 Vox, you missed on so many levels. You say your open to someone coming to the defence of Hart but the person would have to do it on your terms. So in other words you feel you have the right to set the rules for the game and then play the judge. My isn’t that big of you. Sorry but that’s not the way things go in the real world. By the way, you seem to have ignored my previous post, not by chance I would venture to guess. I’ll bet my gold against your fiat that you simply don’t like to have the nasty truth about yourself thrown in your face (oops should that be your or you’re, need an English prof here). By the way, I’ve read where Hart has agreed with both you and Jim C. Does that make him one of your plants? Or maybe Jim C is a plant? It could get so confusing. Jim C has agreed with you in this very thread, looking back at some of his other posts he agrees with you in them as well. Sniff sniff, smells like a plant. I also note from reading a crap load of both his and your own messages that you have never told him to shut up or chosen to correct him in his faulty interpretation of why Lincoln went to war. How do we handle that? What rules can you make up as you go to cover this little matter? It’s starting to look a lot like Jim C, vox kadavergehorsamkeit and Lovetochat might be the same person.
You base your argument on whether three people are actually one completely on flawed assumptions, the fact they use “your” when in places where “you’re” would be grammatically correct and the fact that not once have the three been in disagreement with each other. You did make something out of the fact that two of them have names with German origins and that Harts grandparents came from Germany. You tried rather unsuccessfully to make this very weak link part of your claim and then you reduce its value in a reply when challenged. The kind of tactic a not so well trained lawyer trainee would make. You claim that because all three of them agree without any divergence in so many cases that this must indicate they are all one person. That’s it, that’s the whole of your prosecution? With this kind of amateur circumstantial evidence you wouldn’t even make it through the first five minutes of a discovery. Case dismissed!
In a classic example of what you omitted in an effort to further your own case, you missed mentioning (just one of many posts) http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-ambush-at-the-comex-corral.aspx?article=4335212868G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Darryl+Robert+Schoon
In the post linked above Schwerpunkt goes into some detail about your lack of understanding when talking about rigged markets, the role gold plays as international money, and the Cypress bail in. I see where Schwerpunkt puts out some links for you to look at. You didn’t like that he basically referenced your comments about Austrians and stated that you were calling them terrorists amongst other things. All he did was what you do so often, he put a little twist into your words. Seems you don’t like it when people pull your own stunts on you. When I look at the remarks that Verboten and Hart make later in the thread I see nothing that you could use to assume these two are one person (or three persons with Schwerpunkt). You were given details which you always ask for but never provide. Your response was, shall we say lacking. I recall we had quite a discussion on that topic with my own thoughts diverging from the other three, lively and not one foul word was uttered which is something you seem to be unable to control in yourself.
Let’s look at where else you made a very amateur mistake that will now count against you. You claim that with Hart and the others there are well over 200 posts from which to draw evidence. You have combined their total posts to arrive at this number. Broken down it’s easy to see that your fudging the numbers again in a weak attempt to bolster your point (more smoke and mirrors which you so readily accuse others of doing), to make it look like Hart posted over 200 times and that the others agreed with him each time but that’s not the truth. If we look at the number of post as listed in each person’s profile, which tracks total posts for everyone, it breaks down this way, Hart 162, Verboten 44, and Schwerpunkt 27. You have twisted the numbers to your liking and then made it appear as if you had real evidence. If you look at when each one registered it’s obvious to even feebleminded individuals that there is no conspiracy (which is what you seem to be implying) to back each other or any one of them up. Oh I can’t wait for you to start accusing me of being another plant because I already admitted I work with the three people you seem bent on harassing. Go on, we all know that’s where you’re going next. Any person that answered this in defense of Hart, other than maybe OTE, would be suspect in your paranoid drug addled mind. Wait, let’s get Tom in on this… Yes that’s right, I’ve done a lot of reading today and had to endure the slander and mindless abuse you throw around but I’ve also seen much where you were taken to task for poor judgment and putting words in other people mouths. For the life of me I can’t imagine why the three you seek to prosecute even bother trying to reason with you but I do understand the way they have gone after you for your arrogance and abusive tactics.
Please leave the detective work to those who are far better suited at it than you are. Your starting to look like nothing more than a vindictive little child. And, I do expect a response from you on my post outlining your nasty attitude. Unless of course you don’t feel you’re up to the challenge of defending your own arrogant abuse of others and your own bungling. And yes, before you go using the same old line you so enjoy, I have read your whole post(s) and understand, to the best of any sane person’s ability to understand an insane persons mind, what you said.
Balls in your court. Shall we dance? Before you say yes, you should reread my previous post and examine how much deeper you want to get in the way of sullying your name.
 Commenté il y a 4077 jours |
