From: trevjon@btinternet.com   
      
   "Rachel Spencer"  wrote in message   
   news:1136177013.470069.205550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   > Trevjon wrote:   
   >> "Rachel Spencer"  wrote in message   
   >> news:1135434106.095973.14210@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >> > If the findings tend towards a muder theory, yes.  I know deep down   
   >> > this was no accident and so do you.   
   >>   
   >> Don't make stupid assumptions about people you have never met and don't   
   >> know.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > You have an agenda   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Don't make stupid assumptions about people you have never met and don't   
   >> know.   
   >   
   > Then why do you troll this NG?   
      
   Probably for similar reasons to yourself.  Or do you mean that you have an   
   "agenda"?   
      
      
      
   >>   
   >> >and you are   
   >> > doing whatever you can to promote the accident theory.  Do you work for   
   >> > the royals or just associate with them?  Geez, at this point I think   
   >> > you could be Fatty Soames trolling the net as Trvejon.   
   >>   
   >> Don't make stupid assumptions about people you have never met and don't   
   >> know.   
   >   
   > Why so defensive?   
      
   Just trying to "put your hat on straight", nothing more.  You have an   
   uncanny ability to show signs   
   of extreme wooly thinking, and yet can't see it yourself.  Lets just use   
   your logic for a moment shall we,   
   you assume that because I think it was an accident, then I must work for the   
   Royals.  Are we to assume   
   because you think it wasn't an accident that you must work for Fayad, or   
   associate with him?   
      
   I don't believe you can really be that stupid.   
      
      
   >> Are you so naive (or arrogant) to suggest that anyone with a different   
   >> point   
   >> of view to yourself must have an agenda? You don't know my opinions of   
   >> the   
   >> royals, but just stupidly assume that anyone taking a contrary position   
   >> to   
   >> yourself must be "one of them".  Just because I take up a different   
   >> position   
   >> with regard to the death of Diana does not automatically mean I support   
   >> the   
   >> royals.  Why would you think this?  Where have I ever mentioned support   
   >> for   
   >> the royals?  Wooly thinking on your behalf yet again.   
   >   
   > I have no problem with different agendas.  I have a problem with people   
   > who refuse to acknowledge the circumstantial evidence.  You may have   
   > never publicly supported those royals.  It's your opinion that makes   
   > one wonder.   
      
   Do you fully support the findings of the French Inquiry?   
      
      
   >>   
   >> You are totally entitled to your point-of-view, but are stupid to even   
   >> suggest that anyone with an opposite view is somehow working to an   
   >> agenda,   
   >> and is incapable of rational and independent thought.   
   >   
   > Stop with the insults.  It's demeaning to you alone and not what this   
   > NG is about.  Your opinion is fine whatever it may be.  Just back up   
   > your statements with facts.   
      
      
   Which facts do you want me to back up?  Maybe you should start the ball   
   rolling by backing up   
   the "fact" that a 1000Kg Fiat Uno can force a 3000Kg Merc off the road?   
   I think your definition of fact and my definition differ somewhat.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)