The Bush Administration needed the Iraqi connection to Iraq and/or the 911
attacks to justify the invasion. Looks like they were highly successful in
manufacturing that connection, people still believe it............... JL
Bush political fallout limited
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3814111.stm
By Jon Leyne
BBC correspondent in Washington
Bush and Cheney continue to assert Iraq had links to al-Qaeda
This is not the first time that an authoritative source has declared there
was no proven link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
In fact it is almost a surprise that the latest pronouncement, by the 9/11
commission, is even news.
Back in January, the prestigious Carnegie Endowment said: "The most
intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence
of a co-operative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and
al-Qaeda."
David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector, came to the same conclusion.
In January the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, announced that he
had seen "no smoking gun [or] concrete evidence" of ties between Saddam
Hussein and al-Qaeda.
In fact even President Bush himself, when he was asked baldly in January
whether he believed there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, said
"I can't make that claim."
American believers
Yet somehow the administration Mr Bush leads has convinced the vast majority
of Americans that exactly the opposite is the case.
A poll conducted by the University of Maryland in April found that 57% of
Americans believe Iraq was substantially supporting al-Qaeda before the 11
September 2001 attacks or was involved in the attacks themselves. And that
number was hardly changed from a similar poll a year earlier.
It has been a subtle operation. Only rarely do administration officials
state the case quite as baldly as the Vice President, ***** Cheney, on
Monday.
Mr Cheney said Iraq had "long established ties" with al-Qaeda. As usual, he
was speaking among friends, in a forum that did not allow critics to
question the assertion.
It was Mr Bush who was asked about his vice-president's remarks, at a news
conference the following day.
President George Bush
"Zarqawi. Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al-Qaeda affiliates
and al-Qaeda," explained the President, referring to the shadowy Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi.
"He's the person - remember the email exchange between al-Qaeda leadership
and he himself about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom? Saddam
Hussein also had ties to terrorist organisations. In other words he was
affiliated with terrorism," Mr Bush added.
Nowhere in that response does Mr Bush explicitly draw the link between
Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, but the implication is clear.
"It is one of those things people want to believe," explained Andrew Kohut,
of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "You only have to
hint at it to get people to jump to that conclusion."
Show of force
Also on Wednesday, a group of distinguished former diplomats and military
officers highlighted what they see as the administration's blatant
misinformation as part of their condemnation of President Bush's record on
national security.
They condemned what they said was a "cynical campaign to persuade the public
that Saddam Hussein has links to terrorism and the attacks of 11 September."
They stressed: "The evidence does not support this argument."
All of this might be seen as a major embarrassment for any other government,
an issue seized on by the opposition. Not here in the United States, though.
When the American public overwhelmingly supported going to war in Iraq, it
was not just on the basis of those tenuous links with terrorism.
They believed Mr Bush's wider assertion that this was part of the global War
on Terror.
In other words, the best way for America to respond to 9/11 was by a bold
exercise of force.
That is what the hawks in the administration believe, as well.
And that is why these latest arguments about the reason for going to war are
much less damaging, than the criticism that the administration has not waged
it vigorously enough.
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
17 Jun 2004 03:01:01 AM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:wOidnThVNbt3mEzdRVn-jg@locallink.net...
The Bush Administration needed the Iraqi connection to Iraq and/or the 911
attacks to justify the invasion. Looks like they were highly successful
in
manufacturing that connection, people still believe it............... JL
Frightening isn't it? Orwell would probably glad he never lived to see the
day...
Bush political fallout limited
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3814111.stm
By Jon Leyne
BBC correspondent in Washington
Bush and Cheney continue to assert Iraq had links to al-Qaeda
This is not the first time that an authoritative source has declared there
was no proven link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
In fact it is almost a surprise that the latest pronouncement, by the 9/11
commission, is even news.
Back in January, the prestigious Carnegie Endowment said: "The most
intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence
of a co-operative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and
al-Qaeda."
David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector, came to the same
conclusion.
In January the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, announced that
he
had seen "no smoking gun [or] concrete evidence" of ties between Saddam
Hussein and al-Qaeda.
In fact even President Bush himself, when he was asked baldly in January
whether he believed there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, said
"I can't make that claim."
American believers
Yet somehow the administration Mr Bush leads has convinced the vast
majority
of Americans that exactly the opposite is the case.
A poll conducted by the University of Maryland in April found that 57% of
Americans believe Iraq was substantially supporting al-Qaeda before the 11
September 2001 attacks or was involved in the attacks themselves. And that
number was hardly changed from a similar poll a year earlier.
It has been a subtle operation. Only rarely do administration officials
state the case quite as baldly as the Vice President, ***** Cheney, on
Monday.
Mr Cheney said Iraq had "long established ties" with al-Qaeda. As usual,
he
was speaking among friends, in a forum that did not allow critics to
question the assertion.
It was Mr Bush who was asked about his vice-president's remarks, at a news
conference the following day.
President George Bush
"Zarqawi. Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al-Qaeda
affiliates
and al-Qaeda," explained the President, referring to the shadowy Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi.
"He's the person - remember the email exchange between al-Qaeda leadership
and he himself about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom? Saddam
Hussein also had ties to terrorist organisations. In other words he was
affiliated with terrorism," Mr Bush added.
Nowhere in that response does Mr Bush explicitly draw the link between
Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, but the implication is clear.
"It is one of those things people want to believe," explained Andrew
Kohut,
of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "You only have to
hint at it to get people to jump to that conclusion."
Show of force
Also on Wednesday, a group of distinguished former diplomats and military
officers highlighted what they see as the administration's blatant
misinformation as part of their condemnation of President Bush's record on
national security.
They condemned what they said was a "cynical campaign to persuade the
public
that Saddam Hussein has links to terrorism and the attacks of 11
September."
They stressed: "The evidence does not support this argument."
All of this might be seen as a major embarrassment for any other
government,
an issue seized on by the opposition. Not here in the United States,
though.
When the American public overwhelmingly supported going to war in Iraq, it
was not just on the basis of those tenuous links with terrorism.
They believed Mr Bush's wider assertion that this was part of the global
War
on Terror.
In other words, the best way for America to respond to 9/11 was by a bold
exercise of force.
That is what the hawks in the administration believe, as well.
And that is why these latest arguments about the reason for going to war
are
much less damaging, than the criticism that the administration has not
waged
it vigorously enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
17 Jun 2004 06:32:22 AM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:carivf$6nb$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:wOidnThVNbt3mEzdRVn-jg@locallink.net...
The Bush Administration needed the Iraqi connection to Iraq and/or the
911
attacks to justify the invasion. Looks like they were highly
successful
in
manufacturing that connection, people still believe it............... JL
Frightening isn't it? Orwell would probably glad he never lived to see the
day...
No doubt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
16 Jun 2004 09:49:22 PM |
|
|
CORRECTION:
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:wOidnThVNbt3mEzdRVn-jg@locallink.net...
The Bush Administration needed the Iraqi connection to
ALQUEDA<<<<<<<<< and/or the 911
attacks to justify the invasion. Looks like they were highly successful
in
manufacturing that connection, people still believe it............... JL
Gotta post the excuse for this too. :-) Too little sleep, too much
exercise.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
16 Jun 2004 10:21:07 PM |
|
|
Fresh from an Iraqi prisoner interrogation " John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> smirked:
The Bush Administration needed the Iraqi connection to Iraq and/or the 911
attacks to justify the invasion. Looks like they were highly successful in
manufacturing that connection, people still believe it............... JL
And even with ALL that evidence,
those of us who continued to speak out against
the 'evidence' and still do so et nothing BUT
abuse from the 'sheeple'.
Too bad the conspiracy theorists who are focused
on UFOs, Clinton, and even the Kennedy assassination
can't see the reality before their eyes.
--
To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
16 Jun 2004 11:14:10 PM |
|
|
"Never anonymous Bud" <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:4d32d09fp6rm84dflgk55nrf9n3hu4qosu@4ax.com...
Fresh from an Iraqi prisoner interrogation " John F Lemke"
<jflemke@LocalLink.net> smirked:
The Bush Administration needed the Iraqi connection to Iraq and/or the
911
attacks to justify the invasion. Looks like they were highly successful
in
manufacturing that connection, people still believe it............... JL
And even with ALL that evidence,
those of us who continued to speak out against
the 'evidence' and still do so et nothing BUT
abuse from the 'sheeple'.
You'd think that where there was a real free press there'd be fewer sheeple.
The media has already begun to apologize for following the "shepherds".
We have to question authority and respect those that do speak out. Listen.
You wonder what it takes to get folks to learn. I've been learning some
things myself, been blind to a few things I wish I hadn't been.
Too bad the conspiracy theorists who are focused
on UFOs, Clinton, and even the Kennedy assassination
can't see the reality before their eyes.
I guess they don't want to believe. We're supposedly safe behind the myth,
the prosperity, the John Wayne hardass. Be nice to get a history the power
elite on the weeknight news shows instead of obsessing about Laci Peterson
and Jacko also.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
17 Jun 2004 08:13:39 AM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
The Bush Administration needed the Iraqi connection to Iraq and/or the 911
attacks to justify the invasion. Looks like they were highly successful in
manufacturing that connection, people still believe it............... JL
The Iraqi connection to Iraq? Duh!
All he needed was the proof that Saddam had breached the UN resolution,.
The world was witness to all of saddam's breaches, as he proudly showed them as
he didn't give a *****.
That is all he needed. That is the main reason he gave.
You losers can repeat otherwise until the cows come home, it doesn't change that
fact.
Anyone who analyze the speech to the nation, or to the UN can see that.
Those who focus on other things are those who lie if they elude that part.
Brainwashing, yes, by those.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
17 Jun 2004 06:08:36 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:7OgAc.17735714$Of.2944820@news.easynews.com...
All he needed was the proof that Saddam had breached the UN resolution,.
And then unilaterally invade Iraq? Without the UN? Well, the unilateral
part of our Iraqi policy seems to be crumbling, eh?
The world was witness to all of saddam's breaches, as he proudly showed
them as
he didn't give a *****.
You seem to be reaching back further and further with your arguments here.
What happened to the argument about us having to rid the world of Saddam's
WMD stockpiles and programs? Or "we have to get rid of him because of his
connection with Al-Queda and international terrorists"? Reality seems to
have made those arguments obsolete.
That is all he needed. That is the main reason he gave.
Yup, you're changing your tune. I've been expecting this neocon shift. The
bigger neocon shift will probably be in November.
We'll see the neocons in general alter their stories just like the President
has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
17 Jun 2004 06:39:41 PM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> Spat the Words
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:7OgAc.17735714$Of.2944820@news.easynews.com...
All he needed was the proof that Saddam had breached the UN
resolution,.
And then unilaterally invade Iraq? Without the UN? Well, the
unilateral part of our Iraqi policy seems to be crumbling, eh?
The world was witness to all of saddam's breaches, as he proudly
showed
them as
he didn't give a *****.
You seem to be reaching back further and further with your arguments
here. What happened to the argument about us having to rid the world
of Saddam's WMD stockpiles and programs? Or "we have to get rid of
him because of his connection with Al-Queda and international
terrorists"? Reality seems to have made those arguments obsolete.
They're in a sink-hole with no stable footing. Things keep
shifting, and they keep sinking.
That is all he needed. That is the main reason he gave.
Yup, you're changing your tune. I've been expecting this neocon
shift. The bigger neocon shift will probably be in November.
We'll see the neocons in general alter their stories just like the
President has.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
18 Jun 2004 05:23:50 PM |
|
|
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns950BB3A9A9024rrfkwrantispamattbic@63.240.76.16...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> Spat the Words
You (Jean) seem to be reaching back further and further with your
arguments
here. What happened to the argument about us having to rid the world
of Saddam's WMD stockpiles and programs? Or "we have to get rid of
him because of his connection with Al-Queda and international
terrorists"? Reality seems to have made those arguments obsolete.
They're in a sink-hole with no stable footing. Things keep
shifting, and they keep sinking.
The latest rationale for the invasion seems to be the Al-Queda "connections"
with Saddam. Medical care given to one Al-Queda leader, other terrorists
supposedly trained to build bombs by an Iraqi expert, and then the famous
meeting in Prague that according to Cheney either did or did not take place,
"it can't be proven or disproven". It's pretty sad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
18 Jun 2004 06:02:51 PM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> Spat the Words
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns950BB3A9A9024rrfkwrantispamattbic@63.240.76.16...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> Spat the Words
You (Jean) seem to be reaching back further and further with your
arguments
here. What happened to the argument about us having to rid the
world of Saddam's WMD stockpiles and programs? Or "we have to get
rid of him because of his connection with Al-Queda and
international terrorists"? Reality seems to have made those
arguments obsolete.
They're in a sink-hole with no stable footing. Things keep
shifting, and they keep sinking.
The latest rationale for the invasion seems to be the Al-Queda
"connections" with Saddam. Medical care given to one Al-Queda leader,
other terrorists supposedly trained to build bombs by an Iraqi expert,
and then the famous meeting in Prague that according to Cheney either
did or did not take place, "it can't be proven or disproven". It's
pretty sad.
So, according the Bush administration definition of 'connection',
anyone who ever spoke to an AlQaeda member is connected to them.
I guess this means we'll have to wipe out a third of the people
in the mid and far east. That could be a slight escalation of
things. I'd be happy just to get the guys who killed Paul
Johnson.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
19 Jun 2004 03:04:43 PM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:7OgAc.17735714$Of.2944820@news.easynews.com...
All he needed was the proof that Saddam had breached the UN resolution,.
And then unilaterally invade Iraq? Without the UN?
This WAS the UN resolution, dumbo. if he breach the resolution THEN it is the
many times reiterated consequences of the lifting of the cease fire between
those allied with Kuwait and Iraq. The use of force against Iraq was authorized
in resolution 678.
Well, the unilateral
part of our Iraqi policy seems to be crumbling, eh?
No unilateral, the SC all signed to it.
Now yesterday, Russia, who admits Saddam anti-US terrorism, speaks of being
against it because of the breach of sovereignty of another country, but they
signed that any breach would bring the serious consequences many times repeated,
which are the lifting of the cease fire, which (cease-fire) was the condition
for abiding by the resolution.
Now if it had only meant that it would be military retaliation like in Desert
Fox, which is what putting implies, then the resolution wouldn't say that it is
the serious consequences many times threatened with, would it. They couldn'T
write it that way, it really meant the eradication of reminiscence of the regime
there.
If he didn't want this, he would have had to reword it otherwise. They had no
choice.
The world was witness to all of saddam's breaches, as he proudly showed
them as
he didn't give a *****.
You seem to be reaching back further and further with your arguments here.
What happened to the argument about us having to rid the world of Saddam's
WMD stockpiles and programs? Or "we have to get rid of him because of his
connection with Al-Queda and international terrorists"? Reality seems to
have made those arguments obsolete.
You tell me. They didn't go into thin air did they? No one knows what he did
with them whether he hid them or shipped them, no one knows, doesn't mean they
are not somewhere.
What we know its that he swore to have destroyed the lesser stuff as ell, and we
see that he hid it amongst other shells instead as it is used by mistake by
terrorists.
So you think that you can believe Saddam? I don't get it. YOU HAVE THE PROOF
THAT THERE ARE WMDs AROUND, they were used by mistake, what are these, you think
there are only two?
Are you dumb?
That is all he needed. That is the main reason he gave.
Yup, you're changing your tune. I've been expecting this neocon shift. The
bigger neocon shift will probably be in November.
We'll see the neocons in general alter their stories just like the President
has.
What tune changing? I think YOU are shifting from question to pretense, doesn't
change any of what I said.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
22 Jun 2004 03:05:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:04:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:7OgAc.17735714$Of.2944820@news.easynews.com...
All he needed was the proof that Saddam had breached the UN resolution,.
And then unilaterally invade Iraq? Without the UN?
This WAS the UN resolution, dumbo. if he breach the resolution THEN it is the
many times reiterated consequences of the lifting of the cease fire between
those allied with Kuwait and Iraq. The use of force against Iraq was authorized
in resolution 678.
Tony will get upset if you persist in using his pseudonym on others.
Well, the unilateral
part of our Iraqi policy seems to be crumbling, eh?
No unilateral, the SC all signed to it.
Now yesterday, Russia, who admits Saddam anti-US terrorism, speaks of being
against it because of the breach of sovereignty of another country, but they
signed that any breach would bring the serious consequences many times repeated,
which are the lifting of the cease fire, which (cease-fire) was the condition
for abiding by the resolution.
Now if it had only meant that it would be military retaliation like in Desert
Fox, which is what putting implies, then the resolution wouldn't say that it is
the serious consequences many times threatened with, would it. They couldn'T
write it that way, it really meant the eradication of reminiscence of the regime
there.
If he didn't want this, he would have had to reword it otherwise. They had no
choice.
*sigh* is there an echo around here?
You seem to be reaching back further and further with your arguments here.
What happened to the argument about us having to rid the world of Saddam's
WMD stockpiles and programs? Or "we have to get rid of him because of his
connection with Al-Queda and international terrorists"? Reality seems to
have made those arguments obsolete.
You tell me. They didn't go into thin air did they? No one knows what he did
with them whether he hid them or shipped them, no one knows, doesn't mean they
are not somewhere.
maybe they did go into thin air. The US bombing of Iraqi stockpiles
during Desert *STORM* led to many BW & CW alarms sounding, with a
resultant "Gulf War Syndrome" being propagated.
What we know its that he swore to have destroyed the lesser stuff as ell, and we
see that he hid it amongst other shells instead as it is used by mistake by
terrorists.
and they found these in Iraq then? I suppose you're supposing as
usual.
So you think that you can believe Saddam? I don't get it. YOU HAVE THE PROOF
THAT THERE ARE WMDs AROUND, they were used by mistake, what are these, you think
there are only two?
Are you dumb?
how do you know it was 'by mistake', dummy?
What tune changing? I think YOU are shifting from question to pretense, doesn't
change any of what I said.
YOU have changed your argument, dummy. Nobody else has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
22 Jun 2004 05:10:45 AM |
|
|
Cuan a écrit:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:04:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:7OgAc.17735714$Of.2944820@news.easynews.com...
All he needed was the proof that Saddam had breached the UN resolution,.
And then unilaterally invade Iraq? Without the UN?
This WAS the UN resolution, dumbo. if he breach the resolution THEN it is the
many times reiterated consequences of the lifting of the cease fire between
those allied with Kuwait and Iraq. The use of force against Iraq was authorized
in resolution 678.
Tony will get upset if you persist in using his pseudonym on others.
Well, the unilateral
part of our Iraqi policy seems to be crumbling, eh?
No unilateral, the SC all signed to it.
Now yesterday, Russia, who admits Saddam anti-US terrorism, speaks of being
against it because of the breach of sovereignty of another country, but they
signed that any breach would bring the serious consequences many times repeated,
which are the lifting of the cease fire, which (cease-fire) was the condition
for abiding by the resolution.
Now if it had only meant that it would be military retaliation like in Desert
Fox, which is what putting implies, then the resolution wouldn't say that it is
the serious consequences many times threatened with, would it. They couldn'T
write it that way, it really meant the eradication of reminiscence of the regime
there.
If he didn't want this, he would have had to reword it otherwise. They had no
choice.
*sigh* is there an echo around here?
You seem to be reaching back further and further with your arguments here.
What happened to the argument about us having to rid the world of Saddam's
WMD stockpiles and programs? Or "we have to get rid of him because of his
connection with Al-Queda and international terrorists"? Reality seems to
have made those arguments obsolete.
You tell me. They didn't go into thin air did they? No one knows what he did
with them whether he hid them or shipped them, no one knows, doesn't mean they
are not somewhere.
maybe they did go into thin air. The US bombing of Iraqi stockpiles
during Desert *STORM* led to many BW & CW alarms sounding, with a
resultant "Gulf War Syndrome" being propagated.
What we know its that he swore to have destroyed the lesser stuff as ell, and we
see that he hid it amongst other shells instead as it is used by mistake by
terrorists.
and they found these in Iraq then? I suppose you're supposing as
usual.
So you think that you can believe Saddam? I don't get it. YOU HAVE THE PROOF
THAT THERE ARE WMDs AROUND, they were used by mistake, what are these, you think
there are only two?
Are you dumb?
how do you know it was 'by mistake', dummy?
What tune changing? I think YOU are shifting from question to pretense, doesn't
change any of what I said.
YOU have changed your argument, dummy. Nobody else has.
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
22 Jun 2004 08:17:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
22 Jun 2004 09:20:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
I suppose he thinks we dream about making him look thick. Probably
because he dreams of making himself look clever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
22 Jun 2004 02:53:09 PM |
|
|
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
24 Jun 2004 05:30:46 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:F60Cc.7116668$iA2.804394@news.easynews.com...
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
You're really not one to talk about honesty Jean. Found any posts to support
your lies about me yet?
Thought not..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
24 Jun 2004 01:48:30 PM |
|
|
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
25 Jun 2004 06:54:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
J.
Hahahahah, the only place you belong is a loonie bin, as the Montreal
doctor has already said. Perhaps we should refresh everyones memory eh
FROG?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
25 Jun 2004 10:13:52 AM |
|
|
a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
J.
Hahahahah, the only place you belong is a loonie bin, as the Montreal
doctor has already said. Perhaps we should refresh everyones memory eh
FROG?
Yeah, you are probably the only one so dumb as to think Dr. Blunt is a real
doctor. So you ARE really such an idiot ZSaakaass. Thanks for showing the NG.
But they already know.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
29 Jun 2004 07:27:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:13:52 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
J.
Hahahahah, the only place you belong is a loonie bin, as the Montreal
doctor has already said. Perhaps we should refresh everyones memory eh
FROG?
Yeah, you are probably the only one so dumb as to think Dr. Blunt is a real
doctor. So you ARE really such an idiot ZSaakaass. Thanks for showing the NG.
But they already know.
what? he isn't real?
but his description of your condition was so...right!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
30 Jun 2004 08:01:47 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:27:28 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:13:52 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
J.
Hahahahah, the only place you belong is a loonie bin, as the Montreal
doctor has already said. Perhaps we should refresh everyones memory eh
FROG?
Yeah, you are probably the only one so dumb as to think Dr. Blunt is a real
doctor. So you ARE really such an idiot ZSaakaass. Thanks for showing the NG.
But they already know.
what? he isn't real?
but his description of your condition was so...right!
Shall we repost it for clarification?
Montreal Shrink
Calls Nostradamus Author a Paranoid,
Sadistic Megalomaniac
By Staff and Wire Reports
Cataclysmic Black
6-14-4
A new book by a prominent Montreal psychoanalyst says Nostradamus
author, Jean Guernon, is a "paranoid megalomaniac" as well as a sadist
and "untreated alcoholic." The doctor's analysis appears to confirm
earlier reports that Guernon may be emotionally unstable after witnesses
allegedly observed him making obscene gestures outside a Montreal cafe
that caters to Arab-Canadians.
Dr. Justin Blunt, writing in Guernon on the Couch: Inside the
Warped Mind of A Prophecy Fanatic, also says Guernon has a ""lifelong
streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to
explode frogs and putting lit road flares in pigs' asses) to insulting
people, gloating over state executions, joyful singing over the mass
murder of Muslims ... [and] pumping his fist gleefully before the bombing
of Baghdad."
Even worse, Dr. Blunt concludes, Guernon's years of heavy drinking
""may have affected his brain function - and his decision to lie about his
drinking puts him at far higher risk of ending up a pathetic panhandling
street drunk."
Dr. Blunt's revelations comes on the heels of last week's
Cataclysmic Black's exclusive that revealed increasing concern by prophecy
fans over Guernon's emotional stability.
Guernon's few friends, who spoke only on condition that their
names be withheld, told stories of wide mood swings by Guernon who would
go from quoting the Bible or Nostradamus one minute to obscenity-filled
outbursts, public urination or targeted spitting the next.
"I got a face full of his saliva," one Arab-Canadian woman said
after she allegedly called President George W. Bush a "f--king liar and an
idiot."
Guernon shows an inability to grieve - dating back to age 7, when
his sister died. "The family's reaction - no funeral and no mourning - set
in motion his life-long pattern of turning away from pain [and hiding]
behind bizarre antic behavior and grim apocalyptic predictions," says
Frank, who says Guernon may suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder.
Other findings by Dr. Blunt:
His mother, Jolina Guernon- tabbed by some family friends as "the
one who instills fear and loathing" - had trouble connecting emotionally
with her son, Blunt argues. Jacques Guernon, his father, displayed
"emotional and physical absence during his son's youth triggered feelings
of both adoration and revenge in Jean Guernon." Guernon suffers from
"character pathology," including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" --
viewing himself, Nostradamus and God as interchangeable. Dr. Blunt has
been a psychiatrist for 35 years and is director of psychiatry at Montreal
University. A Democrat, he once headed the Ontario Chapter of Physicians
for Social Responsibility.
In an interview with The Washington Post's Richard Leiby, Dr.
Blunt said he began to be concerned about Guernon's increasingly strange
behavior in 2002.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching
everything he did and reading what he wrote, and watching him on
videotape. I felt he was horribly disturbed," Dr. Blunt told Leiby.
Guernon, he said, "fits the profile of a heavy drinker whose alcoholism
has not been treated."
Dr. Blunt's expert recommendation? ""Our sole treatment option --
for his benefit and for ours -- is to have Guernon voluntarily submit to a
rehab center. . . before it is too late."
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged
to stick with possibilities:truth isin't"
Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
06 Jul 2004 01:39:46 PM |
|
|
You wish. LOL Total fiction.
J.
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:13:52 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
J.
Hahahahah, the only place you belong is a loonie bin, as the Montreal
doctor has already said. Perhaps we should refresh everyones memory eh
FROG?
Yeah, you are probably the only one so dumb as to think Dr. Blunt is a real
doctor. So you ARE really such an idiot ZSaakaass. Thanks for showing the NG.
But they already know.
what? he isn't real?
but his description of your condition was so...right!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
07 Jul 2004 01:52:49 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:39:46 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You wish. LOL Total fiction.
J.
only in your dreams.
(sound familiar?)
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:13:52 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
J.
Hahahahah, the only place you belong is a loonie bin, as the Montreal
doctor has already said. Perhaps we should refresh everyones memory eh
FROG?
Yeah, you are probably the only one so dumb as to think Dr. Blunt is a real
doctor. So you ARE really such an idiot ZSaakaass. Thanks for showing the NG.
But they already know.
what? he isn't real?
but his description of your condition was so...right!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
25 Jun 2004 05:14:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
hmmm...so you know all about "Brainwashing" do you? it figures.
maybe you do belong here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
25 Jun 2004 10:12:46 AM |
|
|
But you, don't, "Cul" han.
J.
Cuan a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
hmmm...so you know all about "Brainwashing" do you? it figures.
maybe you do belong here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
29 Jun 2004 07:23:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:12:46 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
hmmm...so you know all about "Brainwashing" do you? it figures.
maybe you do belong here.
But you, don't, "Cul" han.
J.
quite right. I've never allowed myself to be brainwashed. They
nearly got it right, but I looked beyond them. Perhaps you should try
stepping back to look at that bigger picture yourself, Jean ol' boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
07 Jul 2004 10:00:27 AM |
|
|
You are such an idiot. I obviously speak about you belonging here. But
you are as braindead as zaakaasss.
J.
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:12:46 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
hmmm...so you know all about "Brainwashing" do you? it figures.
maybe you do belong here.
But you, don't, "Cul" han.
J.
quite right. I've never allowed myself to be brainwashed. They
nearly got it right, but I looked beyond them. Perhaps you should try
stepping back to look at that bigger picture yourself, Jean ol' boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
08 Jul 2004 03:05:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:00:27 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:12:46 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:48:30 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:53:09 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:17:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
Another famous FROG quote. He will be calling you an anti-semite next,
the furrball idiot can't stand it when someone proves him an IDIOT.
been there, called that,...the T-shirt printers laughed at him when
they saw how he spelt it.
More lies, jeezz, what to retort, ah yes: "In your dreams only, loser."
Like your Zaakaass boyfriend there, you have not a single gram of honesty.
Why are you polluting our NG?
J.
You are the pollutant there FROG, you American wanna be terrorist
piece of *****.
Nah, you're the only one between the 2 of us who has no clue about the subject
of the topic. Me I belong on this NG. You don't.
hmmm...so you know all about "Brainwashing" do you? it figures.
maybe you do belong here.
But you, don't, "Cul" han.
J.
quite right. I've never allowed myself to be brainwashed. They
nearly got it right, but I looked beyond them. Perhaps you should try
stepping back to look at that bigger picture yourself, Jean ol' boy.
You are such an idiot. I obviously speak about you belonging here. But
you are as braindead as zaakaasss.
It's just the front I exhibit, Jean. Braindead people cannot be
brainwashed. Unfortunately for you, you didn't realise this in time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Brainwashing |
22 Jun 2004 09:21:36 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:10:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
YOU have changed your argument, dummy. Nobody else has.
In YOUR dreams ONLY.
J.
my, what a great retort! I must remember to write that one down.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
