped his cause, and how has it hurt his cause. It has not helped his cause, but he brought further scar upon himself.
Now what is he doing but growing on those scars. He continues to go at it. The pile gets taller and taller.
Does Nagarjuna not see what others will see when they read his words. You are correct, humans need to be on the alert when they see this irrational behavior.
Jeffsees,
Also,
You and another has made a mocking reference to Nag's yahoo discussion group. Referred to those that joined as his "followers".
Why such bitterness and anomosity towards it and those that chose to partake?
You've also suggested or implied it to be a place where we conspire...
?????
Yes Coonhound you are correct.
Do you think Nancy Garrido knew what would happen when she first married Garrido?
Coonhound. You only need to reflect on your comments in this blog before any statements were made.
Goblinbee, I agree with your beautiful answer on the "integrity" question. Actually, I hadn't even seen Jeff's post that asked it. I suppose I need to scroll up and see if I've missed anything important. :-) But I agree that we want, to what extent we can do so, to be able to trust that people here, there, and everywhere are presenting themselves pretty much as they are, and we want to have a sense of whether they are or not before we decide, consciously or subconsciously, how to respond to them.
I'll be upfront and say that I'm very suspicious of Jeff's integrity. I'm not saying I know he or she has misrepresented him or herself or lied in any way, but I'm saying I AM suspicious. Jeff appeared very soon after Cecil and Nagarjuna2's bizarre appearances. He or she has been here ever since, focusing primarily on my allegedly psychopathological behavior. He or she admitted in a previous post that he or she was "asked" to come here. He or she fails to definitively answer my question of whether he or she is male or female.
I just have a lot of questions and few answers. Not that I can't engage him/her in dialogue. But my uncertainties affect HOW I do it, as I suspect they do in anyone harboring similar uncertainties.
you are very welcome Jeff I love Anne Frank also.. :) and yes you may call me Brenda that is fine with me :)
One allegation does not ensue another one!!!
oh the hypocrisy!
Hi JeffSees. I think I am interpreting the idea of integrity slightly differently than you are here. When Nag is talking about integrity, I think he is referring to someone's authenticity. I think he finds Brenda completely authentic. I don't think he has ever questioned her "realness." If he has had disdain for her or her ideas, that is different than thinking she does not have integrity.
For the record, I have been dismayed when Nag has continued to call Brenda's ideas "dubious." I wish the discussions would stay on the ideas themselves. But calling someone's ideas dubious is different than thinking that that person is not sincere. Sincerity, realness, and authenticity are what I mean by integrity.
Thanks Brenda, that take the heat off. I do not want to offend anyone by calling them the wrong name.
Just as you question others they are questioning you as well...
GB,
Nothing wrong with feminism. I'm into it!
but I'm not into radical over the top...the kind that makes you loose sight of the true cause, mission or purpose. The kind the compells one to hate. With hate focus is lost and unattainable.
Perhaps radical and over the top was a poor choice of words. It was the best I could do.
Do you better understand me now?
If so, perhaps you can help me with my words.
am i radical and over the top?
"Do you better understand me now?"
Coonhound, absolutely.
"I understand. So you have nothing to say then.... except to argue. Why? Are you not the one making the first splash?"
Jeff, if that question was directed at me, I think you haven't been here very long. I've had plenty to say. I've expressed many opinions on all kinds of matters, and certainly not always in argumentative response to others. I've made many "splashes." And plenty of them have generated "splash backs." :-)
Boogie,
This is a MUST
see i watched it after it was played live in Italy on every Italian channel..i thought it was done very well.
Who was involved in 9/11? Documentary reveals shocking facts
permalinke-mail story to a friendprint version
11 September, 2008, 15:38
On the anniversary of 9/11, an Italian-produced documentary called ZERO, investigating the tragedy, is opening in Russia. The authors believe that the U.S. official version of events surrounding the attacks can't be true. U.S. networks have rejected the film.
Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Live Technorati
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller
The events of September 11 2001 sent shockwaves around the world as hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Centre, bringing the landmark buildings down, the Pentagon, and into a Pennsylvania field in the wake of a failed attempt by passengers to regain control.
The Empty space at Ground Zero in Manhattan stands as a memorial to the collapse of the towers, which killed nearly 3000 occupants and rescuers.
The makers of the documentary claim that the report of the official U.S. commission into the tragedy of September 11, 2001 is false.
One of the films authors, Giulietto Chiesa, who's also an Italian member of the European Parliament, says some of the facts concerning the tragedy remain very suspicious and that a lot of questions are still unanswered.
“The people who organised 9/11 are people who knew the geopolitical and energy situation in the world very well. They knew exactly how the attack will change the future of the world,” Chiesa said.
The film claims the reason for the collapse of the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York was not the planes crashing into them but a controlled detonation of explosives planted inside the buildings. Referring to witness corroborations, they pose the question of how two of the worlds largest buildings collapsed on their own footprint, and without significantly affecting nearby buildings.
Chiesa says he was shocked by the absence of U.S. air defense on the day of the attack, which allowed the hijacked planes reach the World Trade Centre.
He also finds it strange that, just three days after 9/11, U.S. officials were able to name all 19 terrorist involved. The film presents evidence that CIA specialists not only new about the planned terrorist attack but assisted them in gaining U.S. visas.
The documentary also raises questions about whether the aircraft involved in the Pentagon attack was a Boeing-757. Adding to these questions is the absence of any footage from the many cameras installed around the U.S. Defense HQ, any wreckage from the aircraft, or passenger bodies.
The documentary also raises doubts, not only about Osama Bin Laden’s involvement in the attack, but also the existence of the Al-Quaeda terrorist organisation.
9/11 victims remembered in Moscow
A requiem service has been held in Moscow to remember those who died in the 9/11 terror attacks in New York seven years ago.
The requiem service was lead at St. Catherine's Church by U.S. born archimandrite Zahkey (Richard Wood). The ceremony was held both in Russian and English.
The U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle attended the service along with his international counterparts and Russian officials.
Beyrle said it was a day for people to mourn not only the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but for innocent people who have died in any terrorist attack.
Goblinbee understood.
The reality is, this is a blog. The integrity relating to who an individual is, shows in their words. It does not matter who they are. They are real people, and their words are of them, so why tear them down when in disagreement.
Or in Brenda's case, why tear her down Nagarjuna, simply because she does not believe in your cause, the reason you want her to disrespect Boogie? What does this say about your integrity. You have been willing to say some damning things, not because you believe them or disbelieve them, but to coerce. This does reflect on your integrity.
Jeffsees,
I can't say what nancy garrido would of thought would happen before she married PG.
Why do you ask?
And I'm really not sure what is meant with your next post to me...please elaborate.
Nagarjuna, yes, I feel very friendly towards you. But, yes, we are quite different. :)
"Hi JeffSees. I think I am interpreting the idea of integrity slightly differently than you are here. When Nag is talking about integrity, I think he is referring to someone's authenticity.
Yes, Goblinbee, that is a much better word for what I'm getting at than "integrity," although integrity, as in acting or at least trying to act according to one's beliefs, values, and standards, is also a part of it
I think he finds Brenda completely authentic. I don't think he has ever questioned her "realness." If he has had disdain for her or her ideas, that is different than thinking she does not have integrity."
I don't have "disdain" for her personally. I think Brenda is essentially a decent and kind person. I DO question some of her ideas, her tendency to misrepresent people's words and actions here, and other points of conduct here.
"For the record, I have been dismayed when Nag has continued to call Brenda's ideas "dubious." I wish the discussions would stay on the ideas themselves."
Good point, Goblinbee. I will try to do that.
"But calling someone's ideas dubious is different than thinking that that person is not sincere."
Absolutely!
"So another one who hogs the TV remote (grin)"
You got me, Tara. :-)
Funny,
Bc I truely didn't see the meaning or point in tearing down nagarjuna by calling him the "P" word from the START of all this.
Coonhound you asked, Nagarjuna can only control those that allow him to do so. Wouldn't you agree?
I said I agreed. I asked you if you thought Nancy Garrido knew what would happen when she married Phillip Garrido.
You are correct, we can only allow control over us if we let them. At some point, Nancy let Phillip Garrido control her. Her brothers said he had complete control of her and they rarely heard from her. Do you think she wanted this when she met and married Garrido?
No, she didn't. We always are subject to allowing controlling people in our lives. People always do, but they do not see it, it is either hidden from them at first, or people just do not know the signs. How many people do you know that have been abused and controlled that will tell you, yes, I knew he was a control freak, and I wanted him to control me.
"One allegation does not ensue another one!!!
oh the hypocrisy!"
If that was directed at me, Brenda, could you explain what you mean by that? How am I being hypocritical, and if I am, how have you not been also?
I don't really expect you to answer these questions any more than you've answered most of the other perfectly legitimate qustions I've asked you today. But if you're going to accuse me of being hypocritical, I think you have an obligation to explain yourself. Don't you agree?
"Or in Brenda's case, why tear her down Nagarjuna, simply because she does not believe in your cause, the reason you want her to disrespect Boogie?"
How is asking her if she respects Boogie "tearing" her down, Jeff?
What's more, why do you care how I conduct myself here and spend all of this time from morning till night here focusing primarily on what you take to be my misconduct? Do you have "control issues"? :-)
I won't go copy and pasting your words. You know what you have said and what you have not. If you do not, I suggest you go back and read.
You did request that Brenda recognize you as over and above Boogie. A suggestion to pick you or Boogie. It is written by you in this blog.
Jeff,
Actually, I have much experience in such matters and no, I am not talking about my husband.
Thanks for elaborating for me.
the important thing here is that Brenda knows you wrote them.
Hi Brenda. That is interesting that Russia is now confronting 9/11. A little scary, but at least it may press the US and answer up to some things. Boogie just told me about this the other day. I am shocked. I had no idea, but it is on the wall!
Brenda, when it comes to your 9/11 postings, I have a suggestion that you may wish to consider. I've made no bones about the fact that I'm suspicious of your open-mindedness and thoroughness in investigating ALL sides of these theories--the arguments and evidence for them and those against them. I've cautioned against beginning with the preconception that every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike is necessarily true and then looking only at videos, websites, and other sources that support one's preconceptions. But you say you haven't done this. You say you've thoroughly investigated both sides and have, nevertheless, come to the absolute certainty that our government participated directly in those attacks.
Well, my suggestion, Brenda, is this. Whenever you post material or your own words arguing in favor of the theories you espouse, you also post material or a GOOD representation containing the best counterarguments to the aformentioned arguments.
You say you've done such thorough research into both sides that you can take your unequivocal stand. Well, I respectfully suggest that you demonstrate that by always posting the best of both sides for us less seasoned researchers to consider.
How about it, Brenda?
Why do you keep trying to bring me into argument with you Nagarjuna.
You have said and asked Brenda so many times if she respects Boogie. You have pointed out time and time again that you are an upstanding guy. When you do not get the answer you want from Brenda, you attack her and what she writes.
Why can you not stay on subject here? Why do you try to make me the bad guy now. Ostracize me. For what. What are wrong with my words?
Why do you care if Brenda has her own opinions and interests?
Why do you feel the need to change her?
2 simple questions?
"I won't go copy and pasting your words."
"Who asked you to," Freak? :-) In fact, who asked YOU to do anything? :-)
"You did request that Brenda recognize you as over and above Boogie."
I ASKED why she would respect Boogie at all, much less respect her and not me. And she still hasn't answered.
"A suggestion to pick you or Boogie. It is written by you in this blog. :-)"
Jeff errr Freak, show me where?
Nagarjuna,
I amnot posting both sides as I do not believe in both sides I believe in what I believe in after looking into both sides...if thats how you would want to write your felings left wing then right wing then left wing then right wing so be it thats for you to decide, but I will continue to write what I feel when I feel like it on my terms.. thanx for the input though but See i can not do that as it would go against what I believe in...
Oh Geeeez. Look what is in the news today:
CNN) -- A runaway balloon has touched down in Colorado after a 6-year-old boy untied it from his family home in Fort Collins.
The dome-shaped balloon is 20 feet long and 5 feet high, Larimer County Sheriff's Office says.
The dome-shaped balloon is 20 feet long and 5 feet high, Larimer County Sheriff's Office says.
The boy was not inside the helium aircraft when it landed, CNN affiliate KMGH reported.
A sibling saw the boy get into the craft Thursday morning. Officials were concerned that the boy may have fallen out of it, an undersheriff said.
Margie Martinez of the Weld County Sheriff's Office said a sibling saw Falcon Heene climb into the basket before the balloon took off from his parents' Fort Collins, Colorado home.
Since the door on the balloon was unlocked, it's possible the boy had fallen out, Martinez said.
The balloon appeared to be a saucer-shaped, Mylar-coated helium balloon, similar to a party balloon. The craft was drifting eastward, authorities said. Video Watch the balloon float thousands of feet over Colorado »
The helium balloon was tethered to the boy's family home, the Larimer County Sheriff's Department said. The boy got into the craft Thursday morning and undid the rope anchoring it.
The department said the dome-shaped balloon is 20 feet long and 5 feet high.
advertisement
"The structure at the bottom of the balloon that the boy is in is made of extremely thin plywood and won't withstand any kind of a crash at all," said Erik Nilsson, Larimer County emergency manager, according to CNN affiliate KMGH.
A dispatcher received a call Thursday morning, and emergency services personnel were contacted, Larimer County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Kathy Davis said.
LOL. Back to that again.
Nagarjuna. I'll keep asking. Why all the hate and contempt.
Do you see the loudness in your response to YouAreSuchAFreak. How can you build up such hatred, and seemingly temper tantrum and possibly think clearly?
Why all the hate?
JeffSees. I am used to it, but did you miss it. He thinks you are me.
Brenda.... Boogie got offered that job with the Embassy in the Philippines!!!!
"Why do you keep trying to bring me into argument with you Nagarjuna."
Come on now, "Jeff." HOW am I doing that?
"You have said and asked Brenda so many times if she respects Boogie."
Yes, I have, "Jeff," because she keeps ducking the question.
"You have pointed out time and time again that you are an upstanding guy."
Where have I ever characterized myself in this manner?
"When you do not get the answer you want from Brenda, you attack her and what she writes."
No, when I don't get an answer, I just repeat the question. If I get an answer I don't agree with or find "dubious," I express my disagreement or doubt.
Yes YouAreSuchAFreak, I am ignoring his antagonizing tactics to argue. Just trying to get him to look at himself and his actions.
Still want to know why it is so important to you to discredit others Nagarjuna.
Boogie here is an article for you:
CIA’s Robert Baer knows guy who ‘cashed out’ day before 9/11
* Text size
* Larger
* Smaller
We Are Change L.A.
October 20, 2008
On 9/11 prior knowledge, and perhaps a clue towards the put options on the day of 9/11: “I know the guy that went into his broker in San Diego and said ‘cash me out, it’s going down tomorrow.’”
He then went on to say that this man’s “brother worked in the White House.”
——–
On October 16, 2008, Robert Baer, who was a CIA Case Officer in the Middle East over the course of almost two decades, participated in a discussion at the Hammer Museum entitled “A Third War: The Threat of War with Iran.” Dr. Trita Parsi was part of the discussion which was moderated by Ian Masters.
Baer was briefly interrupted during the discussion by Jeremy Rothe-Kushel for clarity’s sake, after he brought up 9/11 and reaffirmed his recently aired belief that Osama bin Laden is likely dead. That part went something like this-
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
* Jason Bermas Combo
Bob: The chances of Bin Laden being dead are very high. The question is are they going to drag him out in the next two weeks. Is he going to [laughter] out of cold storage and say “we finally got him.” I don’t know that he’s dead, but he probably is.
Jeremy: But he didn’t do 9/11 though.
Bob: Well, let’s put it this way, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind…
Jeremy: No.
Bob: …said he wasn’t working for Bin Laden, so…
Jeremy: Did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed put the Mossad assets in New Jersey to film?
Bob: …No he’s talking about the famous white van. It’s an intriguing story. It deserves a book…
———–
After the event, Baer graciously granted WeAreChangeLA members Stewart Howe and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel an interview in front of the Hammer Museum on Wilshire Boulevard. Although he avoided dealing with the operational aspects of the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Baer appeared to affirm or suggest Israeli Mossad and White House foreknowledge of the attacks. Baer laid out his take on a benign scenario for the “famous white van” associated with Mossad agents detained on 9/11 after being seen filming and celebrating the attacks. Baer also said that it could mean something “worse.”
At the end of the interview Baer makes a very provocative statement:
“I know the guy that went into his broker in San Diego and said ‘cash me out, it’s going down tomorrow.’”
He then went on to say that this man’s “brother worked in the White House.”
He finally appears to confirm CIA involvement in the Iranian Revolution.
Here’s some interesting info related to Baer and this subject from the great resource http://www.historycommons.org/ —-
“Before Mid-January 2002: Top CIA Official Reportedly Describes 9/11 as Triumph”
According to former CIA officer Robert Baer, a high-ranking CIA official tells a reporter off-the-record that, “when the dust finally clears, Americans will see that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure.” It is unclear why the CIA officer thinks this and the reporter who tells Baer this story is not named. However, Baer comments that if that is what the CIA thinks, “Im scared to death of what lies ahead.” [BAER, 2002, PP. XXIII]
I am superior is one.
Your statement Nagarjuna, You are superior... Yesterday you said this... many times you have said this.
What makes you superior?
Boogie,
Bush took FBI agents off Laden family trail
BY RASHMEE Z AHMED
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
ONDON: America was itself to blame for the events of September 11 because the US administration was using "kid gloves" in tracking down Osama bin Laden and "other fanatics linked to Saudi Arabia", a special BBC investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy.
The report, which the BBC claimed was based on a secret FBI document, numbered 199I WF213589 and emanating out of the FBI’s Washington field office, alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and "connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and bin Ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the World Trade Centre attacks.
The investigation, which featured in the BBC’s leading current affairs programme, Newsnight, said the FBI was told to "back off" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah, who was linked to "the Saudi-funded World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation," whose accounts have still not frozen by the US treasury despite "being banned by Pakistan some weeks ago and India claiming it was linked to an organisation involved in bombing in Kashmir".
Newsnight said there was a long history of "shadowy" American connections with Saudi Arabia, not least the two presidents Bush’s "business dealings" with the bin Ladens and another more insidious link revealed by the former head of the American visa section in Jeddah.
The official said he had been concerned about visas issued to large numbers of "unqualified" men "with no family links or any links with America or Saudi Arabia", only to find out later that it "was not visa fraud" but part of a scheme in which young men "recruited by Osama bin Laden" were being sent for "terrorist training by the CIA" after which they were sent on to Afghanistan.
In a reiteration of a now well-known claim by one of George W Bush’s former business partners, the BBC said he made his first million 20 years ago on the back of a company financed by Osama’s elder brother, Salem. But it added the more disturbing assertion that both presidents Bush had lucrative stakes along with the bin Ladens in Carlyle Corporation, a small private company which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors. The bin Ladens sold their stake in Carlyle soon after September 11, it said.
American politicians later told the BBC programme that they rejected the accusation that the establishment had called the dogs of the intelligence agencies off the bin Ladens and the royal House of Saud because of a strategic interest in Saudi Arabia, which has the world's biggest oil reserve.
Boogie,
FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
Guardian
Wednesday November 7, 2001
FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), with which they were linked.
The FBI file, marked Secret and coded 199, which means a case involving national security, records that Abdullah bin Laden, who lived in Washington, had originally had a file opened on him "because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth - a suspected terrorist organisation".
WAMY members deny they have been involved with terrorist activities, and WAMY has not been placed on the latest list of terrorist organisations whose assets are being frozen.
Abdullah, who lived with his brother Omar at the time in Falls Church, a town just outside Washington, was the US director of WAMY, whose offices were in a basement nearby.
cont:
But the FBI files were closed in 1996 apparently before any conclusions could be reached on either the Bin Laden brothers or the organisation itself. High-placed intelligence sources in Washington told the Guardian this week: "There were always constraints on investigating the Saudis".
They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to "back off" from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.
"There were particular investigations that were effectively killed."
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their "black sheep".
Yesterday, the head of the Saudi-based WAMY's London office, Nouredine Miladi, said the charity was totally against Bin Laden's violent methods. "We seek social change through education and cooperation, not force."
He said Abdullah bin Laden had ceased to run WAMY's US operation a year ago.
Neither Abdullah nor Omar bin Laden could be contacted in Saudi Arabia for comment.
WAMY was founded in 1972 in a Saudi effort to prevent the "corrupting" ideas of the west ern world influencing young Muslims. With official backing it grew to embrace 450 youth and student organisations with 34 offices worldwide.
Its aim was to encourage "concerned Muslims to take up the challenge by arming the youth with sound understanding of Islam, guarding them against destructive ideologies, and instilling in them level-headed wisdom".
In Britain it has 20 associated organisations, many highly respectable.
But as long as 10 years ago it was named as a discreet channel for public and private Saudi donations to hardline Islamic organisations. One of the recipients of its largesse has been the militant Students Islamic Movement of India, which has lent support to Pakistani-backed terrorists in Kashmir and seeks to set up an Islamic state in India.
Since September 11 WAMY has been investigated in the US along with a number of other Muslim charities. There have been several grand jury investigations but no findings have been made against any of them.
Current FBI interest in WAMY is shown in their agents' interrogation of a radiologist from San Antonio, Texas, Dr Al Badr al-Hazmi, who was arrested on September 12 and released without charge two weeks later. He had the same surname as two of the plane hijackers.
He was also questioned about his contacts with Abdullah bin Laden at the US WAMY office.
Mr Al-Hazmi said that he had made phone calls to Abdullah bin Laden in 1999 trying to obtain books and videotapes about Islamic teachings for the Islamic Centre of San Antonio.
Boogie,
Here is a link to a transcript that indicates prior knowledge:
http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html
Apparently everyone but Coonhound, Goblinbee and Denise.
Boogie,
Check this page out it has TONS of information
http://www.infowars.com/resources.html#PRIOR_CIA
"Your statement Nagarjuna, You are superior... Yesterday you said this... many times you have said this."
Where have I ever SERIOUSLY said that I'm superior? How many times have I explicitly denied thinking that I'm superior intellectually, morally, or in any other fundamental way to others here?
Toughening up on rapists... don't think there will much of a way for them to get away for very much longer:
(CNN) -- Lavinia Masters was 13. She winced as the doctor swabbed her vagina for possible evidence. She watched as he put her underwear and purple nightgown into plastic bags, careful not to disturb any fibers or hairs.
Lavinia Masters was raped by a stranger in her Texas home when she was 13.
Lavinia Masters was raped by a stranger in her Texas home when she was 13.
It was a hot July night in 1985, and the Texas sixth-grader had been sexually assaulted by an unknown suspect.
This process -- collecting evidence for a rape kit -- lasted several hours and was "devastating." But just as difficult, says Masters, was the 20-year wait for that evidence to yield results.
Her rape kit sat idle until 2005, when the Dallas Police Department re-opened her case, as part of a new initiative to solve old crimes.
DNA testing had not been available when Masters was assaulted. But in 2005, police said they discovered the DNA in her kit matched DNA samples from a man who was already serving time in prison for unrelated crimes, including sexual assault.
But the suspect could not be prosecuted in Masters' case because the statute of limitations had run out.
CNN usually does not identify victims of sexual assaults. But Masters, now 38, decided to let her name be known to shed light on the issue of backlogged rape kits.
Government officials say many police departments and crime labs across the country are inadequately funded and overwhelmed, leaving many rape kits untested. Rape victims' advocates say leaving the kits untested suggests law enforcement agencies aren't prioritizing rape cases.
In Los Angeles, California, 7,495 untested rape kits were in the police department's system in October 2008, the department said. The rape kits may have the critical DNA that could lead to the arrest of offenders, exonerate those wrongly convicted and end the agonizing uncertainty for rape victims. What's in a rape kit? »
Today, Masters and other rape survivors are pushing for police to process rape kits more rapidly and to test unopened rape kits that have accumulated over decades. They know what it feels like to have justice delayed.
"Having to wait is like pouring salt on the wound," Masters said. "To have DNA technology at our disposal is awesome, but we have to take advantage of it."
This week, DNA testing led local police and the FBI to a suspect in a 19-year-old rape case. Dennis Earl Bradford, a 40-year-old welder, was arrested in connection with the rape and attempted murder of Jennifer Schuett, 27, of Dickinson, Texas.
Brenda, how about my 9/11 suggestion? Are you up for it?
Exactly how many rape kits remain untested nationwide is unknown. No agency tracks those numbers, nor are there uniform national standards for testing or tracking the kits.
Some jurisdictions, such as New York City, require every kit to be tested. Others do not. From 2002 to 2005, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported the number of backlogged crime cases jumped 24 percent to 359,000 cases. That figure includes rape cases, but the report does not break down the crimes by type.
The Los Angeles Police Department drew criticism last year over its backlog. By September, the LAPD reported the backlog had dropped to 2,937 due to an influx of federal grant money and the efforts of its DNA Task Force. The tested rape kits resulted in 405 suspect hits, according to law enforcement officials.
"There isn't anything about Los Angeles that is anomalous from any other major police jurisdiction," said Sarah Tofte, a researcher at Human Rights Watch.
In May, an analysis by the Chicago Tribune found more than 1,000 backlogged DNA cases in Illinois. The paper said nearly half of those were untested samples from rape kits. And last month in Houston, Texas, about 1,000 rape kits remained untested in labs, said Kese Smith, a spokesman for Houston Police Department.
"We're in much better shape than we have been in past years, but obviously, we don't think 1,000 is acceptable," Smith said.
Some agencies consider kits untested for more than 30 days to be backlogged. In some cases, rape kits have been tested too late, when the statute of limitations has already expired.
In recent years, the passage of state and federal laws requiring that DNA samples be taken from anyone who is arrested, not just convicted felons, have added to the backlog, critics say. At least 21 states have enacted such laws, according to DNA Saves, a nonprofit that pushes for broader DNA collection policies.
Top priority for testing involves cases in which a likely suspect has been identified or those that involve murder or children. Incidences involving a victim who is attacked by a stranger are usually given the next priority. Often kits from cases involving an acquaintance or spouse -- where the "he-said-she-said" dilemma arises -- aren't tested all.
Law enforcement agencies point out some women aren't willing to testify or don't want their rape kits processed. Officers in some communities say they are trying to be efficient when they process the rape kits, focusing first on those that can lead to a suspect or charges.
But advocates for rape victims urge women to be pro-active.
"The squeaky wheel gets the oil," says Kellie Greene, head of the advocacy group Speaking Out Against Rape Inc. "If you call a lot, and ask for updates on your case, those are the cases that move forward."
In New York City, where police started to process all rape kits after 2003, arrests rates jumped from 30 to 70 percent, according to Human Rights Watch.
There is some hope that the backlogs will diminish. The Los Angeles Police Department announced last month that $3 million would be dedicated to testing old rape kits. The Houston Police Department received $1.3 million in federal grants this month to help expedite the rape testing process.
And in 2004, Congress passed the Debbie Smith Act, providing more than a billion dollars to improve DNA testing procedures and reduce the backlog. Debbie Smith waited more than six years for her 1989 rape case to be solved because of a DNA database backlog in Virginia.
advertisement
These improvements come too late for Lavinia Masters. She can not get back the 20 years she spent wondering about the man who raped her when she was 13.
In 2007, when her suspected attacker appeared for a parole hearing in an unrelated case in Texas, Masters gave phone testimony against his release. He remains incarcerated but may appear before the parole board again in spring of 2010. Masters intends to be there.
Freak,
OMGosh!!!!! I am so happy for her :) is she happy is she freaking out??? :) wow thats wonderful.. :) tell me more..
wow Freak thank you for that article on the rape kits I am shocked..
"Brenda, how about my 9/11 suggestion? Are you up for it?"
I responded already with a big fat NO! you must have missed that i guess...
Nagarjuna, can you answer one question? Can you stop arguing and answer one question? The fact remains, you said you were superior yesterday, and you had made many previous statements of the same. Look at your conversation yesterday. Does it look like a bunch of joking to you? No, it was not joking. You think you are superior. Why?
"Yes YouAreSuchAFreak, I am ignoring his antagonizing tactics to argue. Just trying to get him to look at himself and his actions."
Isn't there an old saying that "Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness," "Jeff"? :-) In any case, I DO examine my actions even without your wholly benevolent assistance. :-) I also examine YOURS. :-)
Boogie,
Another article you should read:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042202_bushknows.html
No more easy street for rapists:
Three men convicted of the gang rape of a West Palm Beach woman and the beating of her young son were sentenced to life in prison Tuesday.
Circuit Judge Krista Marx sentenced Jakaris Taylor, 17, and Nathan Walker, 18, to life in prison while Tommy Poindexter, 20, was sentenced to life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison. A fourth defendant, Avion Lawson, 16, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in December.
The four were convicted of barging into the then-35-year-old woman's West Palm Beach apartment in 2007 and raping her repeatedly, then beating her then-12-year-old son and forcing her to perform oral sex on him. They then doused the two in chemicals and left when they could not find a match.
Authorities say fingerprints and DNA found on clothing and condoms in the apartment identified the defendants, who were juveniles at the time of the crime.
The courtroom, packed with family members of the defendants, erupted after the sentence was read, despite Marx's admonishment that those who could not control themselves should leave beforehand. After Poindexter scuffled with a corrections officer, his brother, Masterson Poindexter, yelled out, "What the (expletive) are you doing to my brother."
Then the 13-year-old half brother of Taylor ran past stunned officers and deputies and opened a back door where his brother had been led in shackles. The crying boy was detained by deputies but later freed.
Defense lawyers had argued that the men were juveniles at the time of the crime and sentencing juveniles to life in prison amounts to cruel and unusual punishment — something that does not even occur in Iraq and North Korea. They noted that two similar cases are currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Both Public Defender Carey Haughwout, who represents Poindexter, and Robert Gershman, who represents Walker, said they would file motions for new trials and appeal.
Haughwout said she was "disappointed" with the sentence but Gershman said he was not surprised. "I was expecting life based on the facts of the case," he said.
In a statement, State Attorney Michael McAuliffe said, "Today, justice was done for the mother and child who were the victims of a brutal, vicious attack on their bodies and their characters. The blameless in this case are the victims who will likely never fully move beyond one's worst nightmare made all too real."
McAuliffe commended the victim for her "great courage and resolve" in aiding the investigation.
The victim was not present at the sentencing. However, prosecutor Aleathea McRoberts read a letter from her in which she said she and her son were still suffering greatly. In the letter, the victim said she is afraid to leave the house, seeing a psychologist and has been treated for cervical cancer — which she believes is due to the chemicals the defendants put inside her. She said her son is also seeing a psychologist and feels guilty that he could not protect his mother.
The defense attorneys and two psychologists who testified for them argued that the youths were products of troubled upbringings. One was born cocaine addicted, another lost his father at a young age and another was constantly beaten by his grandmother.
Taylor's mother testified that she had been treated for mental illness and alcoholism, and herself was raped twice. "I don't want him to get life," she told Marx. "Every child deserves a second chance."
Taylor's father testified that he was in and out of recovery for drug addiction, saying, "I've battled my own demons." "I'm asking you to give him a second chance and take into account what he has endured," said Nathan Taylor Sr.
But McRoberts countered that, "there is a huge population of kids who were raised by single moms without much money who don't have jobs that never go on to commit crimes."
"This community has a right to be protected from these juveniles," she said. "Short of killing this woman and her son, there is not much worse they could have done."
Judge Marx agreed.
"This was not a garden variety crime by any means." She said. "It was designed to instill fear and invoke terror and gave you all pleasure and excitement. Most of us have a moral code and refrain from wrongdoing. I can only surmise that none of you have a moral code."
"I responded already with a big fat NO! you must have missed that i guess..."
Yes, I did miss it, Brenda. But it's precisely what I expected. A demonstration of your absolute "objectivity" and desire to help the rest of us reach your same "objective" conclusions.
I will be pointing that out constantly during any ensuing discussion of 9/11. I will be asking you and urging others to as you for, as the late Paul Harvey used to say,"the other side of the story."
Boogie,
here is another article for you in reagrds to FBI CIA Stuff:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2001/sep/10/internetnews.worlddispatch
Boogie,
Another FBI article for you:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/13/94339.shtml
You will not answer me, but you will discredit me.
What grounds do you have to say I am anyone other than JeffSees? You have absolutely nothing, no reason to say this. So, why do you try to discredit me?
You have the opportunity to answer questions and share your thoughts. Why do you not take advantage of that?
Should people love you and fawn all over you because you can instigate argument? Nagarjuna, I have been upfront and honest with you. Do you not see this? Why will you not help yourself, and why do you keep digging further?
"The fact remains, you said you were superior yesterday, "
Show me where, because I honestly don't recall ever SERIOUSLY saying such a thing. Why would I when I don't believe it? And I'm not wading through reams of posts to confirm what I didn't do what I already know I didn't do. So, the burden is on YOU, the accuser, to document your accusation and prove me wrong.
Or are you going to take the Boogie way out? :-)
Nagarjuna,
I gave you an explanation read back and maybe you will get it! Quite talking down to me im over it.. if you dont like me leave me alone then.. okay.
Actually, I think Paul Harvey used to say, "The rest of the story." But I'll stick with "the other side of the story" with you, Brenda. :-)
Why do I have to copy and paste it, you know you said it... everyone else in the blog knows or can read about it.... Why do you want to turn this into an argument also. You said it. Why duck and hide. What are you hiding from?
Your Daily Dumb:
But not quite as dumb as some!!!!
55 year old John Daniel Miller III from Tyler, Texas was arressted earlier this week for growing pot. His reasoning: the cost of buying mj on the street had gone up! Police confiscated more than 70 plants worth $100,000.
I guess it's a semi-smart, cost-effective idea. I'm wondering what the po-po did with the plants they confiscated! Someone's going up in smoke tonight!
"What grounds do you have to say I am anyone other than JeffSees?"
Now WHO is playing games? :-) Well, two can play, I guess. I have no "grounds" whatsoever for saying you have posted under any other usernames than JeffSees. None whatsoever! :-) :-) :-)
But let me ask you straight out once again: HAVE YOU EVER POSTED HERE UNDER ANY OTHER USERNAMES THAN JEFFSEES? :-)
nag
"But let me ask you straight out once again: HAVE YOU EVER POSTED HERE UNDER ANY OTHER USERNAMES THAN JEFFSEES? :-)"
Jeffsees answered that a long time ago, it's just that they didn't give the answer that YOU wanted to hear
Hi Brenda. They called her at work today. She didn't even have that second interview!!!! I didn't get all the details to many people were around. We had to quiet her down, she hung up and let out this yelp LOL. It was funny. Ducking and uh oh's were flying from her. Everyone wanted to know what happened and she was tripping all over the place to think of something. She is so funny.
"Why do I have to copy and paste it, you know you said it... everyone else in the blog knows or can read about it.... Why do you want to turn this into an argument also. You said it. Why duck and hide. What are you hiding from?"
Forgive me for being so blunt, but now you are being ridiculous. You're accusing me of doing something I know I've never done--i.e., SERIOUSLY claim to be superior in any fundamental way to others here--and telling me that I am the one whose obligated to admit to this false accusation instead of you being obligated to document it. :-) Preposterous!
Go find where I've done it and show it to all of us. That is YOUR burden of proof. :-)
"Jeffsees answered that a long time ago, it's just that they didn't give the answer that YOU wanted to hear"
Tara, have you been here all afternoon reading ALL of the comments?
Nagarjuna. You are reaching. Why do you always have to discredit people?
Do you not have your own interest to discuss? What is wrong with you.
I am not being sarcastic, but have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia?
YouAreSuchAFreak,
I cant wait to hear more about it :) tell her I said congratulations... :)
Nagarjuna,
No disrespect intended to you what so ever, but you do come off as "superior".
You don't have to state it bc you just come off that way with your words, your approach and even your comical nature.
I know for certain that you hear this from the outside world as well. Will you admit to it?
It doesn't bother me, I find it funny and sometimes its annoying too. But we all have our "ways" about us. I find you to be an alright guy once I got past the "superiorism" in you.
You are very unique and special:)
nag
"Tara, have you been here all afternoon reading ALL of the comments?"
It pays to be silent sometimes (grin)
"I will be pointing that out constantly during any ensuing discussion of 9/11. I will be asking you and urging others to as you for, as the late Paul Harvey used to say,"the other side of the story."" (Nagarjuna)
I will not be returning to the blog. I can't wade through any more of this. Nagarjuna, you have pushed me over the edge. There are other people I have not expected better of, but you I HAVE expected better of. If you have any more comments for me, Nagarjuna or Denise, you will need to email me personally. Coonhound, I have enjoyed our communications tremendously. If you have a comment for me, maybe Denise wouldn't mind passing it on.
Farewell to all my friends!
"They called her at work today. She didn't even have that second interview!!!! "
Boy, do I have some posts to send them! :-)They may want that "second interview" afterwards after all. :-)
I will BrendaStar, but I know she will read the blog faithfully.
I would tell you to do that Nag, but you likely don't have anything to sue for the damages. Get a job and off the internet once in a while. You have lost it.
Ill have you note Nag that comment that was a threat and now you actually have truly threatened someone! Get a grip...
What's wrong with loving and fawning over people.
I like to do that. And I enjoy it in return.
Now we get back to threats again.
I need to hear a little more Nagarjuna. Just a little more.
Is this what you wanted from Goblinbee Nagarjuna?
"Nagarjuna. You are reaching."
AM I, "Jeff"? More to the point, am I WRONG? Think carefully before you answer. :-)
"What is wrong with you."
What is wrong with YOU, my "veracious" friend? :-)
"I am not being sarcastic, but have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia?"
No, have YOU? MPD perhaps? :-)
Goblinbee,
I do not know how to respond to your last comment because I was not addressed at all in it and am unsure if you even desire a response from me..
but i care and i wanted you to know that it is on my mind
Goblinbee,
I will do that! Thanks for the offer. I have communicated with denise here recently.
;)
You've been a joy goblinbee!
"Ill have you note Nag that comment that was a threat and now you actually have truly threatened someone! Get a grip..."
Yes, I have "threatened" to consistently call attention to the fact that you claim to be absolutely certain that our government directly participated in the 9/11 attacks and that you've arrived at this opinion objectively, but you'll only present arguments and evidence that support YOUR opinion. That is some terrible "theat," Brenda. I'm sure the FBI will be coming after me for cyber-terrorism. :-)
Get a grip on yourself, Brenda. :-)
I feel ridiculous because I said I would not be returning, but I left a few threads undone. Tara and BrendaStar, I consider you friends as well. Tara, I don't think you pass on your email; BrendaStar, I'm not sure if you do. If either of you has a comment for me, again, maybe Denise wouldn't mind passing it on. But I haven't even asked Denise for this favor (I believe her to be at work today), so of course I can't speak for her.
Oh my, no wonder you are so confused. You cannot read your own writings either.
"I would tell you to do that Nag, but you likely don't have anything to sue for the damages"
"Sue" on what grounds? The presentation of objective FACTS about the libelous, truly threatening, and possibly very unstable person they're planning to entrust with an important position? Sounds like actionable grounds to me. :-)
nag
You are twisting words again.
Your threats were to freak regarding Boogie's interview, not to Brenda
B*,
I just caught the warm fuzzies from you! Thank you! Xoxoxoxo
im not threatening anyone you are. I am asking you politely Please to not talk to me any longer or about me.. or what I believe.. I do not care to speak with you any longer and I mean that please do not address me any further and I will do the same. Thank you
The yelling is uncalled for or necessary. They are simple questions, can you try to keep a level thought process going, and take the questions as asked? No need to get upset.
Superior. You said you were superior. It was not a joke, it was serious conversation. Why are you superior?
Hi goblinbee
I hope you don't mind and it's certainly NOT you personnaly, but I have my own rules, if you like, that I don't give my email to anyone on blogs or forums.
If I did break my "rule" I would have no problem sending it to you.
Who is libelous but you Nagarjuna? You are the one who keeps making accusations.
Furthermore, you know your threat carries no weight. This is a blog. Where is YouAreSuchAFreak's name?
goblinbee,
If you click on my name you can go to my profile and my e mail is right there it says e mail then you click that and its yours.. I would love to hear form you and if you wouldnt mind maybe shooting me your e mail address after you get mine then ill add you to my contacts.. Its been a pleasure and I will miss your presence.. I understand and do not judge your decision. and do not judge you either if you ever decided to return. I am glad we got to meet via internet. Thank you for all your kind words to me and our conversations that we ingaged in..
I meant, where is Boogie's name.
But my question is incomplete anyway. If you cannot do what you threaten, what truly is your purpose to threaten?
"No disrespect intended to you what so ever, but you do come off as "superior".
Coonhound, I will admit to seeing how other people could perceive me as "coming off" that way, and I admit to jokingly playing on that perception with some of my more outrageously jocular statements here. But I have never seriously claimed to be superior fundamentally, and I honestly, truly, don't see myself as superior.
"You don't have to state it bc you just come off that way with your words, your approach and even your comical nature."
I hear you, Coonhound.
"I know for certain that you hear this from the outside world as well. Will you admit to it?"
Actually, I don't hear it from the "outside world." Some people who know me in person have said that they think I'm very smart but not that they think I come off as smugly and "superiorly" smart or moral or anything of the kind. But those who know me REALLY well, like my wife, and see how absolutely stupid I am in many respects, know that whatever smartness I may have is very limited in its breadth. As I believe I've said here before, I have extreme nonverbal learning disorder. My Wechsler "performance" IQ is half my verbal one.
"It doesn't bother me, I find it funny and sometimes its annoying too. But we all have our "ways" about us. I find you to be an alright guy once I got past the "superiorism" in you."
I appreciate that, Coonhound, and I will, at the risk of being accused of being bipolar or some such something, try to adjust my "ways" to preserve the best and minimize the worst of them. :-)
"You are very unique and special:)"
I would like to think that we all are in our own ways.
"Your threats were to freak regarding Boogie's interview, not to Brenda"
Did I make an ILLEGAL "threat"? It would be ILLEGAL for me to send copies of some of Boogie's posts to the appropriate places and urge them to give them due consideration?
If you want to talk about REAL "threats," let's talk about some of the threatening things Boogie and Samantha have said to and about me. And let's also talk about the libelous accusations that have still not been retracted or apologized for.
Brenda. Now that I read this blog, and I send you a messages (and I know I have slipped in the past without asking, I'm sorry), but I type your name and then I backspace four times to take the Star off. Does it matter to you either way, Brenda or BrendaStar?
These posts today are great, and heading right to where Boogie ended up a few days ago. She is convinced chemicals were on those planes, and she pretty much has me convinced too. Only now there is a lot more to it than she was thinking when I look at these articles. I have a feeling I will be pulled over for more studies regularly unless she takes that job. (which I think she will... if nothing else to keep the beach warm for me!!!)
I am going to go take a break for a while so I can chat with you guys if you are on tonight.
JeffSees said...
Coonhound. You only need to reflect on your comments in this blog before any statements were made.
October 15, 2009 12:05 PM
***
I would kindly like some elaboration on this comment. Explain just a bit and perhaps refer me to a specific date. But please give me a general overview.
Maybe you should ask that question to your attorneys Nagarjuna.
But what's the point, why don't you just get "yourself" under "control" and stop threatening period.
YouAreSuchAFreak,
you can call me anything youd like to Brenda, brendastar, bren whatever is easiest for you.. :)
I am glad that you two are enjoying reading about this.. i too find it so interesting.. I am glad that we can share these ideas and thoughts with eachother... Warm beach thats nice thoughts :) ..
Goblinbee, I hope you are here to read this. I hope you won't leave this forum on my account. I will try to temper my "ways" so that they don't unduly interfere with real dialogue. But I feel as strongly about this 9/11 conspiracy theory business as Brenda seems to. If she is going to present only one side of the issue, I, in all probability, am probably going to continue to call her on it. I will do it as respectfully and substantively as I can, but I will probably continue to do it.
nag
"It would be ILLEGAL for me to send copies of some of Boogie's posts to the appropriate places and urge them to give them due consideration?"
Who exactly would you have sent them too ?
Which "real life" person. Boogie's not "real"
"Maybe you should ask that question to your attorneys Nagarjuna. "
I'm asking YOU, and you know as well as I do that if I decide to follow through with this, your friend has no leg to stand on.
Will I or won't I? What would Boogie do if she were in my situation? :-)
Now you are not making sense. That was not only not answered, but it is garbled. What?
I asked that question.
JeffSees
I know you had already asked it, but nag had ignored you.
Just thought I would ask him too.
What did you do a minute after you sent this message to Goblinbee:
will try to temper my "ways" so that they don't unduly interfere with real dialogue.
How are you tempering your ways? Does anything you ever say mean anything or are they just words. How many times are you going to apologize, and say things like this and then just continue. Why can you not see the problem?
Freak,
have you ever dealt with a
"civil harassment order?"
Thanks Tara, I was referring to my previous post where Nagarjuna did not answer my question but appeared to answer it to someone else.
"Maybe you should ask that question to your attorneys Nagarjuna. "
nag
"If she is going to present only one side of the issue, I, in all probability, am probably going to continue to call her on it. I will do it as respectfully and substantively as I can, but I will probably continue to do it."
So why not do your own research.
If you think that there are counter arguments, state them and then your comments might be taken seriously.
"Which "real life" person. Boogie's not "real"
Good question, Tara. I think I'll play my cards close to the vest on that one. :-) But let me ask you this? What relevance does your question have to the issue of whether or not I've made any illegal threats? And one final question: Why do you care whether I stick it to Boogie or not?
Actually, I have one more question for you and everyone else. Knowing me as well as you do, do you think I'm mean enough to actually do what I'm "threatening" to do? :-) Am I, or am I not? THAT is the question. :-)
nag
"Why do you care whether I stick it to Boogie or not?"
Who said I did care ?
nag
"Actually, I have one more question for you and everyone else. Knowing me as well as you do, do you think I'm mean enough to actually do what I'm "threatening" to do? :-) Am I, or am I not? THAT is the question. :-)"
So why threaten something that you would be unable to carry out ?
So what is the point of stating a threat if you are not mean enough to do it (or maybe do it).
Are you trying to intimidate and scare someone?
B*,
I know its pointless now, but I really believe that nag was truely concerned when he first addressed you regarding the 9/11 and illuminati stuff. I believe his intent was true concern for you.
And yes, we all harassed him (me, denise and tara) for not discussing it and then all of a sudden he comes in with words of wisdom for you.
Yes, he did appear arrogant and smug.
However, initally I do believe without a shadow of doubt that his intentions were genuine and sincere in cautioning you.
Its ok if you don't agree with him, of course.
And yes, he did go over board with riding you on it...very over board.
He lost focus of what was most important and got caught up in "proving" his point and defending it. That IS one of Nags weaknesses.
But, others did fuel the dispute. Review the posts right after we had those "technical" difficulties. The fire was and is still being fueled by others. Of course, nag isn't helping the situation either.
I don't know, just my 2 cents here.
But don't get me wrong, I wasn't impressed with how nag handled the situation with you either.
Why do you have this need to overpower people?
"How many times are you going to apologize, and say things like this and then just continue"
I'm not apologizing for anything. I have offered to temper my ways. There IS a difference, "Jeff." What I find interesting is that if I were to apologize for anything, it would be held against me as proof of my alleged instability. But if I don't apologize for things that even I consider to be wrong, that is undoubtedly held against me too. :-)
So, I don't concern myself with what you think or say when I actually DO apologize as opposed to pledging to change my behavior in certain ways. I just do it if I think it's merited.
How is it merited to apologize one minute and then attack the very person you apologized to the next minute... without cause, without word of the apologee.
The same goes for "temper" your words. Contain, restrain, keep in check. Why did you say this and then turn around and lash out right afterward?
Hugs and kisses to you B*.
"have you ever dealt with a
"civil harassment order?"
Ridiculous! Let me state this as simply as I can for you. This is the comments section of a blog. The comments section of a blog is a place for people to comment on what the blog owner or other commenters say. You post comments about 9/11 conspiracies. I comment on your comments as I see fit. I do not say anything in those comments that is illegal. Therefore, my comments aren't illegal.
"How is it merited to apologize one minute and then attack the very person you apologized to the next minute... without cause, without word of the apologee."
To WHOM did I "apologize" about WHAT and then attack in WHAT way immediately after I apologized?
"Why do you have this need to overpower people?"
Whom am I "overpowering?"
"But don't get me wrong, I wasn't impressed with how nag handled the situation with you either."
Nor was I, Coonhound, and I have not handled it that way since.
who posted that blog story about the woman who thought the police could not arrest her when she was nude, so when she broke the law and the police came she stripped.
People think all the time something is not illegal when it is.
A threat is illegal.
Do you not know? To WHOM did I "apologize" about WHAT and then attack in WHAT way immediately after I apologized?
I think you know, you just do not want to confront it. If you wanted to confront it, you would go back and read it.
Help yourself Nagarjuna. Strangers in a blog cannot do that for you. You did this on several occassions, unless there is something seriously wrong, you should very well remember these things, especially considering the frequency you have done them.
"So what is the point of stating a threat if you are not mean enough to do it (or maybe do it)."
Why do you ask, "Jeff"?
"Are you trying to intimidate and scare someone?"
What if I am? What if I'm only trying to stir a few beads of sweat? :-) Did you ask Boogie and Samantha what they were up to with their talk of coming after me? :-)
Wow! Coonhound really knows her Fire Ants!! And a way with words!
That was great, amiga! Just awesome.
"I think you know, you just do not want to confront it. If you wanted to confront it, you would go back and read it."
No, I don't know, Freak, I mean "Jeff." You tell me.
Who are you over powering?
The question was why. Your threats to send a complaint to someone elses employer. You stated you may or may not do this. It was asked of you why you would threaten it then?
Why would you use this threat to overpower someone.... overpower Nagarjuna an attempt to bring someone to their knees as you feel you have something over them. WHY?
Calling me names is not going to help either Nagarjuna. What is wrong with the question? Why will you not answer them?
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Thu, October 15, 2009 -- 6:11 PM ET
-----
Boy Thought Missing in Balloon Is Found Alive at Home
A 6-year-old boy thought to be inside a homemade helium
balloon that floated over Colorado for over two hours on
Thursday has been found alive at his home, a sheriff's deputy
said.
Read More:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/6-year-old-alone-in-hot-air-balloon-over-colorado/?hp&emc=na
Lol denise.
Yes, I do!
sounds like The Boy in the Bubble with John Travolta.
La la, la la la laaaaa
Post a Comment