🚀 go-pugleaf

Patrick Keenan wrote:
> "ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143841989.809315.95040@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > Patrick Keenan wrote:
> >> "ataturkey" <ataturkey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1143817003.201500.138700@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Roger wrote:
> >> >> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> >> >>    (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> >> >>       someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
> >> >>          in message
> >> >> <1143772744.649871.133480@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Roger wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Dare say, this looks a whole lot like defamation of
> >> >> >> >> >> character.
> >> >> >> >> >> And I don't
> >> >> >> >> >> even agree with McVay on the core issues of Nizkor.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >It is a shame that people resort to garbage like this and it is
> >> >> >> >> >even a
> >> >> >> >> >bigger shame that it goes on on both sides.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No, the shame is that I don't think you even realize that your
> >> >> >> >> lie
> >> >> >> >> that "it goes on on both sides" is exactly that.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >I know for a fact that your side does call people from pay phones
> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >harass the families of those your side does not agree with.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> And your proof that anyone here has done this is ... ?
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Nazihunter" was recently exposed for doing exactly that.
> >> >>
> >> >> And by that act, demonstrated that zie was *not* on "my side."
> >> >
> >> > He was harassing those who disagreed with the propaganda put out by
> >> > your side.
> >> >>
> >> >> And the identity of "nazihunter" has never been determined.
> >> >
> >> > He was recently exposed. He is making his obscene and threatening calls
> >> > from Canada.
> >>
> >> Was he, now.   By whom was he exposed?    If you're thinking it was Mr.
> >> Bradbury, Mr. Bradbury has insisted that "nazihunter" was one person,
> >> then
> >> when shown to be wrong,  insisted it was another person.   So which one,
> >> and
> >> why dou think your idenfiication is reliable?
> >
> > Far too many people were victimized by the slime that goes by the name
> > "nazihunter".
>
> And do you have any real idea who that person is?    You claim that the
> person was exposed recently.   By whom, and as whom?   And what makes you
> sure that the identification is correct?
>
> I notice that you have carefully gone around the point that Mr. Bradbury,
> who I suspect you think "exposed" Nazihunter,  is also known to have been
> wrong about it.   He's wrong about a lot of other things too, but we'll set
> those aside for just now.
>
> So since Mr. Bradbury does *not* know who "Nazihunter" is or was, how can
> you, or he, be sure of what "side" he (or she) is on, if any?
>
> > The calls came from pay phones in Canada.
>
> You know, Canada's a very big place and there are lots of people here.
> "The guy who called from a pay phone in Canada"  is *not* enough information
> for an identification.
>
> We have lots of phones here, too.   In fact, the very first telephones were
> made here.
>
> Similarly, "you know the guy, he wears jeans a lot" is not sufficient
> information to identify an adult male.
>
> And, we have a fairly open border.   It's very easy for American citizens to
> simply walk across the border and pick up a phone.  Visitors from other
> countries can do this, too.    All that's required is local currency.
>
> Many major Canadian cities are well within a couple of hours drive of the
> border.   Some are within a few minutes walk.
>
> > Do you approve or disapprove of making obscene and threatening calls to
> > the families of people
>
> I absolutely disapprove.   There is no question of this: it's wrong.     We
> have police to deal with such things, and the matter should be referred to
> them, and to the courts.
>
> Now, let's get back to my  point:   Do you approve or disapprove of publicly
> *and wrongly* making claims that a specific, named person is doing such
> things?
>
> Certainly, the person "Nazihunter" was incorrectly identified by Mr.
> Bradbury, who for some time threw around  the name of the person he thought
> it was.    Do you think that was honorable?
>
> So, on what, exactly,  do you base your claim that the person "nazihunter"
> was ever *correctly* identified?

I will not go into details because the reason why (and many others) I
do not use my real name is because I was also victimized by your
"nazihunter". The calls came from the general area that was recently
identified. You can dance around this all you want and pose all the
clever little questions you like but there is nothing that compares to
personal experience. These calls helped me decide that there is little
(or no) difference between Nazis and Zionazis. It is a disgusting and
cowardly thing to harass people and their families because of their
opinions and both sides should stop it.


>
> -pk
>
> > who express an opinion contrary to Zionist
> > propaganda from pay phones in a cowardly and disgusting manner?
> >
> >>
> >> -pk
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> When those posts were being made, "my side" routinely condemned them
> >> >> -- can you point to any such from deniers about these "lisa"
> >> >> forgeries?
> >> >
> >> > I think that these "lisa" posts are disgusting and so is "nazihunter".
> >> > There are only a handful of people on these lists who are able to
> >> > handle differences of opinions without name calling. The only one who
> >> > comes to mind is Al Smith. There could be one or two others.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >It is a
> >> >> >> >disgusting and cowardly thing to do and is the main cause of
> >> >> >> >people
> >> >> >> >no
> >> >> >> >longer posting under their real names. You should be ashamed for
> >> >> >> >shameful conduct of your side just as the other side should be
> >> >> >> >ashamed
> >> >> >> >for the shameful conduct of their side.
> >> >
> >