#35
Post
by julian » 16 Mar 2002, 05:10
I'm not surprised at all your considered answer to evidence of your own perfidity is the eloquent 'No', is the 'does not compute' message flashing up again, don't worry, just shut down and reboot, I'm sure there are no essential files existent that woud be lost in the process. But hey Charles have a squiz at this, being as you are, deeply concerned about lies, deceits and fabrications, I thought I would assist in discovering some more words of wisdom from the Bunchmeister
heres what you wrote on the 21/02 at 6.53am
"There's no need for me to identify anything, you made the mistake, and now you've corrected it. Let's move on to your next mistake."
complimented by this ode to your sanctity on the same day
"The total lack of evidence. I know that's not how you approach history, but I'm old fashioned."
There it is, Charles has identified more shonky thinking, and here he has demonstrated such traits practically
"You wrote on the 13th at 5.28pm:
"To date, virtually everything you've claimed about the POW issue is contradicted by the facts, or is a deliberate distortion of them. "
Let me refresh your memory with evidence of my distortion's, here's what I wrote on the 12th at 2.18pm:
" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque. And I do believe that if such an enormous crime occurred notice would have been served by the usual mob of anti-american groups, I suppose that if the conspiracy theorists can have their XFiles, they can add this to the collection"
So, if the above is an example of distortion and contradicted by the facts, does that mean that I have misunderstood what you are arguing, are you in fact attempting to prove that Eisenhower was a war criminal and Baque's right? Indeed, are you aware at all of what you are endeavouring to say? "
But Charles is not one to be bothered by the truth or let a good falsehood prevent him from proclaiming his virtue. Look he would have you believe this, written on the 28/02 at 4.36
"That's the kind of trouble you get in when you substitute supposing for thinking."
Incredible, and here is Charles demonstrating that very concept,
"Lets just pluck one Buncherism out for starters, here you write on the 13th at 5.28pm:
" The refutation of Bacque's lies, which you traffic with no concern for truth"
Now here's what I wrote a day before on the 12th at 2.18pm:
" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque"
Yes, very obvious isn't it, that I traffic the lie's of Bacques, obvious that is, if your desire to score a point outweighs your ethical concern, but of course Charles I admit you haven't truncated any quote, but merely invented one, but thats just the beginning of your pernacious claims. Take a squiz at this
You wrote on the 14th at 3.13pm:
" Bacque has nothing to do with Mr. Tobin of the Adelaide Institute. You posed Tobin"
So apparently, I'm trafficking Baques lies one moment, than when such proves inconvienent for your arguments, I'm posing Tobin? Hmm, you must have a fabulous imagination, sort of provides a balance for your paucity of truth, but wait, there's more fine examples of a vivid imagination at work "
Yes Charles I am very impressed the way your glib statements bare no relevance to your performance, it must have been no mean feat to totally repudiate every pithy maxim you espouse, but wait, thats not all here is another of Bunch's homilies on truth, justice and having your hand on it
written on 28/02 at 3.30pm
"You don't get to define the event any way you want so you can then claim you're not denying it."
or cop this one written on the same day
"Historical truth is not an opinion, but something established by evidence"
"They are contestable only by people who deny evidence because they wish to disbelieve "
Is there another Charles Bunch, one just as Breathtakingly stupid, whose pronouncements are evidently orated from one end while the other inverts them, see here Charles are more lies, fabrications, distortions and works of a vivid imagination than you can poke a stick at
"You wrote on the 13th at 5.28pm:
"To date, virtually everything you've claimed about the POW issue is contradicted by the facts, or is a deliberate distortion of them. "
Let me refresh your memory with evidence of my distortion's, here's what I wrote on the 12th at 2.18pm:
" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque. And I do believe that if such an enormous crime occurred notice would have been served by the usual mob of anti-american groups, I suppose that if the conspiracy theorists can have their XFiles, they can add this to the collection"
So, if the above is an example of distortion and contradicted by the facts, does that mean that I have misunderstood what you are arguing, are you in fact attempting to prove that Eisenhower was a war criminal and Baque's right? Indeed, are you aware at all of what you are endeavouring to say? And what to make of this,
you wrote on the 12th at 9.28pm:
large enough for you, do you think you can bring yourself to read it now, but here Charles, let me demonstrate another of your choice offerings and my reply
Lets just pluck one Buncherism out for starters, here you write on the 13th at 5.28pm:
" The refutation of Bacque's lies, which you traffic with no concern for truth"
Now here's what I wrote a day before on the 12th at 2.18pm:
" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque"
Yes, very obvious isn't it, that I traffic the lie's of Bacques, obvious that is, if your desire to score a point outweighs your ethical concern, but of course Charles I admit you haven't truncated any quote, but merely invented one, but thats just the beginning of your pernacious claims. Take a squiz at this
You wrote on the 14th at 3.13pm:
" Bacque has nothing to do with Mr. Tobin of the Adelaide Institute. You posed Tobin"
So apparently, I'm trafficking Baques lies one moment, than when such proves inconvienent for your arguments, I'm posing Tobin? Hmm, you must have a fabulous imagination, sort of provides a balance for your paucity of truth, but wait, there's more fine examples of a vivid imagination at work "
But Charles how could anyone take you seriously?? I mean, you loudly proclaim dishonesty, pretend that you are virtuous and pontificate ad nauseam, but in reality you resemble a person who has received vast emotional scarring, you retreat into a tiny world of your own devising and vainly swat away at anything that would threaten to unbalance your perception of yourself. But since you obviously have an idee fixe in regard to the Adelaide Institute, you could be the hero of many(and of course to yourself) by destroying it once and for all, this I feel could be best accomplished by you in fact, joining the institute, and on the proviso that you exert all your turgid talents on behalf of the said institute, I'm sure that within a week it will have gone down the tubes.
Cheers Chump
Last edited by
julian on 16 Mar 2002, 05:53, edited 1 time in total.