Rebuttal to "I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp

sorry, double post...
anyone else with a T1 having problems getting a post thru...
this one took 7 minutes...after pushing the post button...

maybe alot of new traffic...

[edit on 13-9-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
spook, huh?... tinfoil hats are no longer required on this thread... if we were to have a "spook" on board, giving us disinfo, then he probably wouldn't sign up under such a well known real name. We didn't hear disinfo... we heard the company line, and that is not the same thing... sometimes the company line is the truth, even if it does suck...

We are trying to establish a little modicum of interaction with officials that could provide much info, if they were to find logical mature interaction here... being called names, and drawing conspiracies where there are none, is not helpful.
I also want answers, but if we scare off every official word giver that graces our board, then we will be left in the same place we began... the dark.

PToooIEEEE...............................SPLAT!

deny ignorance, but don't kill the messenger of truth...

Food for thought.

1. The issue was raised about Ed having edited his bio that was found on Google. How do you do that? Other than the information found in a Google search is there any proof that Ed exists? I haven't seen anything that couldn't have been posted by a reasonably competent hacker. It is called creating a cover.
2. To me this is just too pat. I remember when we had trouble getting on ATS when Val's post took off. Then we happen to get someone to join who just happens to be one of the people in charge of the area that she investigated.
3. Ever since the movie Conspiracy Theory the general consensus is that conspiracy sites are populated by kooks and high school kids. We know that it isn't true about ATS, we have a few, but there is a lot of good info passed on here. I listen to talk radio at work and what amazes me is that the subjects on today we discussed two or three days ago.
4. I find it an amazing coincidence that just when Val's post is growing in popularity and has a good chance of being discovered by the mainstream media, Ed shows up and supposedly rebutts it. Then Ed makes the "mistake" of putting his phone number on his post. I don't know if there were death threats or not, but they were guarenteed to get some juvenile responses that damaged the credibility of this site. The death threats whether real or made up were just icing on the cake.

I seriously believe that there was an attack on ATS designed to damage the credibility of this site and the information posted here.

"I seriously believe that there was an attack on ATS designed to damage the credibility of this site and the information posted here."

Sounds reasonable to me.

fyi...
My girlfriend is a FEMA subcontractor... her boss talks to the FEMA guys all the time...
She was made aware of this story thru me... she in turn told her boss... who the heck knows who he told...

so it would be normal for an official to "head this off at the pass" as it were...
and try to deal with the people who had the misunderstanding personally (especially since this is all "okie business" at this point)...
that is why i respect this guy... he knew it was a veritable volcano, where there should only be concerned smoke...

BTW...Don't try to defame this guy... he is the real deal... look into his history to see if you think he is a government stooge... seems to have and use his own brain to me...
In other words... don't assume he is the enemy, he might just be a truly concerned American Patriot like many of us...
that may be why he bothered to address a conspiracy topic forum..

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
fyi...
My girlfriend is a FEMA subcontractor... her boss talks to the FEMA guys all the time...
She was made aware of this story thru me... she in turn told her boss... who the heck knows who he told...

so it would be normal for an official to "head this off at the pass" as it were...
and try to deal with the people who had the misunderstanding personally (especially since this is all "okie business" at this point)...
that is why i respect this guy... he knew it was a veritable volcano, where there should only be concerned smoke...

BTW...Don't try to defame this guy... he is the real deal... look into his history to see if you think he is a government stooge... seems to have and use his own brain to me...
In other words... don't assume he is the enemy, he might just be a truly concerned American Patriot like many of us...
that may be why he bothered to address a conspiracy topic forum..

If the guy is on the up and up, great. I mean no disrespect and don't want this to be considered a personal attack. There are just too many coincidents to me and the timing is very interesting. If Ed's bio is correct the possibility for this is there. I would like to look at his history, but I also know how easy it is to post information on the internet. Does anyone know if Ed is listed in Who's Who or if he has had anything printed about him? I feel that the possibility of this being a disinformation attack needed to be raised, after all this is a conspiracy site.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
1. The issue was raised about Ed having edited his bio that was found on Google. How do you do that? Other than the information found in a Google search is there any proof that Ed exists? I haven't seen anything that couldn't have been posted by a reasonably competent hacker. It is called creating a cover.

I'm going to be pretty vague becasue I don't want to give any undesireable people any pointers, but I contacted Ed through a government channel let's say. And he replied so I have no doubt he is who he says he is. Also the idea of a hacker breaking into Google and altering it's cache information and also into all those individual sites altering their dates and times and planting posts into the SQP databases of all those forums and also responding posts, etc, etc is a little far-fetched.
It's notions like that which add to the paranoid and delusional portrayal of conspiracy theorists as in the movie 'Conspiracy Theory', which you mentioned.

2. To me this is just too pat. I remember when we had trouble getting on ATS when Val's post took off. Then we happen to get someone to join who just happens to be one of the people in charge of the area that she investigated.

It's not that odd, it made it's way all across the Internet on a tremendous scale and was shoved in many people's faces. It's not that odd that he responded at all. And as for the lack of service then it has already been explained as to why. If you run your own site you should understand the issue and to say otherwise is indirectly accusing the manager's of this site to be in any conspiracy as they have already said that is was traffic issues.
Detailed logs off all activity are generated by the forum software and the hosting software so the sources and reasons of disruption can be specifically found.

3. Ever since the movie Conspiracy Theory the general consensus is that conspiracy sites are populated by kooks and high school kids. We know that it isn't true about ATS, we have a few, but there is a lot of good info passed on here. I listen to talk radio at work and what amazes me is that the subjects on today we discussed two or three days ago.

Well a lot of people on these types of boards are kooks and high school kids, but a lot arn't. If you recall in the movie he was also right about at least one thing, they hardly left you with a warm feeling of love for the government and feeling of security.

4. I find it an amazing coincidence that just when Val's post is growing in popularity and has a good chance of being discovered by the mainstream media, Ed shows up and supposedly rebutts it. Then Ed makes the "mistake" of putting his phone number on his post. I don't know if there were death threats or not, but they were guarenteed to get some juvenile responses that damaged the credibility of this site. The death threats whether real or made up were just icing on the cake.

I seriously believe that there was an attack on ATS designed to damage the credibility of this site and the information posted here.

Bullcrap, it is not co-incidence or unlikely that he responded at all. No more so than if you leave a load of broken glass on some petrol soaked rags in the midday sun they are likely to catch fire.
He may have very well made the mistake of putting his phone number on the post, he made the mistake of thinking that eveyone would act in a professional manner, sadly some people didn't.
He is human regardless of what training or experience he has. I know several upstanding people including people who are/have served in the forces including officers, but they still suffer from lapses of judgement in sometimes the simplest of situations.

If this was an 'attack', then it was a clever one.
He didn;t do anything, we did it ourselves or guests did if you prefer.
IF it was an 'attack' then it was doing no more than putting the knife on the table. We still had to pick it up and plunge it into ourselves.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I'm going to be pretty vague becasue I don't want to give any undesireable people any pointers, but I contacted Ed through government channel let's say. And he replied so I have no doubt he is who he says he is. Also the idea of a hacker breaking into Google and altering it's cache information and also into all those individual sites altering their dates and times and planting posts into the SQP databases of all those forums and also responding posts, etc, etc is a little far-fetched.
It's notions like that which add to the paranoid and delusional portrayal of conspiracy theorists as in the movie 'Conspiracy Theory', which you mentioned.

Since you have verified it through other means, good enough for me.


You don't have to break into Google to post false information all you have to do is to get it posted before hand. We just fired a guy because he falsified his resume by giving us his supposed previous company's website to verify his employment. We didn't know that he copied the company's site inserted his bio and reposted it in a different area with a close address.

Ah yes you can be clever, but there is too much out there and it would be far too complicated and elaborate for such a relatively minor task, most of the members here are highly intelligent and vigilant in spotting such discrepancies too.Also to plant that information on himself and then wipe it on the day before (or even make it look that way) posting on ATS would be rather pointless in my opinon.

The only other way would be to plan weeks in advance, but that would mean previous knowledge of the Hurricane and also Val's post to respond to in the first place.

It's not impossible as such, but far too extravagent when it is simpler to have a real person respond.
And I cant see why anyone else would go to such extraordinary lengths to be honest.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

Ok,

Ed is legit. Now what?

The best we could probably hope for now is for someone to try and get an interview with him. I tihnk it would be best to leave it a couple of days at least though to let the situation calm down in that respect.
I dropped him a line but it would probably be more appropiate for either Val or some other member of senior staff to carry it out in this case.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

I dropped him a line but it would probably be more appropiate for either Val or some other member of senior staff to carry it out in this case.

I actually don't agree with this. This would end up appearing as a conflict of interest. A third party needs to conduct an interview with Mr. Ed, if he will agree. I've made real clear what my questions are that weren't answered, so it doesn't really matter to me who asks them.

Have Skeptic OverLord do it.. he seemed to be the nicest one out of all of us.

[edit on 9/13/2005 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by Valhall
Somewhere -
We affirm the autonomy of the local church.

Then affirm it, and support it rather than denegrate it unwittingly simply because you desired to post a negative view of the very camp that your church agreed to lease to the government and instal with its volunteers.

It is about time that your initial post is excised and exposed for its propagandist portrayal as suited you.

You wasted no time to set your scene for the obvious slant of your story by your choice of language:

This is no place to start a new life.

The very fact that you deemed it necessary to inconspicuously take pictures of law enforcement cars speaks to your intended hunt for controversy.

It is evident that you are a member of the Southern Baptist Congregation, yet you reduce this facility built on the donations of those just like you, from what I am sure the SBC envisions as a camp basking in serenity, peace and beauty, which they purposefully nestled within the hills far enough from the hustle and bustle of towns for the young of your fellow Baptists to enjoy, to a heavily guarded Gulag like camp planted in the middle of the Siberian hills of Oklahoma. Did you ever object to the congregations’ children being sequestered in this isolated place where they themselves no doubt cannot come and go as they please, and does the term; ‘camp’ bother you only when the word; ‘youth’ does not appear before it, or does your concern only turn to depression when adults from out of state will be filling the dormitories? You! After all, must have been agreement with this choice of real estate for the placement of the youth camp, and I would hazard a very good guess, that your description of the very same scenery would read like it were paradise nestled between the arms of God.

Your tone intended from the very beginning to lead the reader down a path that you decided they must go, and it is important that I isolate some of that from the cutie niceties of your interspersed within it, and do so in one quote:

All of sudden the landscape changed from picturesque mountainous rural America, to something foreign to me as we approached the rear gate of the camp. Two Oklahoma State Patrol vehicles and four Oklahoma Troopers guarded the gate…

We noticed that the various church cabins had numbered placards on them that normally weren’t there… [pic provided]
Then we got the first negative message. “You can’t bring any clothes in. FEMA has stated they will accept no more clothes. They’ve had 30 people sorting clothes for days. They don’t want anymore.” My mind couldn’t help but go back over the news articles that have accused FEMA of refusing water in to Jefferson Parrish, or turning fuel away…
… we learned our cabin had been designated a “male only” cabin. Approximately 40 men, ranging from age 13 on up would be housed there…
… The “host” (the hosts are Oklahoma civilians who have been employeed??? by FEMA…
… have already gone through at least one “orientation” meeting conducted by FEMA at “BASE” which is some unknown but repetitively referred location within the camp)…
That’s when we got the next message: They will not be able to use the kitchen.
Excuse me? I asked incredulously.
FEMA will not allow any of the kitchen facilities in any of the cabins to be used by the occupants due to fire hazards. FEMA will deliver meals to the cabins. The refugees will be given two meals per day by FEMA. They will not be able to cook
the “host” goes on to explain, some churches had already enquired about whether they could come in on weekends and fix meals for the people staying in their cabin. FEMA won’t allow it because there could be a situation where one cabin gets steaks and another gets hot dogs – and…
it could cause a riot.
It gets worse.
He then precedes to tell us that some churches had already enquired into whether they could send a van or bus on Sundays to pick up any occupants of their cabins who might be interested in attending church. FEMA will not allow this.
If they leave the camp they may never return. They will be issued FEMA identification cards and “a sum of money” and they will remain within the camp for the next 5 months.
… “Welcome to Krakow…”
…This scares my mother who asks “Do you mean they have leased it?...”
…“There will be no milk, ma’am.”…It could cause a riot…”
… It could cause a riot. You don’t understand the type of people that are about to come here….”
… the host says to me and my daughter, “How did you get in here?”…
“No, HOW did you get in here? No one who doesn’t have credentials showing is supposed to be in here.” (I had noticed all the “hosts” had two or three badges hanging around their necks.)…
“Well, starting in the morning NO ONE comes in…”
But there was more…an Oklahoma Department of Safety truck and a military vehicle…

and a cell phone tower…
A horde of “hosts” who had been hovering at a nearby cabin head toward us…
…It’s at that point my son pulls me aside and says, “Every damned one of them have the same phone…”
This cabin was apparently commandeered by a group of people in navy blue jumpsuits with insignias all over them.[pic provided]
Three firetrucks parked along the river.[pic provided]
Talk about a surreal moment…troops (unknown if Regular or National Guard) have taken up residency in the Durant First Baptist Church cabin very near the main gate of the camp.
we passed a row of about 6 or 8 ambulances parked in the street just in front of the troop cabin, and the large tent on the top of the hill…we have no idea what that is for.[pic provided]
Main gate completely blocked by OHP vehicles as we approach: [pic provided]

Yes, I suppose you would rather that you and anyone else would be able to drive up, drive through and go any and everywhere desired. That the SBC would be quite willing to house 3,000 people-- a number larger than that of Davis by your own admission, on their property, and provide no security and no medical assistance when according to you, the next nearest trace of civilization is found

The road has not a single home on it for over 3 miles. After battling that 3 miles over mountains, you’ll find yourself about 5 miles from the nearest town, Davis, Oklahoma, population ca. 2000

Do you suppose that Davis has its own such resources? Either you expect the doctors in that town to be fully able to address and treat any illness and disease any of these 3,000 new inhabitants may have contracted from feces, rotting corpse, slime and oil infested sludge and waters, and the evacuees to police themselves, or you gave it no thought as to the necessity for these services.

Yet, I see no picture of any towering gate or fence surrounding the premises, and the four officers answering only to the wiles of your smile allowed you to pass unescorted through the gate. Such slack security this for a place you present as wanting to hold in isolation and bondage, 3,000 people far from their home state. So slack in fact that they would allow four people whom they have never set eyes on before, nor checked out to roam about inside.

I fail to understand the relevance of your noting the cabins were numbered, after all it is a universal identifier for finding anything from the sleaziest motel room to the swankiest abode on the planet. I would take it for fact that the cabins being sequentially numbered would be far easier to find than trying to locate the plethora of names each has been assigned by their church sponsor.

And God forbid that you missed the notice by a host of agencies including your SBC that clothing and food is not what is wanted at this. If one is to conclude that such donations are a bad thing, then one must also conclude that your Southern Baptist Church is in cahoots with FEMA to starve and keep naked, these displaced and transplanted evacuees. From the “hosts” as you put it who showed up in droves to meet the SBC call for volunteers, right through to whomever controls the purse-strings.

We see no picture of the kitchen(s) in your photos, why not? What we see is a picture of a dormitory built initially to house children, with bunk-beds neatly laid with crisp white sheets. Whom would you expect to be doing the cooking for this dormitory if it were the residents, and how exactly would you allocate the rush to the kitchens by a few to prepare their favourite meals for the rest of the crowd? Evidently you are not aware that since this “detention camp” has been turned over for control to a party other than the property owners, said property owners’ insurance coverage is extremely limited. And evidently you do not understand that Government when it comes to property insurance prefers the self-insured route, which means that they do not have the deep pockets of AIG or FM to look to for settling fire claims or other coverages of destruction.

Why exactly the leasing of the property to FEMA would “scare” your mother certainly is a conundrum. I trust that those who were sheltered by FEMA as lousy a job as they are doing, are quite pleased that FEMA managed to come up with housing in their time of need. The issue at present for those displaced by Katrina is first and foremost to find them adequate shelter. It should come as no surprise to anyone that such shelter would be temporary and cannot be expected to be a lovely little community sitting empty waiting for a disaster to strike hundreds of thousands so as to fill these homes and cul-de-sacs with new settlers and their gleeful kids and pets. And as charitable as your SB peers might be, the operative word here is “leased” meaning that for those who control the finances of the congregation engaged in a business transaction, likely for monetary gain.

These “hosts” as you connote so negatively were who exactly? You gave no mention of their affiliation, how they got there and on whose behalf they act. You further provided no name by which said hosts can be identified. I see no commandeering of anything, where is the evidence of guns? What I see are a few people relaxing, just as I see security vehicles and ambulances. And I certainly see no pictures from you of there being on these premises a police station or hospital where these vehicles would normally be parked. I saw nothing as to the credentials of this yes ma’am host that would even suggest he would be in the know as to the plans of this commandeered youth camp, all I saw was an insalubrious representation of an alarmist.

I would rather doubt that an unnamed and nonqualified (by you) volunteer would venture to bark at anyone just dropping off a donation: ” “Well, starting in the morning NO ONE comes in…” without qualifying why that would be so, and I note that none of you apparently bothered to pursue the reason behind this edict.

Setting the tone positively Valhall, would have changed the entire impression of your visit had you after describing the lovely area noted that upon arrival at the gate and then through the gate you were pleased to see that security had been set in place not only to ensure that the churches’ property was safeguarded but that in such a remote place adequate protection and medical aid had been provided for the health, safety and welfare of the temporary community of 3,000. That you were delighted to learn that ample clothing was said to be on hand, that accommodations were clean, tidy, that beds were being readied and that the evacuees would be provided with two decent meals each day. And thanks to the overwhelming response from hundreds of volunteers who cared enough to drive long distances, the response provides a ratio of 1 volunteer for every 8 residents.

You could even have chosen to end same by stating that you were perplexed as to the nazi-like (that which you portray) attitude of the volunteer. But you did not.

And I could also say that you're a twisted trouble maker, but that wouldn't make it any less (or more) obvious, now would it?

Discussions over. You're officially ignored.

[edit on 9-13-2005 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
And I could also say that you're a twisted trouble maker, but that wouldn't make it any less (or more) obvious, now would it?

Discussions over. You're officially ignored.

[edit on 9-13-2005 by Valhall]

I understand valhall, since you decided that you did not like my response to you, you opted instead to utilize your powers and target me for excessive quoting. I suppose the fact that I decided to place all of your relevant quotes in one spot as opposed to individual boxes takes much more space.


How many points toward my trip tp Tahiti did I lose?

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
I posted verbatim my inquiry and Mr. Kostiuk's response and there is really no way to determine if any of the supposed calls came from members of ATS.

Very interesting qualifier noted: "supposed".

Maybe the obvious question has been asked further down in the thread, but in case not, let's ask it now: Do we REALLY know that these "supposed" calls REALLY occurred?

I'm not "calling Ed a liar", I'm just suggesting that in a situation like this, i.e., where one REALLY wants to extract himself from a "situation" (such as this thread, where questions are being asked that will NOT be answered), there are, ahem, "socially convenient" mechanisms to facilliatate the extraction.

The fall into the "white lie" category. I'm talking about things like the old gambit of, when someone you REALLY don't want to visit you is pulling into your driveway, you quickly grab your hat and coat, pick up your briefcase, and open the door right as they're getting ready to ring the bell, and with a look of complete surprise, you say how much you regret that you were just on your way out the door to a VERY important meeting.

Or, when you CANNOT politely end a phone call, you "hang up on yourself", i.e., you say something, and in the middle of your sentence, you push down the hook, terminating the call (simulating a "we were disconnected") situation. You then leave the phone off the hook after the connection is broken. The logic is that the other party will think that YOU think that HE hung up on YOU, and will not call back -- and if he DOES, he'll get a busy signal, thinking "oh dang, not only did we get disconnected, but now the line's out of order!"

BTW I learned about the "hang up on yourself" stunt when several telemarketer vermin did it to ME! They must train them...

When it gets a bit stickier, what better way to provide cover for leaving a forum, indignant, offended, "afraid", than to assert that you are receiving DEATH THREATS for something you said?

Looking at this rationally, there ISN'T any rational explanation for "death threats" to be made, if the goal is to try to get the guy to answer the questions. Why on earth would someone who wants to get answers, do something that is guaranteed to provide an "out" to evade ANY further interaction?

It makes no sense, and seems fully consistent with a "white lie" excuse for getting out of the awkward situation.

In any case, if someone really DID make any calls like that, they can easily be tracked down and prosecuted. I would be very surprised if government lines going into that sort of agency were NOT rigged with ANI, which unlike Caller ID, CANNOT be "blocked" by the caller (and cannot be SPOOFED either).

Another thing that makes me wonder about the likelihood of the "death threats" being an excuse for evading the questions is the fact that this guy is a pro. I'm sure he's WELL equipped for FAR more decisive "E&E" tactics than this, should he perceive the need to employ them.

In conclusion, about the only thing I can think of mitigating against the probability of the "death threats" being a mild "white lie" for E&E purposes is the "But gosh, that Ed's SUCH a nice feller, he's jes' a reg'lar GOOD O' BOY!"

And for that, I give him a brownie star for effective character development. Sort of like James Bond successfully presenting himself as a backwoods grease monkey. "Check yer' oil, dude?"

Yeah, it's all conjecture. But in the cricketworthy absense of ANSWERS, that's really all we've got to work with -- that, and the known facts, scant as they may be.

If I was Ed, I would certainly not hesitate to use whatever gambit I deemed workable to excuse me from further discourse.

And remember, if I (if I as Ed) simply bailed, then that would NOT play very well. I'd need a REASON, or at least a "justification" to bail. "Death threats" against me? Yeah, that'd do.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
[HUGE flame deleted...]

There seems to be some ignorance of how the Southern Baptist "religion" (to quote the incorrect nomenclature I've seen used here) operates.

Each Southern Baptist church IS in fact a separate operation. There is NO hierarchy -- there is NO "presbetery" or "bishops" or ANY "structure". It's even a bit of a stretch to call it a "denomination". There is no overruling/overriding organization that dictates anything to the individual churches. There is no "authority" from some hierarchy that can tell the churches what to do, how to act, etc. Yeah, there ARE policy matters and such, and a foundational doctrinal understanding, and if any particular church decided to start killing chickens in front of burning candles and selling mojo bags, I think they'd find themselves excluded from the fellowship of rest of the SBC churches, and likely restrainded from using the SBC name. The "Convention" is something you can consider "a network of peers", NOT a hierarchical structure like the Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc. Churches.

In case anyone wonders my credentials, I am speaking as a former Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher. Yeah, not much by way of credentials, I admit, but, it should be sufficient for THIS little snit.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I didn't do it!

(Seriously)

But I DID tell him it was a bad idea to post his phone number. Now he knows why.

Well, not so fast there, podnah!

IF someone were going to enter an area of operations in which he REALLY wanted to leave an escape mechanism in place so that he could conveniently "self-extract" should it become expeditious for him to book on out at the drop of a hat, then that phone number "naively" placed into the post would be an EXCELLENT "out".

This begs the issue of just HOW "naive" a world class "spook" can possibly be. Personally I do NOT buy the idea that someone with his documented history, skills, and intelligence, could be THAT naive and "innocent of the ways of the 'net", and leave his number without realizing the potential for abuse.

Given the desirability of doing everything possible to AVOID driving the guy away, I am very skeptical of the alleged "death threats" being anything other than an excuse for bailing when it got too hot.

This is all conjecture and opinion ONLY, and I welcome alternative possible explanations that match the known facts.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

The very fact that you deemed it necessary to inconspicuously take pictures of law enforcement cars speaks to your intended hunt for controversy.

I suggest that you go and read again how the pictures were actually taken and then reroute your train of thought. You might arrive at a different station.

It is understandable to make that mistake, even Mr. Ed did the same, so you're in a good company. I also understood it in the way you seemingly did when I read it for the first time, but then again, english is my third language...

Originally posted by Count

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

The very fact that you deemed it necessary to inconspicuously take pictures of law enforcement cars speaks to your intended hunt for controversy.

I suggest that you go and read again how the pictures were actually taken and then reroute your train of thought. You might arrive at a different station.

It is understandable to make that mistake, even Mr. Ed did the same, so you're in a good company. I also understood it in the way you seemingly did when I read it for the first time, but then again, english is my third language...

I think this is a hopeless cause for you trying to get somewhereinbetween to act in any reasonable fashion. Somewhere has outright stated I do believe on this thread but most definitely in a u2u to me that their intention - the goal of all this twisting and false accusations against me - is for me to recant my story. Period. This member has stated outright that their desire is for me to say "No it really didn't happen. I made it all up...and/or I told a hyperbolic tale to... (and this is the almost verbatim accusations somewhere made) "foster the conspiratorial side of this board"." The member has been forthright in what they are attempting, and I have been bluntly and even OBSCENELY candid that they can basically spit in one hand and wish in the other to see which one fills up first, but that this is not going to happen. And I have invited the member to do several things with themselves, but to leave me alone.

Somewhere seems to be of the opinion that if they continue to attack me personally in public and attempt to cast doubt on my character and intent, that I will eventually cave in under pressure and say "you win, I take it all back". The member also seems to be under the impression that because THEY decided they don't believe my story...that makes it absolutely - no discussion - FALSE.

Hence the use of my ignore button on this member. The member has proven they don't mind one bit attacking my integrity, attempting character assassination through inuendo, implying "nefarious intentions", or employing outright false accusations. Since they won't stop, I refuse to read their filth, and definitely won't be responding to it.

I'm afraid you're attempting to push a rope at this point in your efforts to get this member to review their position. This is a personal attack against me - they won't care if their statements are totally wrong.

[edit on 9-14-2005 by Valhall]