From: trevjon@btinternet.com   
      
   "banana"  wrote in message   
   news:vmhzxWA3Q9qDFww1@borve.demon.co.uk...   
   > In article , Trevjon   
   >  writes   
   >   
   >>"banana"  wrote in message   
   >>news:q$3iXLAuS0qDFwh7@borve.demon.co.uk...   
   >>> In article <1135294949.722991.205590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,   
   >>> Rachel Spencer  writes   
   >>>   
   >>>>Trevjon wrote:   
   >>>>> "Rachel Spencer"  wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:1135291135.998288.170970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>>> > Is your name Cromwell or BB?  If not, don't talk to me.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> As I said, you haven't really got the hang of this usenet thingy, have   
   >>>>> you?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Funny how you didn't have a similar reply for your hero Banana isn't   
   >>>>> it,   
   >>>>> for   
   >>>>> as far as I can ascertain, his name is neither Cromwell or BB either.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Banana and I are friends whether I agree with Banana or not.  Banana is   
   >>>>my friend because he does not flame me whether or not he agrees with my   
   >>>>opinion/facts or not.   
   >>>   
   >>> I think any 'objective observer' would agree that, even if it weren't   
   >>> for anything else, all of the long-term 'fanatical' accidentalists on   
   >>> ACPD (or those whose posts are mainly aimed against 'assassinationists')   
   >>> have discredited themselves just by how they treat people!   
   >   
   >>So, from that we can assume that you agree with Rachel's remark that it   
   >>took   
   >>Bernhard 13 days to reply, and even when I explained to her that it   
   >>doesn't   
   >>quite work like that, she still didn't quite grasp the concept, and even   
   >>tried to explain the maths involved.  She then rather ironically calls me   
   >>an   
   >>asshole,   
   >   
   > Maybe it was your tone and the obvious fact that you were trying to wind   
   > her up?   
   >   
   > BB tried it by saying that "murder" should be put in the plural if more   
   > than one person has been murdered, and fell flat on his face. (If I were   
   > you, I'd probably comment on your absence of comment on the above, but   
   > really, what would be the point?)   
   >   
   > I don't know how often Bernhard reads this newsgroup, and I don't care.   
   >   
   >>which to any casual observer says far more about her than anything.   
   >>I'm still not quite sure if the essence of my remarks have actually sunk   
   >>in   
   >>yet.   
   >>   
   >>Of course, with your superior ability to analyse postings,   
   >   
   > Arsehole! :-)   
   >   
   >>you will have,   
   >>quite rightly, come to the same conclusion as me, that at best it displays   
   >>incredible "wooly thinking", and at worst, we are dealing with a complete   
   >>idiot.   
   >>   
   >>More astute observers will of course be quite able to come to their own   
   >>conclusions about the ability of posters with this type of thinking to   
   >>have   
   >>uncovered a dastardly murder plot,   
   >   
   > Do you think it was an accident then?   
      
   Depends upon your semantics, and how you interpret "accident".   
      
   Could it have been avoided?   Yes.   Was it handled well afterwards?  No.   
   Could you "blame" someone for it?  Yes, Dodi for a start, for his stupid   
   ideas, and his fixation with avoiding the paparazzi.  Is there confusion and   
   conflicting witness reports concerning the incident?  Yes, but that is why   
   most major incidents have Inquries afterwards, so the conflicting statements   
   can be examined. This incident is not unique in people having "seen" and   
   experienced different things.  Was it a conspiracy?   I don't think so, and   
   until there is some compelling evidence to PROVE otherwise, then I will be   
   left to the conclusion that is was an "accident".   A few half baked and   
   contradictory "theories", using half-truths, accusations, and downright   
   lies, do not lead one to conclude that it was anything but an "accident".   
      
      
   >   
   > The SIS Director of Operations just went to Paris to see some pictures   
   > in the Louvre, right?   
      
   Well, his presence in Paris is pretty meaningless unless you factor in the   
   frequency of his visits there.   Did he go there every few weeks, few months   
   or seldom?  Even you must realise that one piece of "evidence" is   
   meaningless unless put into context.   You've obviously made up your mind   
   that his presence in Paris is "suspicious", and I can only come to the   
   conclusion that you are in possession of other facts pertaining to the   
   frequency of his visits, which has enabled you to offer this opinion.   
   Would you care to share this information with us?   
      
      
   >   
   >>all by sitting behind a computer screen   
   >>thousands of miles away, trawling through worthless "conspiracy" sites,   
   >>and   
   >>presenting them as "fact".   
   >>   
   >>It just gets funnier and funnier.   
   >   
   > And you the comedy buff too...   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)