CIT amping up the crazy – nastier witness attacks

[Caustic Logic]

With CIT “to ignore or not to ignore” has been the question. But I’ve just seen some insanity that sharpens the question. Since their flyover witness turned out to be simply toying with the boys, and their miraculous list of 13 NoC witnesses was achieved by including six copies of the same perspective error, the next step was clear: amp up the attacks on those witnesses who can’t even arguably fit their theory. Two cases are worthy of mention.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=417
They’re preparing to release another video of “CIT's latest encounter” with Lloyd England, the elderly cab driver who was nearly killed when something smashed through his windshield right on the “official flight path.” I’ve kept somewhat quiet on their attacks against him, perhaps because it’s too obvious and oft-noticed – a leading edge persistent bad move. Aldo whines:

Quote:

[...] we have also had to endure a campaign that has painted us as evil-doers who attacked a poor old man, accusing him of being a mass murderer involved in Pentagon attack when nothing could be further from the truth.

Orly? Please explain.

Quote:

It is clear to us that he knows what he did and […] he is trying to confuse and cover up this incident while he slips in ambiguous references to how 'big' this operation was.

Oh, well that's... quite... different... from what the smear "campaign" said? This is getting spooky. Aldo is soliciting members at the gang’s forum for "thoughts on Lloyd England and his involvement in the Pentagon attack." This is the second half of the post, which you have to read to even glimpse the depths these loons are dangling over.

Quote:

It will be clear to anyone who has been following this saga, and who has the attention span, that this man is not telling the truth.

When you watch this footage he may make you angry. We ask that you please view the entire presentation and think about the fact that the plane has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have flown on the north side of the Citgo. Again, the implications of this are far-reaching and land right at Lloyd's doorstep since he is the primary one who would have explaining to do.

I can assure you this will be the wildest ride yet in relation to our ongoing investigation. I am sure a lot of you may leave with some sort of sadness or anxiety after watching this presentation, because it will be clear to all who and what we are dealing with. In some sense, I have even felt sorry for Lloyd because it is clear to him and anyone watching, that he knows he is caught and is guilty. I am still in shock over what I watched and heard in these interviews.

I am looking for constructive discussion/feedback on how you feel about Lloyd and what type of light you think he should be portrayed in. I am also looking for solutions/suggestions on how we can get this man or his interviews and our evidence in front of gov't investigators. To be honest, at this point you would have all you need to march into your local representative's office and demand action.

Your participation is appreciated.

Get your Guy Fawkes masks ready, it's a-comin! Good thing they took it right to a legal laevel, it was starting to seem like they were hoping someone would demand answers in blood at Lloyd's literal doorstep. Just so we're clear, CIT has issued no such fatwa.

Madlene Zakhem, the suspicious south-path testifying Crypto-Jew (their characterization) is hashed over publicly again. Her “bizarre behavior” is finally enunciated – she had her arms crossed and seemed “stand-offish” in her interview, and later cut the lines of communication with the CIT. Oh man, this is sooo juicy… She cut them off right after this e-mail from August 6 2007:

Quote:

I hope you remember us. We visited your office in August of 2006 with Russell Pickering and conducted an impromptu, unrecorded interview in front of the VDOT/STC where you claim you saw the plane fly over.

We returned after that debating and discussing the information we had obtained. Subsequently, we parted ways with Mr. Pickering.

Mr. Pickering is now publically stating that yourself and the late Mr. Christopher Landis said we were "creepy". This is clearly a problem if you did not say this, as it casts doubt on our integrity and credibility as researchers/filmakers.

Of course, Mr. Landis cannot speak for himself. […]

Cut-in for context: Christopher “Kit” Landis was another VDOT employee, who had given CIT the disc with high res Jason Ingersoll photos. They later noted “he wasn't able to give us specific answers” about the suspicious light poles, and “was notably nervous during our questions.” After this, “Christopher Landis committed suicide,” which they found “an extremely strange and suspicious twist that we can only pray is a coincidence,” but probably not, since it happened “about a week after we had obtained the CITGO witnesses testimony on film.” [source] So, a recently dead guy she knew, however well, is dragged into the conversation. Perhaps awkward... Luckily it was only in passing...

Quote:

[…] But we feel it is appropriate that you shed some light on this matter as we feel that we treated both you and Mr. Landis fairly and with respect in the limited interactions that we had with you. In fact, we met with Mr. Landis for only a few minutes and said very little while waiting for the CD of photos he was burning for us.

Can you please explain what we did that was considered "creepy" or can you please clarify, for the record, what you told Russell Pickering that would cause him to arrive at this conclusion? Frankly, we believe he is making this up for his own reasons.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team

Her response could have been ‘what’s creepy? THAT? And YOU! And it’s getting worse!" But she was more calm, and stating in part:

Quote:

You are in error and proceeding upon a false assumption. […] I decline your request and I assume that you will not pursue this frivolous claim any further. Any further writing would constitute an unfair burden on me. My desire is to "put these things to rest."”

Too little too late, lady. Aldo's brilliant mind summed up the questions thus:

Quote:

Is Madlene merely an opportunist who wanted attention for what she claimed was a traumatic event? Was Madlene drastically mistaken? Unlikely. Or is Madlene an operative of some sort?

I have made comments about her jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent. Is there a possibility she is Mossad? Perhaps. But one thing is for sure. She certainly was not telling the truth about what she saw on 9/11.

I'm getting the feeling we may just see CIT's evidence in a coutroom someday - as an insanity plea defense.

[dtugg]

Wow, the CIT are literally some of the most stupid, vile people in the entire world.

[EvilBiker]

I was reading the Madlene Zakhem thread at the CIT site on the weekend, and was absolutely amazed at how low these characters will stoop to try promote their garbage.

I really hope that they get dragged into court for crimen injuria one day.

[twinstead]

Behold your peers, truthers...

[JimBenArm]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Wow, the CIT are literally some of the most stupid, vile people in the entire world.

And that's their good qualities!

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by EvilBiker

I really hope that they get dragged into court for crimen injuria one day.

Or that Mr. England has a Buzz Aldrin moment while holding a roll of quarters next time they approach him.

[MarkyX]

Anti-semitism doesn't influence the movement AT ALL.

[16.5]

Wow, Crazy Craig and Fat Aldo spend all of their time (and the time of their coterie of mindless drones, including our old punching bag SD) attacking an old man, yet bizarrely cannot take the time to actually prove with supporting math that an airliner can fly any path described by any CIT witness:

My challenge to them, boys, calculate the flight path and resultant forces on an airliner descending over the annex, banking north of Citgo, descending below the level of the trees, and pulling out of the bank and the descent and up and over the impact site at the Pentagon.

Stop with your baseless and stupid attacks on witnesses, and prove that a plane could do what you claim it did.

Man, with attacks like this, it is no wonder that so many Truthers hate these thugs.

[Cuddles]

Quote:

I am also looking for solutions/suggestions on how we can get this man or his interviews and our evidence in front of gov't investigators.

Have they really spent the last 7 years trying to figure out how to use email?

[nicepants]

It's simple, really. If these witnesses are correct then CIT must be wrong, and that's not an option for them. Look at their entire philosophy and how they present themselves, their theories, and their witnesses. The one thing that's NEVER an option is "we got it wrong". Anything that disproves their crazy ideas is either said to be wrong (eyewitnesses), planted (physical evidence), or it is just plain ignored (physics).

[16.5]

Originally Posted by 16.5

My challenge to them, boys, calculate the flight path and resultant forces on an airliner descending over the annex, banking north of Citgo, descending below the level of the trees, and pulling out of the bank and the descent and up and over the impact site at the Pentagon.

I notice the CIT thugs have taken the time to comment that a fantasy "hockey stick" flight path (a strawman if I ever saw one) is: "Umm....it's an IMPOSSIBLE G maneuver for both examples, meaning all possible official scenarios."

So they know how to do the math, I guess, so lets stop with attacking old cab drivers, and provide the math, pronto.

[Tbone]

Their flyover witness was screwing with them? When did that happen? That must have been solid gold.

[Bobert]

Wow Aldo just makes garbage up as he goes along....

Quote:

Not every witnesses is lying or mistaken. Witnesses deduce and I can guarantee you it is more llike a small handful that are directly lying about being witnesses. Remember, the CIA have agents are trained to lie and not question orders. If a superior told you we needed 9/11 to get into the oil fields because of peak oil or some other reason, because it means the survival of our country--you would lie. That is your job as an operative. If you have a hard time believing it. That is exactly the point of why they did it this way, because they no one would ever believe it. It is called the Big Lie technique.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Wow Aldo just makes garbage up as he goes along....

Don't know why exactly, but that gives off more of a "desparately trying to keep convincing myself I'm not wrong" groove than anything I've ever read by a twoofer before.

[Jonnyclueless]

I would like to encourage the CIT boys to continue doing what they arer doing as long as possible. Eventually they will get to an age where they realize they have wasted their lives AND they will be too old to start any kind of new careers. I will then go out of my way to order pizza form which ever parlor they will end up working at.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Tbone

Their flyover witness was screwing with them? When did that happen? That must have been solid gold.

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...r-witness.html

Well that's my theory and opinion, of course. Others feel he must've seen the C-130, CIT thinks he's just confused, but he has the "second plane" looking a lot like 77 and approaching in a similar fashion, then turning hard hard left and U-turning to depart to the southwest, the same way it came in. The second half of the video is me drawing the flight path along with his words, check it.

And he's still their one "critical flyover witness." At the end of the video, note how they purposefully chased him off despite his massive importance. Implications...

The scariest part of this new campaign for me is the emotional foreshadowing. They are trying to provoke some nutball fan of theirs to do something stupid.

Quote:

When you watch this footage he may make you angry. [...] the implications of this are far-reaching and land right at Lloyd's doorstep [...] this will be the wildest ride yet [...] a lot of you may leave with some sort of sadness or anxiety after watching this presentation, because it will be clear to all who and what we are dealing with. [...] he knows he is caught and is guilty.

Seriously, when is the line crossed? Who can bring charges in a case like this if Lloyd doesn't want to for some reason? Isn't there a way to shut these things up?

Uh oh, now I'm in on the NWO campaign to shut them up...
that means they must be right!

[1337m4n]

I don't ever want to see another CIT goon accuse JREF of "calling [CIT's] witnesses liars".

[UNLoVedRebel]

This is why "Truth" organizations should be considered hate groups.

[NickUK]

Originally Posted by Aldo

I have made comments about her jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent. Is there a possibility she is Mossad?

Bwahahahahaaa.

Note to intelligence agencies: When placing assets in deep cover, please at least TRY to remember to change the last name and their accent.

[T.A.M.]

It is too bad that Mr. England has not taken these morons to court for harassment.

TAM

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by NickUK

Bwahahahahaaa.

Note to intelligence agencies: When placing assets in deep cover, please at least TRY to remember to change the last name and their accent.

I couldn't find the best bit, but this part reminded me of Blackadder Goes Forth....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by GIT

I am also looking for solutions/suggestions on how we can get this man or his interviews and our evidence in front of gov't investigators.

Wait, I thought the Government was in on it? Then why on earth do they want the same people to act as interrogators?

[JimBenArm]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

Wait, I thought the Government was in on it? Then why on earth do they want the same people to act as interrogators?

Do not try to force this to make sense. It comes from a place where the rules of cause-and-effect have been repealed, and the normal rules don't apply. The same thought process that brings this also brings the idea that even though they ordered the murder of thousands, getting them under oath and making them face perjury charges will make them spill the beans.

So, if you try to make it make sense, you'll just pull a groin muscle.

[16.5]

Craig completely cracks up (and i could not be happier):

"People need to realize the incredible significance of Lloyd's account.

He in the center of this entire violent event as all of the physical damage/evidence begins with HIS cab.

His claim is make or break for the official story and they have not been shy to use it along with his seemingly innocent simple persona as a major part of the propaganda to sell their claim.

The notion that he lied to get attention or money from the authorities is absurd because THEY used his story.

It all comes back to the north side approach because this definitively PROVES Lloyd's story false so making excuses or theories to sugar coat the situation is not a logical approach to this information."

The final piece to the CIT puzzle? A flight path supported by confirmed calculations? Video, photographic, physical evidence? A whistle blower, perhaps?

Nope, a video they shot in which Craig and FattyAldo call an old cab driver a liar.

My greatest satisfaction will be when they wake up and realize how pathetic they are.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by 16.5

The notion that he lied to get attention or money from the authorities is absurd because THEY used his story.

The notion that he lied to get attention from the authorities is absurd because he got attention from the authorities? *





That's absurd, even coming from these idiots.....






*Please note, I don't think Mr. England lied at all, but even if CIT believes he did, this argument is still utter crap.

[T.A.M.]

"a major part of the propaganda to sell their claim"

THis made me laugh.

1. The USG has not spoken much of 9/11 outside of the ani, for the last 3-4 years.
2. Where is all of this propaganda using Lloyd England at the front of it?
3. Get over yourselves, CIT, and your useless, ridiculous, stinking pile of ********* that you are trying to pass off as "evidence".

Yes Craig, I am still waiting to hear how the authorities are handling this new ground breaking, earth shattering evidence you said you presented to them over a year ago.

Oh let me guess, the police, and all authorities you can think of, are in on it too, right?

TAM

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Yes Craig, I am still waiting to hear how the authorities are handling this new ground breaking, earth shattering evidence you said you presented to them over a year ago.

Oh let me guess, the police, and all authorities you can think of, are in on it too, right?

See, the authorities were all set to act upon CiT's evidence and serve warrants on Bushco. as well as every powerful Jew living in the US, but then the NWO distributed a smear piece on them in an alternative news journal and ruined their otherwise impeccable credibility.

MAN we're good.

[16.5]

How old is Lloyd now anyway?

Wasn't he in his late 70's on 9/11/01?

/ I do however, appear to have lost the support of my mom over on the CIT forum. What can I say, she loves fat fingers! (That is hilarious!)

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showuser=765

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by 16.5

/ I do howver, appear to have lost the support of my mom over on the CIT forum. What can I say, she loves fat fingers! (That is hilarious!)

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showuser=765

Wow. It's got a good beat, you can dance to it--I'll give it a 16.5.

[1337m4n]

SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. Law of Nisi Prius, 3. In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum. Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander. Bac. Abr. Slander. Written or printed slanders are libels; see that word.
2. Here it is proposed to treat of verbal slander only, which may be considered with reference to, 1st. The nature of the accusation. 2d. The falsity of the charge. 3d. The mode of publication. 4th. The occasion; and 5th. The malice or motive of the slander.
3.-Sec. 1. Actionable words are of two descriptions; first, those actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages and, secondly, those actionable only in respect of some actual consequential damages.
4.-1. Words of the first description must impute: 1st. The guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the criminal courts; as to call a person a "traitor," "thief," "highwayman;" or to say that he is guilty of "perjury," "forgery," "murder," and the like. And although the imputation of guilt be general, without stating the particulars of the pretended crime, it is actionable. Cro. Jac. 114, 142; 6 T. R. 674; 3 Wils. 186; 2 Vent. 266; 2 New Rep. 335. See 3 Serg. & Rawle, 255 7 Serg. & Rawle, 451; 1 Binn. 452; 5 Binn. 218; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 261; 2 Binn. 34; 4 Yeates, 423; 10 Serg. & Rawle, 44; Stark. on Slander, 13 to 42; 8 Mass. 248; 13 Johns. 124; Id. 275.
5.-2d. That the party has a disease or distemper which renders him unfit for society. Bac. Abr. Slander, B 2. An action can therefore be sustained for calling a man a leper. Cro. Jac. 144 Stark. on Slander, 97. But charging another with having had a contagious disease is not actionable, as he will not, on that account, be excluded from society. 2 T. R. 473, 4; 2 Str. 1189; Bac. Abr. tit. Slander, B 2. A charge which renders a man ridiculous, and impairs the enjoyment of general society, and injures those imperfect rights of friendly intercourse and mutual benevolence which man has with respect to man, is also actionable. Holt on Libels, 221.
6.-3d. Unfitness in an officer, who holds an office to which profit or emolument is attached, either in respect of morals or inability to discharge the duties of the office in such a case an action lies. 1 Salk. 695, 698; Rolle, Ab. 65; 2 Esp. R. 500; 5 Co. 125; 4 Co. 16 a; 1 Str. 617; 2 Ld. Raym. 1369; Bull. N. P. 4; Holt on Libels, 207; Stark. on Slander, 100.
7.-4th. The want of integrity or capacity, whether mental or pecuniary, in the conduct of a profession, trade or business, in which the party is engaged, is actionable, 1 Mal. Entr. 244 as to accuse an attorney or artist of inability, inattention, or want of integrity; 3 Wils. 187; 2 Bl. Rep. 750; or a clergyman of being a drunkard; 1 Binn. 178; is actionable. See Holt on Libels, 210; Id. 217.
8.-2. Of the second class are words which are actionable only in respect of special damages sustained by the party slandered. Though the law will not permit in these cases the inference of damage, yet when the damage has actually been sustained, the party aggrieved may support an action for the publication of an untruth; 1 Lev. 53; 1 Sid. 79, 80; 3 Wood. 210; 2 Leon. 111; unless the assertion be made for the assertion of a supposed claim; Com. Dig. tit. Action upon the case for Defamation, D 30; Bac. Ab. Slander, B; but it lies if maliciously spoken. See 1 Rolle, Ab. 36 1 Saund. 243 Bac. Abr. Slander, C; 8 T. R. 130 8 East, R. 1; Stark. on Slander, 157.
9.-Sec. 2. The charge must be false; 5 Co. 125, 6; Hob. 253; the falsity of the accusation is to be implied till the contrary is shown. 2 East, R. 436; 1 Saund. 242. The instance of a master making an unfavorable representation of his servant, upon an application for his character, seems to be an exception, in that case there being a presumption from the occasion of the speaking, that the words were true. 1 T. R. 111; 3 B. & P. 587; Stark. on Slander, 44, 175, 223.
10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, be published, that is, communicated to a third person; and if verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired. 1 Rolle, Ab. 74; Cro. Eliz. 857; 1 Saund. 2425 n. 3; Bac. Abr. Slander, D 3. A letter addressed to the party, containing libelous matter, is not sufficient to maintain a civil action, though it may subject the libeler to an indictment, as tending to a breach of the peace; 2 Bl. R. 1038; 1 T. R. 110; 1 Saund. l32, n. 2; 4 Esp. N. P. R. 117; 2 Esp. N. P. R. 623; 2 East, R. 361; the slander must be published respecting the plaintiff; a mother cannot maintain an action for calling her daughter a bastard. 11 Serg. & Rawle, 343. As to the case of a man who repeats the slander invented by another, see Stark. on Slander, 213; 2 P. A. Bro. R. 89; 3 Yeates, 508; 3 Binn. 546.
11.-Sec. 4. To render words actionable, they must be uttered without legal occasion. On some occasions it is justifiable to utter slander of another, in others it is excusable, provided it be uttered without express malice. Bac. Ab. Slander, D 4; Rolle, Ab. 87; 1 Vin. Ab. 540. It is justifiable for au attorney to use scandalizing expressions in support of his client's cause and pertinent thereto. 1 M. & S. 280; 1 Holt's R. 531; 1 B. & A. 232; see 2 Serg. & Rawle, 469; 1 Binn. 178; 4 Yeates, 322; 1 P. A. Browne's R. 40; 11 Verm. R. 536; Stark. on Slander, 182. Members of congress and other legislative assemblies cannot be called to account for anything said in debate.
12.-Sec. 5. Malice is essential to the support of an action for slanderous words. But malice is in general to be presumed until the contrary be proved; 4 B. & C. 247; 1 Saund. 242, n. 2; 1 T. R. 1 11, 544; 1 East, R. 563; 2 East, R. 436; 2 New Rep. 335; Bull. N. P. 8; except in those cases where the occasion prima facie excuses the publication. 4 B. & C. 247. See 14 Serg. & Rawle, 359; Stark. on Slander, 201. See, generally, Com. Dig. tit. Action upon the case for Defamation; Bac. Abr. Slander; 1 Vin. Abr. 187; 1 Phillim. Ev. ch. 8; Yelv. 28, n.; Doctr. Plac. 53 Holt's Law of Libels; Starkie on Slander, Ham. N. P. ch. 2, s. 3.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

[defaultdotxbe]

ive always been amused by CITs approach to evidence, even more so than other truthers

1: Evidence A points to X

2: Therefore Y

3: Therefore A is fake

[16.5]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

ive always been amused by CITs approach to evidence, even more so than other truthers

1: Evidence A points to X

2: Therefore Y

3: Therefore A is fake

I was always see it is as: witness says x and y.

CIT's response: X is absolutely true, there can be no debate about it. PROVEN. Y is totally and completely false, our witnesses have been brainwashed.

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

ive always been amused by CITs approach to evidence, even more so than other truthers

1: Evidence A points to X

2: Therefore Y

3: Therefore A is fake

My favorite thing is how completely dumb they are by claiming that eyewitness testimony is evidence.

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

I don't ever want to see another CIT goon accuse JREF of "calling [CIT's] witnesses liars".

I believe they do not discriminate with this accusation and have leveed it on anyone who disagrees with them.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

ive always been amused by CITs approach to evidence, even more so than other truthers

1: Evidence A points to X

2: Therefore Y

3: Therefore A is fake

More like
1: all witnesses say x
2: some witnesses also say variations of y
3: therefore y is true
4: therefore x is not true

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

More like
1: all witnesses say x
2: some witnesses also say variations of y
3: therefore y is true
4: therefore x is not true

i was thinking more how they treat material evidence (damage path, FDR, etc) than witnesses, but all of the above covers it nicely

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i was thinking more how they treat material evidence (damage path, FDR, etc) than witnesses, but all of the above covers it nicely

Now that you put it that way your original fits quite well to physical evidence.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Talk about physical evidence. Don't you think these two explosions had the same ignition source? (jet fuel)

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade,
[...]
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

Well I'm not a big legal guy, but when i see 150 year old interpretations, I wonder what Bouvier had to say about online discussion forums. Is that slander or libel? Or slalibander?

Does this belong here, or anywhere? CIT have also amped up their hyper-sensitive defense of their "own" witness and have moved from using them as human shields (are you calling the witnesses liars?) to offensive weapons. An anonymous friend of CIT (likely Aldo but who cares) at my blog has been threatening me thus:

Quote:

Adam Larson is an accomplice to the cover-up of mass murder on 9/11/01.

He is a traitor to the United States of America.

Why don't you confront George Aman? The same George Aman who said it was in between the gas station and the cemetery. So we could hear about how he beat you like a red head step child.

post
Uh, yeah. I'd suggest he might have thot it was NoC cuz of perspective. And he'd say "yeah, probably," and I'd show him a graphic of where the plane had to be and he'd say 'well, that must be it then, cause it didn't fly over, and I saw it clip the light poles.' But I don't go bothering people over trivial tripe. What, are you going to send him after me?

Quote:

Lagasse says he is gonna beat you like a red head step child, Carrot Top.

post
Ah! Surely this message was first approved by a PFPS press officer. That wacky Lagasse.

Quote:

Go confront the witnesses so they can laugh in your face or spit in it. They'll be doing the ass beating, I don't want to come within 10 ft of your stink.

post-same as above

This citizen investigoogler is trying to get my current address to help direct them my way. Swing them witnesses around now, slugger! Don't wanna get your hands dirty on my "stink," but your prized witnesses' names make handy weapons, don't they? Nothing is too low.

Are they dangerous or just a cesspool of harmless but extremely irritating provocation? I hope the latter because all I can see doing here is to keep complaining, or shrug my shoulders and move on. The universe is simply dumber than I hoped.

[Stellafane]

I predict someday Craig and Aldo will turn on each other, and it will result in violence.