XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.conspiracy.princess-diana, uk.curre   
   t-events.terrorism   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.politics.british   
   XPost: uk.local.london, uk.media, uk.transport   
      
   hummingbird  wrote in   
   news:f40db2lm14vhggonrm6vol6ltisaiscvhk@4ax.com:   
      
   [Snips]   
   >>> I'll take that as an admission that you can't debunk.   
   >>   
   >>You can take it that way if you like, but it's not what I said, it's   
   >>not what I meant, and it's not true.  If your reading skills are so   
   >>weak that they make you leap to fatuous conclusions, that is entirely   
   >>your problem, and doesn't worry me in the least.   
   >   
   > It wasn't intended to worry you just to highlight the simple fact that   
   > you criticised the information but w/o any attempt to debunk it.   
      
   Clearly it was not merely highlighting a simple fact, as you proceeded to   
   draw a false inference from it.   
      
   My reasons for not deigning to respond to conspiracist hogwash were given   
   at some little length in an earlier posting.  Did you fail to read it, or   
   fail to understand it?   
      
   > Truth is that there are a lot of serious and factual questions with   
   > the official story but you prefer to brush them aside.   
      
   And do you think there are "serious and factual questions" about the   
   official story with respect to the 11th of September conspiracy, the JFK   
   conspiracy, the trilateral commission, the Bavarian Illuminati and the   
   lizards who replaced the Royal Family?   
      
   > Have you considered taking counselling?   
      
   No. Have you considered reading either of the books I recommended?   
      
   All the best,   
      
   John.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)