911 Cultwatch demands Dave & Annie disclose all

[Larry O'Hara]

Of course, this is what I love about this micro-group - all four of them.

Their compassion and humanity.

1) I will certainly not confirm any speculation by a spook about the number of comrades involved in/with Notes From the Borderland/911Cultwatch, but note the fatuous implication numbers involved proves/doesn't the validity of any cause.

2) Given Machon & Shayler have never repented for one minute their part in helping jail an innocent Libyan for the Lockerbie bombing, we'll not take seriously comments about 'compassion & humanity' from such a source either. Indeed, far from repenting, both Machon & Shayler still support the ongoing official disinformation concerning this case, disinformation produced with the help of their FBI friends as Machon's book points out--good job for her most devotees of this forum presumably think her admissions there aren't real as they weren't made on the internet.

3) Given Machon & Shayler have still not made proper truthful disclosure about secret state operations against Red Action, Class War, Green Anarchist. Meibion Glyndwr etc, where is her/Shayler's own compassion & humanity as regards activists in these groups?

4) As members of the 9/11 Truth Campaign excluded from the 'Highgate Hub' will already be aware, compassion & humanity is in short supply in hierarchical organisations, be it MI5 or the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign generally

[spiv]

And your point, O'Hara?

[Larry O'Hara]

Politeness prevented me, in my original post, from stating that another reason for Machon escaping criticism here about snuggling up to her FBI mates over Lockerbie is that many on this forum cannot read anyway--but your intervention exemplifies the point.

More seriously, what an Orwellian world, where a response by myself to criticism of NFB/911Cultwatch is peremptorily whisked out of context, as though I had started a thread from scratch, and I am then asked, surreally, what my 'point' is!

Speaking of Orwell, Big Brother would be proud indeed of the way on this forum arbitrary labels are imposed on posters, so instead of forum members looking at arguments on their merits, instead 'thought criminals' are highlighted as 'critics', who (presumably) haven't been 'validated'. That a self-declared Spiv should be validated, while a 35 year radical political activist/opponent of spooks like myself is not 'validated', ultimately, I suppose, says it all...

[Dogsmilk]

Of course, this is what I love about this micro-group - all four of them.

Their compassion and humanity.

As the country's (if not the world's) foremost expert on parapolitics, I shall give a long, waffling and irrelevant set of reasons why common decency does not apply to me. Shayler upset me by being more famous than I am and I reserve the right to laugh at him - those with mental health issues have historically been figures of ridicule and when I have sold enough rip-off priced DVDS of my "historic" confrontation with Shayler (we will be in double figures soon!) I will build a big pit and put him in it so children can laugh at him and goad him with sticks. There is no place in 'progressive politics' for sympathy for other people I happen not to like. I am in talks with Sky to produce "Larry O'Hara's Nutterfun" in which I tour psychiatric hospitals laughing at people with funny ideas. This should help provide more funding for our team: To aid our world-renowned investigations we have recently purchased a lever arch file, a roll of sellotape and a false moustache. This is a serious operation and the secret state is literally quivering before us. And I don't mean with laughter! You should know there is NOT just four of us. Our new member - "tiddles" - has four legs so he counts as two extra. Once we have worked out whether fins count as legs on "Trevor" there will be more.
Machon and Shayler have failed to grovel before me adequately. I see no expression of remorse regarding an innocent Libyan. I see no remorse regarding the lost career of Michael Barrymore. I see no remorse over that bloke that just got shot in Hollyoaks. I think this amply proves that we are fully justified in laughing at the mentally unwell. If he had cancer we would quite literally piss ourselves.
I'll have you know I've been at this game for 35 years so that makes me best. And I am more radical than anyone that ever lived. I am so radical that people that don't think exactly how I want them to are just wrong.
Compassion & humanity is in short supply in hierarchical organisations, be it MI5 or the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign generally. It is true because I said so (I, of course, am exempt from such things). Tony Gosling laughs when people trip on pavements. Ian Neal thinks wigs are funny - there is no compassion or humanity in these people! You are all deluded fools and when I finally get my wish and get on telly as the expert I so truly am I will make you sorry, you see if I don't! So there.

Larry "friend of Nico Naupt' O'Hara out fighting the secret state yesterday.

Ripping boys yarns concerning matters O'Hara from days gone by. Entertaining.
http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/15dont.html

[TonyGosling]

It certainly does.
Can't you just lay off personalities and concentrate on the issues, making points backed up with evidence Larry?

Lockerbie's an interesting one - what exactly was your point?

Annie "snuggling up to her FBI mates over Lockerbie" doesn't cut the mustard for me.

Politeness prevented me, in my original post, from stating that another reason for Machon escaping criticism here about snuggling up to her FBI mates over Lockerbie is that many on this forum cannot read anyway--but your intervention exemplifies the point.

More seriously, what an Orwellian world, where a response by myself to criticism of NFB/911Cultwatch is peremptorily whisked out of context, as though I had started a thread from scratch, and I am then asked, surreally, what my 'point' is!

Speaking of Orwell, Big Brother would be proud indeed of the way on this forum arbitrary labels are imposed on posters, so instead of forum members looking at arguments on their merits, instead 'thought criminals' are highlighted as 'critics', who (presumably) haven't been 'validated'. That a self-declared Spiv should be validated, while a 35 year radical political activist/opponent of spooks like myself is not 'validated', ultimately, I suppose, says it all...

[Larry O'Hara]

Interesting that

1) Dogs Milk attributes a fictitious post to me

2) Cites the web-site of a known fascist apologist/lickspittle Stewart Home, also a notorious forger.

And to underline the point about posters on this site not reading, Gosling asks me about Lockerbie, when Machon's own book boasts of collaborating with the FBI over putting the Libyans in the frame.

My objection to Machon Shayler & their dupes here isn't personal, but political. However, if it helps you avoid the issues by repeatedly stating our differences are 'personal. then go ahead.

[TonyGosling]

Quite an allegation.
Any evidence?

So long as you keep your requests here evidenced and 'baggage free' we may clear some tings up, otherwise you're for the dustbin.

Machon's own book boasts of collaborating with the FBI over putting the Libyans in the frame.

[Larry O'Hara]

Quite an allegation.
Any evidence?

So long as you keep your requests here evidenced and 'baggage free' we may clear some tings up, otherwise you're for the dustbin.

Machon's own book boasts of collaborating with the FBI over putting the Libyans in the frame.

Dear oh dear: why should anybody believe you are a credible investigator if you cannot even read what is in Machon's book on plain view, concerning Libya Lockerbie & the FBI..All references are to the 2005 Book Guild edition of 'Spies Lies & Whistleblowers' by Anne Machon. If you had any grace, or humanity, you would apologise for insinuating my criticism of Machon here was evidence-freee. But of course you won't.


p.122 David & I are "absolutely convinced" Libya did Lockerbie

p.123 reference to Lockerbie operation as "a testament to excellent co-operation between MI5, Dumfries & Galloway police and other national law enforcement agencies"--this is 100% a reference to CIA/FBI, for who else could it be??

>>> point proven by this, from p.120, that Shayler's responsibilities included the fact (I'll underline this next bit, as I know you have difficulty reading) he "was trusted to represent the service to high-level meetings with the FBI, the US Secret Service, the CIA and the Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway"

the rest of Chapter 7 is all about blaming MI6 (alone) for fingering Iran/Syria etc, on illogical grounds

a) they wanted the 2 suspects to come to Britain for trial (p125)

b) they wanted to finger Iran (p.127)

p.126 The Maltese Double-Cross film by Frankovitch (which argued against Libyan involvement) is mentioned, described as "long & confusing" but the campaign of secret state harassment against Dalyell/others showing it is not referred to. This fact alone (when she hypocritically mentions MI5 trawling Victoria Brittain's bank account) shows how bogus is claims of either Macon or Shayler to be 'civil libertarians' of any stripe.

p.129 Shayler wrote the briefing paper distributed to the press attacking Maltese Double Cross--what is this, but the I/Ops they (rightly) criticise MI6 for??

p.130 Of continuing attempts in the media to argue it wasn't necessarily Libya, all these are blamed on MI6 (rather contradicting point a above)

p.130 Machon writes of these stories "David & I--in my capacity of editor of briefing papers for Whitehall--had to spend time refuting these articles"
>>> and so on.

[conspiracy analyst]

The precisely same allegations can be levelled against yourself that you are covering up for the Bush neo-cons by alleging 9/11 was organised by Arabs.

In that sense your position is much closer to Annies than you think...

The bombing of the airliner was an event giving training to operatives to see how to handle and massage public opinion. A dry run in what became known as the 'war on terror'.

9/11 being much bigger and more important politically in a new decade had more clout. You have come out openly as a supporter of the Bush line.

Irrespective of both your personal views either Arabs did both Lockerbie and 9/11 or they didn't and it was an inside job. This fact belongs to nobody, nobody can own it nobody can lay claim to it.

Politically speaking by creating a site called 9/11 Cultwatch you do as much damage if not more than those who go round printing fairy tales that Arabs downed the airliner over Scotland.

[Dogsmilk]

Interesting that

1) Dogs Milk attributes a fictitious post to me

2) Cites the web-site of a known fascist apologist/lickspittle Stewart Home, also a notorious forger.

And to underline the point about posters on this site not reading, Gosling asks me about Lockerbie, when Machon's own book boasts of collaborating with the FBI over putting the Libyans in the frame.

My objection to Machon Shayler & their dupes here isn't personal, but political. However, if it helps you avoid the issues by repeatedly stating our differences are 'personal. then go ahead.

1/Er yeah, I was obviously taking the piss.
If you had any grace or humanity you would explain why you think mental health problems are funny and why it is in the interests of 'progressive politics' to kick a man when he's down.

2/Your usual denouncement. If you ever got any power, I guarantee there'd be show trials. I've seen no convincing evidence Home is a 'fascist apologist' - though please do refrain from wheeling out any of your conspiracy theories from 10 years ago as I'm not interested. If anything, I think he's just too clever for you. It's perhaps because you are interminably self-important and have no sense of humour. I saw him do a piece about you to a packed lecture theatre at the fortean times unconvention years ago and it was very entertaining.

[rodin]

Interesting that

1) Dogs Milk attributes a fictitious post to me

2) Cites the web-site of a known fascist apologist/lickspittle Stewart Home, also a notorious forger.

And to underline the point about posters on this site not reading, Gosling asks me about Lockerbie, when Machon's own book boasts of collaborating with the FBI over putting the Libyans in the frame.

My objection to Machon Shayler & their dupes here isn't personal, but political. However, if it helps you avoid the issues by repeatedly stating our differences are 'personal. then go ahead.

1/Er yeah, I was obviously taking the piss.
If you had any grace or humanity you would explain why you think mental health problems are funny and why it is in the interests of 'progressive politics' to kick a man when he's down.

2/Your usual denouncement. If you ever got any power, I guarantee there'd be show trials. I've seen no convincing evidence Home is a 'fascist apologist' - though please do refrain from wheeling out any of your conspiracy theories from 10 years ago as I'm not interested. If anything, I think he's just too clever for you. It's perhaps because you are interminably self-important and have no sense of humour. I saw him do a piece about you to a packed lecture theatre at the fortean times unconvention years ago and it was very entertaining.

I remember you saying you were in mental health. Would you describe what you and to/with whom?

There were a lot of people with mental health problems in the gulags. Like they didn't fall for Bolshevick BS

[Larry O'Hara]

1/Er yeah, I was obviously taking the piss.
If you had any grace or humanity you would explain why you think mental health problems are funny and why it is in the interests of 'progressive politics' to kick a man when he's down.

I object to both Machon & Shayler: why only concentrate on one?

2/Your usual denouncement. If you ever got any power, I guarantee there'd be show trials. I've seen no convincing evidence Home is a 'fascist apologist' - though please do refrain from wheeling out any of your conspiracy theories from 10 years ago as I'm not interested. If anything, I think he's just too clever for you. It's perhaps because you are interminably self-important and have no sense of humour. I saw him do a piece about you to a packed lecture theatre at the fortean times unconvention years ago and it was very entertaining.

The evidence about Home is in the public domain...

When I have met Home in person, he has variously run away or hidden behind armed police (at the ICA).

You tell me Home is clever, and cite a room full of brain-dead turds like yourself being 'entertained' by him 10 years ago...

Says an awful lot about you, does it not? And nothing about me.

And of course, none of you have dared refute the evidence I put up about Machon/Shayler & the FBI, instead you just (as usual) hurl abuse and accuse us of being Bush apologists. Almost amusing

[Dogsmilk]

1/Er yeah, I was obviously taking the piss.
If you had any grace or humanity you would explain why you think mental health problems are funny and why it is in the interests of 'progressive politics' to kick a man when he's down.

I object to both Machon & Shayler: why only concentrate on one?

2/Your usual denouncement. If you ever got any power, I guarantee there'd be show trials. I've seen no convincing evidence Home is a 'fascist apologist' - though please do refrain from wheeling out any of your conspiracy theories from 10 years ago as I'm not interested. If anything, I think he's just too clever for you. It's perhaps because you are interminably self-important and have no sense of humour. I saw him do a piece about you to a packed lecture theatre at the fortean times unconvention years ago and it was very entertaining.

The evidence about Home is in the public domain...

When I have met Home in person, he has variously run away or hidden behind armed police (at the ICA).

You tell me Home is clever, and cite a room full of brain-dead turds like yourself being 'entertained' by him 10 years ago...

Says an awful lot about you, does it not? And nothing about me.

And of course, none of you have dared refute the evidence I put up about Machon/Shayler & the FBI, instead you just (as usual) hurl abuse and accuse us of being Bush apologists. Almost amusing

Whereas I do think the only reason you ever became interested in the TM in the first place is because of your deranged obsession with the duo and find your intimations they are still spooks a bit daft - let's not forget you were insinuating things about Shayler a while ago which have been proved dead wrong by his current state, not that you're man enough to admit it - what I find interesting is that as a self professed 'radical' and champion of 'progressive politics' you cannot help but mock Shayler for quite clearly having mental health issues at this time. Any decent person would back off. A truly decent person would put aside past conflict and at least wish him a full recovery. Instead you shamelessly take the piss, gloating over another's mental state. As I said, if he had cancer I can only assume you would piss yourself. If this is the better world your oh-so-radical clique wish to build then I think many people, myself included, would want no part of it. Bizarrely, no matter how many times I say this you just ignore it.

Heh - Home says different, but I have no interest either way or in your macho posturing. Oooooh! Home ran away from you! Well done, you must be very proud. How 'progressive', you radical ninja, you.
I do think Home is clearly a clever and perceptive bloke. At some point I'd like to look more closely at his work as I'd kind of forgotten about him before encountering you online.
I think the fact you dismiss an entire room full of people you've never met and know nothing about as "brain dead turds" does actually say quite a bit about you. Really though, Home was very entertaining.

I remember you saying you were in mental health. Would you describe what you and to/with whom?

I have worked in a number of posts in residential and community settings with both adults and young people in a social work as opposed to nursing capacity.

There were a lot of people with mental health problems in the gulags. Like they didn't fall for Bolshevick BS

It is certainly true the Soviets used the psychiatric system to suppress dissenters. Fortunately, in this country people can't be whisked off simply on the basis of their politics. In fact, assuming he doesn't do anything to present significant risk of harm to self or others, no-one can force Shayler to 'seek help'. Mind you, it depends on the 'help' - don't get me started on psychiatric drugs...

[TonyGosling]

This is good stuff Larry and well dug through. But don't you think things may have moved on somewhat in the three years since Spies Lies and Whistleblowers book was written? Remember of course that the Secret State poured over the text for ages delaying its publication.

I believe I'm right in saying that Annie's views on Lockerbie have changed somewhat since then and that with the benefit of the last few years' hindsight the quick arrival of the Yank heavies on the ground there was more suspicious than helpful.

I'm inclined to believe, what with the dire lack of knowledge of such important NATO/Nazi operations such as Gladio by MI5 and MI6 officers and even Foreign and Home secretaries it's been a fast learning curve for many of us.

Unfortunately you are likely to see having the humility to alter one's view when presented with new evidence as a sign of lying and/or guilt.

Machon's own book boasts of collaborating with the FBI over putting the Libyans in the frame.

Dear oh dear: why should anybody believe you are a credible investigator if you cannot even read what is in Machon's book on plain view, concerning Libya Lockerbie & the FBI..All references are to the 2005 Book Guild edition of 'Spies Lies & Whistleblowers' by Anne Machon. If you had any grace, or humanity, you would apologise for insinuating my criticism of Machon here was evidence-free. But of course you won't.


p.122 David & I are "absolutely convinced" Libya did Lockerbie

p.123 reference to Lockerbie operation as "a testament to excellent co-operation between MI5, Dumfries & Galloway police and other national law enforcement agencies"--this is 100% a reference to CIA/FBI, for who else could it be??

>>> point proven by this, from p.120, that Shayler's responsibilities included the fact (I'll underline this next bit, as I know you have difficulty reading) he "was trusted to represent the service to high-level meetings with the FBI, the US Secret Service, the CIA and the Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway"

the rest of Chapter 7 is all about blaming MI6 (alone) for fingering Iran/Syria etc, on illogical grounds

a) they wanted the 2 suspects to come to Britain for trial (p125)

b) they wanted to finger Iran (p.127)

p.126 The Maltese Double-Cross film by Frankovitch (which argued against Libyan involvement) is mentioned, described as "long & confusing" but the campaign of secret state harassment against Dalyell/others showing it is not referred to. This fact alone (when she hypocritically mentions MI5 trawling Victoria Brittain's bank account) shows how bogus is claims of either Macon or Shayler to be 'civil libertarians' of any stripe.

p.129 Shayler wrote the briefing paper distributed to the press attacking Maltese Double Cross--what is this, but the I/Ops they (rightly) criticise MI6 for??

p.130 Of continuing attempts in the media to argue it wasn't necessarily Libya, all these are blamed on MI6 (rather contradicting point a above)

p.130 Machon writes of these stories "David & I--in my capacity of editor of briefing papers for Whitehall--had to spend time refuting these articles"
>>> and so on.

[TonyGosling]

This actually says everything about you Larry.

That you're so heavy laden with spite and baggage that you're barely able to put forward a reasoned point.

Just one more outburst like that and you'll be suspended too. As I said, stick to the issues and we may get somewhere.

You tell me Home is clever, and cite a room full of brain-dead turds like yourself being 'entertained' by him 10 years ago...

Says an awful lot about you, does it not? And nothing about me.

[chrisc]

Larry "friend of Nico Naupt' O'Hara

Indeed, Nico Haupt the Redwatch style cyber stalker, see -- Dazzled by Disinfo: 911cultwatch.org.uk http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2389

[gruts]

Big Brother would be proud indeed of the way on this forum arbitrary labels are imposed on posters, so instead of forum members looking at arguments on their merits, instead 'thought criminals' are highlighted as 'critics', who (presumably) haven't been 'validated'. That a self-declared Spiv should be validated, while a 35 year radical political activist/opponent of spooks like myself is not 'validated', ultimately, I suppose, says it all....

if you insist on posting a stream of infantile attacks against this forum and its members on a website and blog called "9/11 Cultwatch", it's a little bit rich of you to then complain so indignantly about being labelled a "9/11 Truth Critic" isn't it?

and having read some of the drivel posted on the aforementioned website and blog, I think that if you really were a "radical political activist", you'd probably have more important/less asinine things to do with your time.

associating yourself with nico haupt (not to mention the cyber-tantrums you've posted on this thread) also speaks volumes about you....comrade.

[TonyGosling]

And you know exactly why that is Larry, because you and Mr Stott constantly pour scorn on the most tightly argued research and opinion exposing how this country is being run as a fiefdom with democracy at a national level only being a thin sham.

Yes you have freedom of speech but every time you appear to find it necessary to poison the well of Truth and freedom from which we are all drinking.

Mind you you do sometimes come up with some good points and I respect you for that. I mean, where else in the world would a 9/11 Forum allow as one of its posters someone who'd set up a website specifically designed as an assault on the 9/11 Truth movement and branding us as a 'cult'.

Anyway it's clearly NOT arbitrary Larry is it, even you can surely find it in yourself to concede that point.

Big Brother would be proud indeed of the way on this forum arbitrary labels are imposed on posters, so instead of forum members looking at arguments on their merits, instead 'thought criminals' are highlighted as 'critics', who (presumably) haven't been 'validated'. That a self-declared Spiv should be validated, while a 35 year radical political activist/opponent of spooks like myself is not 'validated', ultimately, I suppose, says it all....

[Larry O'Hara]

if you insist on posting a stream of infantile attacks against this forum and its members on a website and blog called "9/11 Cultwatch", it's a little bit rich of you to then complain so indignantly about being labelled a "9/11 Truth Critic" isn't it?

The infantile attacks are ones myself Paul & Heidi are the objects of.

I think that if you really were a "radical political activist", you'd probably have more important/less asinine things to do with your time.

The idea of you commenting on any of this is, frankly, laughable

associating yourself with nico haupt (not to mention the cyber-tantrums you've posted on this thread) also speaks volumes about you....comrade.

Here we get to the kernel of it--I have no affinity or association with Haupt, and the persistent and repeated lies to this effect are clearly motivated by a disinformational agenda on the part of those repeating it.

[Larry O'Hara]

Larry,you and Mr Stott constantly pour scorn on the most tightly argued research and opinion exposing how this country is being run as a fiefdom with democracy at a national level only being a thin sham.

Really? Tightly argued research? Who from Webster Griffin Tarpley? Oswald Le Winter? David Shayler? Searchlight?

Anyway it's clearly NOT arbitrary Larry is it, even you can surely find it in yourself to concede that point.

Of course the labelling system is arbitrary, because it is imposed. And the purpose is to encourage posters to discount what those so labelled are saying, or at the very least to downgrade it.

Big Brother would be proud indeed of the way on this forum arbitrary labels are imposed on posters, so instead of forum members looking at arguments on their merits, instead 'thought criminals' are highlighted as 'critics', who (presumably) haven't been 'validated'. That a self-declared Spiv should be validated, while a 35 year radical political activist/opponent of spooks like myself is not 'validated', ultimately, I suppose, says it all....

[/quote]

[chrisc]

Here we get to the kernel of it--I have no affinity or association with Haupt, and the persistent and repeated lies to this effect are clearly motivated by a disinformational agenda on the part of those repeating it.

Back in July last year you didn't have a link to him as far as I'm aware:

http://web.archive.org/web/200707090332 ... cultwatch/

By November you had his site as the top external link on your blog:



Then after this was pointed out to you on Indymedia:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/ ... on#c183900

You changed the link text:



This seems to fly in the face of you having no affinity or association with Haupt, when are you going to remove this link, it's akin to linking to Redwatch.

[Larry O'Hara]

I've put this bit large, because you evidently have difficulty reading it...

"whilst we do not endorse the site owners no plane theory rubbish his views on fellow cultists make the site essential"

We have as much affinity with him as you, if that helps?

By the way, are you the same Chris Coverdale who is Machon's flunkey?

[chrisc]

his views on fellow cultists make the site essential

Like the views he expresses at this meeting?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLin ... marks.aspx

Or the wq2rx psyco psyop videos he promotes?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wq2rx

Do you really follow what he says and does and the videos he posts?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nico+haupt

For example check out the stuff he has done with Paula Gloria and his harrassment to activists -- this nonsense is essential?

[Larry O'Hara]

his views on fellow cultists make the site essential

Like the views he expresses at this meeting?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLin ... marks.aspx

Or the wq2rx psyco psyop videos he promotes?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wq2rx

Do you really follow what he says and does and the videos he posts?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nico+haupt

For example check out the stuff he has done with Paula Gloria and his harrassment to activists -- this nonsense is essential?

he is a low-life certainly: as are you for continually alleging an affinity between me & him.

Why don't you answer my question about your relationship to Machon?

[911CultWatchWatch]

Why don't you answer my question about your relationship to Machon?

Because of something normal people have, called privacy.
So let's have your family history before you go round demanding other peoples'.

You have several different personalities at the moment varying from passable to peurile Larry.
Are you several people all at once?
Who are your main harassment targets?

You should be answering a few questions.

[chrisc]

he is a low-life certainly

If that is the case and since it appears that you don't actually follow what he does why on earth do you consider his views essential?

When was the last time you found some essential insight from him?

Why are you so quick to use personal abuse?

[PaulStott]

Why are you so quick to use personal abuse?

The words pot and kettle spring to mind here Chris.

Any chance of engaging with what we have actually written?

Annie would'nt like it, but I am sure you could do it you tried. Or do you not think independently?

[chrisc]

Why are you so quick to use personal abuse?

The words pot and kettle spring to mind here Chris.

When I have been abusive of you or Larry? I'm not aware that I have ever done anything apart from voicing political agreements and disagreements.

Any chance of engaging with what we have actually written?

Sure, but I'd much rather do it on this thread, which does have some engagement already, I don't visit nineeleven.co.uk very often:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2389

[Larry O'Hara]

Why don't you answer my question about your relationship to Machon?

Because of something normal people have, called privacy.
So let's have your family history before you go round demanding other peoples'.

Not a personal, but a political question--or don't you know the difference? As Chris C is one person who persisently and falsely accuses me of supporting Haupt/No Planes, when he must know this is not the case, I am seeking to ascertain a political reason for him persisting with this baseless accusation. If indeed he is the same person who is involved with Machon's latest operation sphere/group 'Make War History', then, for me at least, his motivation will have thereby been elucidated.

You have several different personalities at the moment varying from passable to peurile Larry.
Are you several people all at once?

Your attempted insult might be more impressive if you could spell puerile...

[/quote] Who are your main harassment targets?

interesting use of terminology: are you engaging in a bit of projection perchance?

[Dogsmilk]

Why don't you answer my question about your relationship to Machon?

Because of something normal people have, called privacy.
So let's have your family history before you go round demanding other peoples'.

Not a personal, but a political question--or don't you know the difference? As Chris C is one person who persisently and falsely accuses me of supporting Haupt/No Planes, when he must know this is not the case, I am seeking to ascertain a political reason for him persisting with this baseless accusation. If indeed he is the same person who is involved with Machon's latest operation sphere/group 'Make War History', then, for me at least, his motivation will have thereby been elucidated.

You have several different personalities at the moment varying from passable to peurile Larry.
Are you several people all at once?

Your attempted insult might be more impressive if you could spell puerile...

Who are your main harassment targets?

interesting use of terminology: are you engaging in a bit of projection perchance?

Larry, I'm still waiting for an answer from you as to why you think it's legitimate to take the piss out of Shayler when he is clearly suffering from some kind of breakdown. Given you ostensibly represent 'progressive' politics, one would have thought such cheap shots would be beneath you. Apparently not.
As Chrisc has pointed out (and not just on this thread), you initially inserted no caveat whatsoever when you linked to Haupt's site and only did so when he alerted you to its nature. My personal hypothesis is that you simply did not realise who ran the site - you saw a site attacking truthers, didn't read it properly, thought it was all jolly good, and decided it would make a good link. Consequently, you feel you can't remove the link as this would mean you admitting made an error and aren't the omniscient expert you like to pretend you are. And to cap it all, it took a truther to point out your mistake.
This then leaves you in the position of linking to a site that attacks 'regular' truthers in order to promote the most extreme variant of 911 truth. It is as if you linked to a Combat 18 site on the basis it gives searing critiques of the BNP for being too left wing. You could quite easily have linked to e.g. 911Myths which attempts to present counter arguments to major truth movement claims and at least does so by focusing on the arguments (though I appreciate you prefer ad hom wherever possible). Instead, when I click on your link this morning I'm straight to -

9/11 TV Fakery Coverup: Luke Rudkwoski continues to support WarCriminal Alex Jones

BBC5 YouTube promotes "European" 9/11 planehuggerence; spookerence

Radio Archive: TheWebfairy on Vyzygoth's "On the Grassy Knoll"
Rosalee Grable "The Web Fairy"
on no planes at the WTC

And this is what's "essential" is it? This is what you expect the 10 people who read your blog to find useful? Could you actually explain exactly why this site is "essential"? You may as well just link to 911Movement or 911Taboo - there's plenty slagging off of "truthlings" there, too.
Why is this "essential" and the dismemberment of no-planery in the truth controversies section of this forum not "essential"? Why do you specifically choose no-planers to promote?

As it is, out of three links you see as soon as you hit your blog, one is for your sister site, one for a critic site and one for a no-planer site. With the no-planer site at the top.

If you had just admitted you were wrong in the first place you wouldn't be looking like such a tw@t now, and that could leave you free to obsess over Annie Machon. Unless, of course, you really do have a few sneaking suspicions about those planes....