Julian Penrod
4 Fairfield Avenue
West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006
(973) 220-1601
julianpenrod@comcast.net

November 9, 2005




Letters to the Editor






Dear sirs:

As vital as it is to oppose the malignant and corrupt, it is just as important to be able to recognize them, when you see them.

In fighting criminality in high office, many opine that part of the disadvantage for them is that the actions by those in office are not made known to the public. But, in fact, if you look closely enough, you can see that hints and suggestions are everywhere. It only takes the willingness to admit what the signs show.

November 9, 2005 saw three massive explosions in hotels used largely by Westerners in Jordan. The explosions were nearly simultaneous, and that is one of the "clues" used to link them to al Zarqawi and al Qaeda. But the event was unprecedented in that, even though Jordan has always been a supposed ally of the United States in the Middle East, and a supporter of the Israel Peace Plan, it never before saw anything like this kind of attack! Too, al Zarqawi was a Jordanian and, despite all obligatorily slanted representations of al Zarqawi being a man who recognizes no friendships, he would still find it easier to operate if he didn't have those closest to him angry at him.

Compounding the nature of the event is the fact that it occurred on the day after one of the most stunning defeats for George Bush in his entire presidency! On November 8, in an apparent mandate on Bush's own evidently psychotic brand of malfeasance in office, two governorships were awarded to the Democrats, and a raft of "reform measures" dear to Arnold Schwarzenegger in California were soundly defeated. Bush's own administration was in serious trouble, in recent months, over the evidently insane nature of his handling of the Iraq occupation; the mounting American casualties, with no end in sight; evidence of wholesale criminality in the running of Abu Ghraib Prison; the administration apparently leaking the name of Valerie Plame to hurt her husband, a critic of the invasion of Iraq; Republican leaders in both houses of Congress being under investigation for massive criminality; Bush and his cabinet being under scrutiny for palpably horrendous handling of the devastation of Hurrican Katrina; Vice President Cheney's chief of staff being indicted for lying to a grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame matter; evident deliberate failure by the White House to control profiteering by the oil companies, all combined to give the appearance of the Bush Administration as something depraved and malevolent! Recent hushed reports in the White House tell of Bush, himself apparently innately incapable of taking criticism of any form, literally exploding against staffers for only minor infractions! Suddenly, the Bush Administration was beginning to look, even more than ever, at the very least "irrelevant", and, at worst like a liability rather than a benefit!

And then, suddenly, and out of nowhere, after the utter defeat of November 8, comes an unprecedented, and, frankly, non-credible attack on hotels in Jordan, apparently intended to restore him to "relevancy" as an "anti-'terrorist'"! The timing is outlandishly suspicious, as are the circumstances! After all that has gone on in that area, it is utterly non-believable that a hotel hosting Westerners would fail to take precautions!

In the end, it has all the appearance of being staged, to allow Bush both to salvage his monstrous ego, and to reinvigorate his program of turning the United States into a rogue aggressor nation, feeding Wall Street greed with other nations' riches, under the guise of "the war on 'terror'"!

In fact, for those who have refused to believe what the Oval Office tells them to, this will seem part of an even larger pattern! Every time Bush has experienced skepticism of his policies and criticism of his actions in office, it has been followed by a new and unprecedented "'terrorist' attack"! Initial complaints about the invasion of Iraq being interminable, and public disquiet over it, were answered by the train bombing in Madrid. Evidence that the administration had lied about the Hussein government, to arrange the invasion of Iraq, and public disquiet over it, were followed by the bombings in the London Underground!

And the evidence continues to mount that the attacks on the Twin Towers were engineered with the cooperation of the White House, so Bush could try to become a military dictator, without admitting that that was his ultimate goal!

In fact, as accusations against the Bush White House piled up, conspiracy sites across the internet had messages posting warnings of the imminence of the administration pulling another "'terrorist' attack"!

How many times must the obvious be in front of many people's faces before they acknowledge it?

When the government proves that it is controlled by a madman, it is up to the public to protect their welfare!

They must deluge news editors' and politicians' desks with letters and emails, telling them that they know what's going on!

They must boycott all big business, and, in that way, starve the president's cronies of the money they use to engineer criminalities!

They must boycott all elections, as a massive vote of no confidence!

They must starve the government of the armed thugs it uses to enforce the malignant wishes of the criminals in charge, by recommending that their children not enter the police, the National Guard or the Armed Forces!

They must certainly refuse ever to believe anything any politician ever says to them!

And, most importantly, they must involve themselves deeply in what's going on around them, so they will always be ready to denounce unethicality when it occurs!



Julian Penrod

This is a brave guy. I don't agree with everything he said, only the part about the government being led by a madman.

Likewise, I disagree with much of what he said. He does make some valid points though.

i agree with the government lead by a mad man, but think this guy is a little bit off his rocker. three nearly simultaneous explosions being a clue to bush being behind it???? ok. whatever ya say there fella

Of course, don't you see? Bush is a religious fanatic, right? A trinity of explosions!
By the way, just kidding.

but he is also an owl loving devil worshipper. so there should have been 666 explosions, or would that have been to obvious? lol.

"Coo coo, coo coo," says the birdie in the clock.

Hmmm. . . . . you have a point.

Control through fear. The appeasers are easy targets.

Yeah lets boycott new people joining the military, that'll teach em.. What a joke man.. If we don't have a military things would change really quick. Lets just invite say, China over to take over. What a crazy article. Sure there were some good points, but come on.. That person is on crazy pills.

I said it before and I'll say it again Bush is an Idiot !!!!

Didn't Zarqawi attack Jordan in the 90's? *THE 90's.*

Julian Penrod
4 Fairfield Avenue
West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006
(973) 220-1601
julianpenrod@comcast.net

November 10, 2005











To all:

The majority of the responses to my post are a textbook example of the technique by "debunkers" of derailing legitimate discussion by inserting untruths and misrepresentations into the matter, coupled with the tendency by those of - it has to be said - frankly questionable intelligence and uncertain principle preferring to go along with the truthless statements, rather than pursuing the truth.

SoLLiZ describes me as being "a little bit off his rocker", claiming that I was saying that "three [sic] nearly simultaneous explosions being a clue to bush {sic} being behind it". To that, iaapac quips that "Bush is a religious fanatic" and so describes this as "a trinity of explosions"! They quickly backtrack, saying, "just kidding", but space has been deovted to that "validation" of SoLLiZ's statement, and those new to the subject, and conpsriact theories in general, can have been badly sidetracked by the quip. To this, SoLLiZ responds that, being "an owl loving devil worshipper", Bush should have set off 666 explosions. To that, LarryOldtimer provides a completely unavailing and unhelpful reply. And iaapac, who originally demonstrated a willingness to consider the points I made, now says that the suggestion of 666 simultaneous explosions indicating that Bush was behind the event was "a point".

I never said that the fact that the three explosions were simultaneous indicates Bush's involvement!

In fact, I said that that is what is leading official sources to claim it was planted by al Qaeda. I said that the consistent synchronicity of "'terrorist' attacks" with downturns in the popularity and trust in the Bush Administration stongly argues for this having been engineered by the Oval Office! The bombings in Madrid and London were also unprecedented, and each followed close on the heels of questions rising swiftly about the legitimacy of the Bush Administration's policies and practices!

Why did SoLLiZ not realize this? Or is that the same as asking why the crook is breaking the law? Why, though, didn't iaapac read the letter closely enough to counter SoLLiZ's invalid "interpretation"? Their evident intellectual or personal failings that led them to not read the letter through carefully enough seems to have led them to agree with the misrepresentation of the truth that SoLLiZ was trundling!

I mentioned, elsewhere on this site, about the internet being used to quash the truth, rather than promote it. One evident facet of this program, unfortunately, seems to be the shortcomings of many looking at these forums! A population that wants to be lied to, or that, at least, doesn't mind it, will find unscrupulous individuals more than willing to accommodate them!

In addition, and even more suspicious, is a curious pattern that has been emerging. The first in this series, the attacks on the World Trade Center, occurred on the date of 9/11. That has attained an almost shibboleth power, among many. The attacks in Madrid, many were quick to realize, took place 911 days after the attacks in New York. And, now, the bombings in Jordan, CNN took pains to inform the public, took place on November 9, the ninth day of the eleventh month, that, in Europe and the Middle East, is written as 9/11! In order to maintain a paranoid sensitivity, making the people vulnerable to assertions that only in Bush can they find safety, it has been repeatedly opined that “terrorists” are willing to “bide their time”, and look for “any opening”. This, coupled with their supposedly being under pressure from the military, would make their actions all the more likely to be random, and uncoordinated. How, then, are they managing to stage so many attacks in the “911” numerical pattern? Only a source that was being allowed to plan its actions without pressure from outside would be able to maintain such a pattern!

But there are those, it seems, willing to acknowledge the truth. There were reports all over the internet, by "conspiracy theorists", warning of the diminishing of popularity of the president, and lessening of confidence in his policies, being attended by another massive "'terrorist' attack", to try to momentarily strengthen his numbers. Has anyone such as SoLLiZ and iaapac even questioned why "terrorists" would persist in a tactic that, in the past, has only resulted in an increase Bush's ratings, even if temporarily? In fact, the bombings of the past few years have never achieved any success, so why would they continue them?

And, no, Madrid is not a sign of the bombings working! They people of Spain apparently were already against their existing government, and strongly wanted to pull out of Iraq. The shallow conveniently forget - if they ever had the mental acuity to know! - that Spain has a strongly Moorish element in their history, and so can be sympathetic when an Arab country is evidently invaded, on a lie, to steal its riches! To whatever extent they credited the bombs to al Qaeda and not the Oval Office, their perception seems to have been that, if they were willing to do something like this, they probably had a compelling reason! In other words, they embraced the sentiment so steadfastly fought by the standard dictatorship, such as our present government seems to be, namely, "the other side might be in the right"! Since the greedy and grasping, who are the basis, evidently, of most dictatorships, only see their stealing from others as "right", it is characteristically impossible for them to see anyone else as being in the right! Summarily demanding, without review, the idea that someone else may be in the right is a mainstay of tyrants.

And, for the "nay-sayers", I am not "flaming". SoLLiZ did misrepresent my statements. If they had an honorable, legitimate reason for crediting something to me that I didn't say, what was it? And if iaapac has a plausible "explanation" for foregoing the truth, to embrace statement founded on an untruth, what is it? And, as for LarryOldtimer's nonforthcoming response, are they interested only in taking up space, and not providing anything that allows discussions to progress? And, no, I am not summarily demanding, without review, the idea that someone else may be in the right. My criticisms are all valid and demonstrable.

If the internet is to be used toward a correct end, it must be used in a correct manner.



Julian Penrod

Actually, the 'clue' used to link the explosions to Al Zarqawi - a sworn enemy of Jordan - was the annoucmement made on an Islamic web site that Al Qaeda were behind the bombings and describing Jordan as the "backyard garden for the enemies of the religion"

And the fact that one of the suicide bombers deliberated targetted a Jordanian - Arab - wedding party shows just how determined he was to kill Westerners.......

It's not implausible to suggest that a tyrant might orchestrate such a rouse to divert attnetion from his own sick agenda. It's an old story.

But what scientific or forensic evidence is there to point accusing fingers AWAY from al-Qaeda???
Where is that evidence, so conspicuous by its absence????

Julian, we are not debunking anything, for it is not an opinion. it is a fact that Al-Quada bombed Jordan.

Julian Penrod
4 Fairfield Avenue
West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006
(973) 220-1601
julianpenrod@comcast.net

November 18, 2005











To all:

In fact, Essan's assertions aside, CNN announced first that the simultaneous nature of the explosions suggested an al Qaeda tie. Hours later, the tape taking responsibility was revealed.

A point about, among other things, that aspect, though.

How quick so many people are, these days, to make pronouncements supportive of the overall Bush policy! CNN quotes "experts" saying that the simultaneity of the explosions indicate al Qaeda involvement.

As if no one else but al Qaeda has the ability to make several bombs go off at the same time!

How quick they are, for that matter, to automatically say that the tape is definitely from al Zarqawi! They don't even make analyses, and yet they still say it must be him, because he says so! Even CNN found it wise to insist, from that time, that they don't know for sure who sent that tape. Even after receiving the following tape, they continue to refer to "this person" who sent the tape! Evidently, they know that circumstances are entirely convincing! And even if they do prove that the tape is fom him, frankly, that still isn't proof that he did it! After every crime, the police know, countless individuals come forward claiming involvement or guilt! Even if someone is shown holding a gun to someone's head, and pulling the trigger, the police still require finding the bullet and comparing the rifling to the gun, and examining the wound, before actually saying that the alleged perpetrator was guilty!

This brings to mind, among other things, the tacit determined failure to perform any forensic work at all on the remains of the Twin Towers! They demand that you believe that the planes flying into the towers caused their total collapse!

For that matter, how quick apologists and shills for the Bush policy are to claim that victims of "terrorist" attacks are all "innocent"! Where is their proof? Do they look into the backgrounds of the individuals, to show that they haven't committed human rights abuses against Iraqis?

If it wasn't so ghastly, it would be more reminiscent of Joan Rivers' old joke about her girlfriend giving birth only 6 months after getting married, and her mother immediately calling everyone they knew and insisting, "It was premature! It was premature!"

Tangentially, there is a question about the woman who wanted to join her husband, supposedly, in carrying out a suicide bombing. Both were equipped with vests containing ball bearings, to cause more damage. Yet, she claims, her husband's vest went off, but hers didn't, and, afraid of getting caught, she fled immediately. Even though she was at the far end of the ballroom from her husband, it seems non-credible that she wasn't injured! The vest bombs are not minor things, and what the bombs didn't do, the ball bearings were supposed to accomplish! Yet she supposedly "survived" both effects of the bomb! Even though I am not sure anyone else in the ballroom was declared to have survived! it sounds like she has been concocted to convince the gullible that this was a "terrorist" threat. Solely because she says so!

And BigDaddy_GFS and PadawanOsswe get in the act. BigDaddy_GFS insists, “But what scientific or forensic evidence is there to point fingers AWAY from al-Qaeda???” And PadawanOsswe definitively asserts, “we are not debunking anything, for it is not an opinion. It is a fact that al-Qada [sic] bombed Jordan.” If BigDaddy_GFS were more devoted to the truth, they would have asked, in fact, what evidence points away from Washington? Can BigDaddy_GFS provide that? They invoke only “scientific” and “forensic” evidence? What “evidence”, the kind of evidence provided by individuals with a proven track record of at least apparent deliberate deception? They claim to have been in the dark about events leading up to the attacks on September 11 and to have been so moronic that they actually “saw” chemical weapons vats in trucks where they weren’t, and now we’re supposed to take their word for this? If UFO proponents had as bad a track record as “official sources”, those such as BigDaddy_GFS, it seems, would demand their head on a stick for even suggesting the sky is blue! But, now, they are so gung ho about accepting any little administration serving comment that issues forth? And where is the provable “evidence” that PadawanOsswe relies upon? Did they actually see any of the “evidence”, or are they depending blindly on the assertion of administration sources that such “evidence” existed? And what “evidence”? The fact that the bombs were simultaneous, or the fact that a tape claimed guilt? For all that BigDaddy_GFS prates on about “forensic evidence”, neither of those two would be accepted by any legitimate law enforcement agency as “proof” that al Qaeda was involved!

And a tangential point. PadawanOsswe says they cannot be involved in “debunking” because it is supposedly the case that al Qaeda attacked Jordan. In fact, whenever attacks such as the replies to my post, are made on statements, that is, by definition, attempted “debunking”. Whenever it is tried to “disprove” another statement, that is defined, at least these days, as “debunking”. Before getting into subtleties of reasoning, perhaps PadawanOsswe should improve their understanding of the language, rather than define terms, and facts, to fit administration propaganda!

If a UFO follower brought a scrap of alien flesh in for analysis, "debunkers" would still be skeptical, yet, on a tape supposedly from someone they claim to be a "terrorist", the claim is made that al Qaeda was involved in a bombing, and they say that that is "incontrovertible proof"! The facts behind a swindle are not the only ways of proving its existence; the craven activities of shills to promote that swindle is also evidence that it is being attempted! Shutting up witnesses, making pay-offs to buy silence, staging attention grabbing incidents, engaging in evident personal deceit and lies. Or claiming reliable assertions on the matter not to be legitimate.

Incidentally, the tapes are also suspicious, in many ways. In them, al Zarqawi purportedly expresses that he didn't want to kill innocent Muslims, only "infidels", such as Crusaders, Jews and collaborators. Evidently, the claims of Jordanians feeling so much animosity toward al Zarqawi are also eminently questionable. Many more seem to respect al Zaeqawi than official sources want to admit! Those who arranged the event seem to have felt the need to strengthen their "argument" by providing suspicious "evidence" that at least the gullible would buy, suggesting that al Zarqawi feels he overstepped his bounds!

This does raise questions, though, about, among other things, the choice of the hotels, and the evident failure of the bombs to do what they purportedly were supposed to do! The hotels, we are told, were chosen because they are commonly occupied by Westerners. Yet, this one day, among all the others, it appears - and despite what is efficient intelligence gathering by al Qaeda, and the fact that the information is not all that difficult to get! - there were no Westerners at all in the hotel! This makes it sound very much like that this was chosen, by Western forces, in order to avoid damage to Western forces! Yet, why the providing of tapes by al Zarqawi? If the White House arranged the attacks, they would feed the "diabolical" image of al Zarqawi by having no semblance of remorse or explanation provided, at all! Why, then, have the tapes been provided? It sounds very much like al Zarqawi was provided information by CIA agents, because he, too, is on the Oval Office payroll, and, only now, he realizes that the information he was provided was not what he expected! He feels he was duped by the CIA into carrying out an attack, but that attack only injured other Arabs! He tried, it seems, to explain his actions, while avoiding admitting that he's being paid in dollars with George Bush's fingerprints on them!

Of course, there is an alternative even to this. Namely, that Western operatives in the Middle East engage in the putrid policy of secreting themselves inside crowds of locals, using them as "human shields", to avoid "terrorist" attack! The Arabs were in the way of attacks that day because the Allies always make sure Arabs are around them, to absorb the force of attacks against them! Supposedly, even now, American soldiers regularly tempt Iraqi children to hang around them with candy, even though the supposedly acknowledged danger of "terrorist" attacks! Why? They seem to be using the children to shield them from "insurgent attacks"! It may explain why the "insurgent movement" has been so slow, since the beginning of the occupation! Despite Allied claims of “heartlessness”, in fact, the “insurgents” seem to avoid most attacks since children seem to be around so often!



Julian Penrod

this guy is crazy....you know if i were bush i'd just bomb the whole country...whipe them all off of the earth and tell everybody else their next if they want to play games. I'm just tired of all this nonsense....somebodies gotta put a stop to this BS....and i think it sgoing to be me.

j/k =P

Julian Penrod
4 Fairfield Avenue
West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006
(973) 220-1601
julianpenrod@comcast.net

November 22, 2005











To all:

Despite insistences from many on several forums that I should not include my address, phone number and so on with my posts, I have continued, because those who act to promote God's truth are protected by God. I am speaking, now, not out of a fear for myself. However, such individuals as xstortionist seem to display a genuinely dangerous nature that can lead at least to serious harm to themselves, if only by running afoul of the law. In what seems the literal equivalent of a gibbering tirade, xstortionist just promoted mass murder, and even went so far as to say that they think they will have to start it themselves.

With respect to this, I am now requesting that the administrator or administrators and moderators of Unexplained Mysteries supply pertinent information about xstoritinist's identity to the West Caldwell Police Department and the FBI. This will include their name, if Unexplained Mysteries has it, their email address, any computer identification they may have, and so on, whatever would be necessary for the authorities to pull xstoritionist in, should the kind of criminality xstortionist seems to be supporting suddenly break out. Xstortionist seems not to have control of their emotions, and are at risk of exploding in mass violence. They may have already! They seem unwilling or incapable of accepting the truth, and appear to be planning on taking a page from George Bush’s play book, since it has been revealed that he once even planned bombing the news outlet al Jazeera, because they criticized his handling of Iraq! Unexplained Mysteries supplying information to the FBI and police in xstortionist's home state may, in fact, solve many murders for which xstrotionist is responsible. It is ghoulish to say, but Unexplained Mysteries would be solving some unexplained mysteries.

While I am not fearing for myself, many may end up in harm's way from xstortionist's evident psychopathic viciousness. Should anything happen to others from xstortionist’s outburst, it will be no problem to provide the authorities with proof that I recommended that Unexplained Mysteries address this member's apparent unbalanced nature to the police. That is why I recommend that the website take the first step and report this individual’s contact information, before they kill someone. Or before they kill someone else. It is apparent from the ungrammatical, poorly rendered post, and even the name they chose for themselves, that xstortionist is mentally unstable, and a danger to those around them, and the time to prevent a catastrophe is before it occurs!

As an aside, xstortionist has done opponents of this administration's policies a service by providing them with evidence of how deeply psychotic the administration apparently is!

Malignance like this got us where we are, in the first place; to allow it to persevere would be to invite even more bloodshed and suffering!



Julian Penrod

Two things spring to mind:

First off, perhaps you missed the "j/k =p" line that was posted without benefit of edit. This means, "Just Kidding" with an emoticon depicting a smiley with a tongue sticking out. In this reality, this means that he is attempting to point out humor, i.e.: he tried to make a joke. While the effectiveness of this attempt may be suspect, it is obvious that you didn't understand or care.

Secondly, and perhaps most important, on the bottom of EVERY post on this site is a little button that says, "! REPORT". If you look at a post and it offends you to the core, just click on the "! REPORT" button at the bottom of said post and it will do in one sentence what you attempted to do with over a full screen of diatribe.

Now that I have completed this mission, some unsolicited advice: Kindly leave your condescending tone at the door, as it is VERY tiresome, and, as I have said before, try to be brief. I know you are doing everything you can to impress us with your vocabulary (or use of thesaurus.com), but you carry on so long that any legitimate point you might be driving at is lost in the drone of voice. Together, the tone-drone is losing much support on these boards.

lol I love his long letters!

Julian (love that name, my 1st born's 1st name is Julian),

You've over-reacted to xstortionist a smidge. I know it's hard to determine tone in written communication sometimes, but to me this went by like a "my dad's gonna kill me" comment.

And, have you gotten any junk mail in your mailbox for posting your address like that? Or crank calls or anything? There's no way I'd publish my stuff, and it's a rare thing I even say my name or date of birth.

Julian Penrod
4 Fairfield Avenue
West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006
(973) 220-1601
julianpenrod@comcast.net

November 24, 2005











To all:

Malruhn and Celumnaz's responses to my reaction to xstortionist's evident outburst are unsurprising, at least in the form that they take. They display the shallow, and, frankly, inane qualities of all "defenses" of the illegitimate. If xstorionist's explosion served by indicating the apparent psychopathy behind the White House's policies, and all "justifications" in its behalf, Malruhn and Celumnaz help by providing a lesson in the form of pseudo-sophistry that so often accompanies philosophically invalid precepts and assertions. Those new to the machinations of the unprincipled and untrustworthy can gain a lot by seeing these methods revealed for what they are and denounced.

As with so many such attempted condemnations, Malruhn and Celumnaz fail utterly to address the actual substance, and also try to depict the valid party in the bad light.

Malruhn, for example, points out the "j/k =p" added at the end, that they claim to mean "Just Kidding". This, Malruhn describes as including "an emoticon depicting a smiley with a tongue sticking out". First of all, a "smiley" and an "emoticon" are two different things. A "smiley" is a .gif image of some variation on the old "Smiley Face" icon. An "emoticon" is one of the combinations of punctuation symbols, intended to represent some kind of picture, when viewed sideways. Malruhn might want to get their understanding of terminology straight before lecturing someone else.

They then go on to say that that means someone is trying to point out that they were speaking humorously, "in this reality". Evidently a subtle suggestion that I inhabit a different "reality", which is a non-subtle suggestion that I am not mentally sound. "While the effectiveness of this attempt may be suspect", Malruhn continues, "it is obvious that you didn't understand or care", evidently trying to implant the concept that I deliberately went off on a tangent. Just using the "! REPORT" button at the bottom to condemn a post that "offends you to the core" can run the risk of not actually imparting urgency or conveying the significance to the rest of the forum. Xstortionist did, and still does, appear mentally unbalanced. The very fact that they would choose a name like "xstortionist" seriously questions their character, at least, if not their sanity.

Toward that end, let me address Celumnaz's reference to my receiving "junk mail" or "crank calls" after leaving my personal information in my posts. That point has been brought in other replies, here and elsewhere. If someone is acting to promote God's truth, God will protect them. My including my information is an act of acknowledgement of this fact. To forego it would deny trust in God. My continuing to include the information is not being done in defiance of concerns or to cause the moderators consternation. It should be mentioned, too, though, that when I included my personal information in posts on Chemtrail Central and other forums and newsgroups and in letters to the editor, nothing untoward happened. Even newspapers don't mind providing someone's name and town with letters to the editor, which should be enough to find them. So including the information should not, in that way, be a problem for the administrators of the site. As long as they act according to their conscience when someone apparently unbalanced starts talking about seriously contemplating mass murder.

With respect to its being "a joke", one gets the image of a dim-witted jackenapes trying to explain unloading a nail gun into someone's head. After all, they will insist, it was just a joke! They didn't mean it! Immaturity means more than just dribbling down your chin. It also indicates a patent inability to perceive the importance of life and events in it. Just the kind of sentiment you would find on someone who sees other nations as just tools of Wall Street fat cats, someone who sees others trying to prevent being made slaves of Halliburton as just engaging in "games"! Those who shoot unarmed men in mosques, or bomb news agencies because they point out that the president is a psychopath resonate to the kind of frankly debased mentality that would term what xstortionist gave vent to as a "joke"! It's the kind of mentality that would apparently engineer the bombing of hotels, to perpetuate the criminal invasion of another nation! You may laugh after shooting a nail gun into somebody's head, but that doesn't make it a "joke"! And what xstortionist did was not funny and, no matter how much they or their apologists may try to gloss it over, it was not a "joke", either! The depraved may regret the imposition of seriousness, since that would prevent them from excusing their exercises in viciousness and malevolence. It seems that perverting of the meaning of "joke" and the diminishing of the seriousness of seriousness bred the mentality of those who so willingly marched off to butcher Iraqis! It isn't "over-reacting", as Celumnaz tries to claim, to pin the violent down to take responsibility for their actions! The dangerous and unprincipled are being allowed free rein for their depraved indifference to human life, right now in Iraq, and the "vice president in charge of torture" seems to be trying to expand their realm of abusiveness! Those like Malruhn and Celumnaz may try to ridicule my bringing attention to that subject, but it seems that it has been far too ignored, for far too long!

Malruhn also exhorts me, "Kindly leave your condescending tone at the door". They describe it as "VERY tiresome". They add "try to be brief", offering that, "I know you are doing everything you can to impress us with your vocabulary", but, I supposedly "carry on so long that any legitimate point" is, "lost in the drone of voice". This, Malruhn claims, is "losing much support on these boards".

I challenge Malruh to show where I was "condescending"! Does Malruhn even know what "condescending" means? If I go at length, does Malruh realize that it is because the subject requires explanation and explication? Is Malruhn, frankly, capable of realizing that? And it's not "condescending" to say that. To apply the word "condescending" to genuine explanation, purely for the purpose of unjustifiably denouncing that supplying of information, does suggest the individual is either ignorant of the meaning of the word or they are using it unscrupulously and malignantly!

Where does it even look like I am trying to "impress" someone with my vocabulary? How far afield do I go with my choice of words? I even worried about becoming too repetitive with terms like "assertion", "justification", and "apparent". I did it deliberately rather than show off expansive verbiage. But, then, it appears that even kind acts like that end up punished.

Or, maybe, for Malruhn, "legitimization", "patent" and "afield" are unfamiliar terms.

And, as for length of posts, why is it wrong to address issues in enough depth that readers will get the importance of the subject? Could it be because the length I use is sufficient to explain the matters correctly, and the quislings hate to see their corrupt intents so jeopardized? Along with the decreasing of concern for human life, the lessening of attention spans and the limiting of information on subjects has progressively perverted society, in the past decades! Remember when the United States stood for not being the first shot fired in an aggression? When they wouldn't run torture camps, apparently on old Soviet concentration camp sites? When the president wouldn't suggest carrying out a military attack on a news agency because that agency dared criticize him?

Those and all the other depravities of the past few decades have walked hand-in-hand with, among other things, the diminishing of attention spans - at least partly the result of "entertainment" and the practice of putting more picture than text in school books! - and the devaluing of information. Never before would Congress have even considered going to war based on a fear-mongering "sixteen words", inserted strategically into a "State of the Union address! They would have demanded a 160,000 word special report! Hinging actions on a minimally informative slogan or snippet is a characteristic of "jingoism" or "yellow journalism"! And it has all the sincerity and trustworthiness of "Mission Accomplished!", "Remember The Maine!", or "I have here in my hand a list of 205 names..."! Overweaningly imprecise declarations that lead to disaster are referred to as "famous last words", not "famous last paragraphs"!

Is a site supposedly associated with assembling formerly unacknowledged information about the world now going to champion limiting how much is said?

Information provides the insight necessary to make a decision. It also does tend to weed out those willfully proscribed in their understanding. And it tends to draw out those who obstruct the truth, causing them to make palpably malignant denunciations of depth!

As an aside, notice, too, the deviation from the original course of this thread, and the general inability of those denouncing my statements to try to make anything even approaching a legitimate counter to my arguments!



Julian Penrod

I would refer you to everything outside of what I have specifically quoted above from your last post. If you cannot fathom what might be condescending in your tone, please see my above comment regarding "in this reality."

Regarding the "smiley/emoticon" tidbit, I offer this. Try again.

I understand that some boards are rather heavy handed about the members they allow to post. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt when you began here. However, in under twenty posts here, you have proven yourself to lack either a desire or a willingness to understand that the way you see things may not be either how they were intended or how they actually were in effect. All you do is make poorly disguised personal attacks that further reduce your credibility.

I also understand that you have every right to drone on and on about whatever point you make. You should understand in turn, that you will lose the listener/reader after a certain point. Your posts go past that point in every instance thus far. I have forced myself to read through the entire length of your posts, and, while I don't agree with many of them, you do make some thought provoking points. However, you employ the oft used tactic of overkill to make your point.

Sorry, but once a point is made, the horse dies... and to continue to beat it and beat it and beat it and beat it does nothing but obscure your message.

With your condescending tone, your overwhelming use of unnecessary prose and your inability/unwillingness to consider other options or points of view, I can easily see how and why you are banned from boards. I can also see why people might want to just put you on their "ignore" list and not read your posts.

Why, oh why, do I enter this conspiracy forum j/k I should request to be placed on a dissociated persons list and ban myself from this section of unexplained-mysteries.com. But I must make a few statements here or forever think about what I should've, could've said, while drifting off to sleep.
My grandmother was a linguist (talking with her was hard to say the least - she always corrected your sentences...LOL, Hi grandma, love you !), so I understand why Malruhn states that you should post simply and clearly to the point because it is hard for the 'average' person to read posts such as yours; However, I admire your intellectual verbiage and I enjoy reading your posts, Julian
And one more comment...I thought it was just me, but the other day at a conference I attended, the speaker was babbling on about our companies customer service standards...yadda, yadda , yadda...and she says "you may be thinking I'm about to pull out a gun and go postal on you all" and people actually laughed at her attempted 'joke', which I thought was terribly rude and not funny at all. She says, "You smile anyway, all the while thinking I just want to slap the you know what out of her" and people laughed again. So the point of me telling this experience is that, the average person finds violence humorous and typical. Which to me, (and I may be below average or above ) finds violence appalling. Call me abnormal but if I have a conflict with another person, I'm not smiling all the while thinking I just want to slap the you know what out of you. and thank you for reading my babble
in Light and Love to ALL, Me_Again

well, most probably didn't even understand your original post lol...

But come on, you're saying Bush is positioning himself to be a Military Dictator, and you want me to take you serious, and refute it? How about, in 2008, if Bush get re-elected again, we buddy up together for the revolution to take our country back. Until then, I simply find your claims unbelievable.

Better than "Bush Sucks", but still unbelievable.

I think you're on the right track (seeking truth), but picking on "Bush" or "This Administration" is still picking at the pawns (not saying they're innocent or guilty, just in 2008 we'll have the same kinds of problems or worse and a different fall guy). And that's *my* opinion.