20-03-2010, 04:56 AM
You are incapable of making the least discerning distinctions. I would not
cite Eustace Mullens BECAUSE I have never heard of him. Each of us has
acquired his own perspective. And, as though it were not obvious enough,
I invited his commentary BECAUSE he is an expert in dealing with psy ops,
which I am not. Why would I invited his comments and then censor or re-
write them? Your critical capacities are clearly diminished and not worth
the bother. Dawn must have had you in mind as the immature attention
seeker. This thread is too important for your shallow distractions. I ask
that ADRIAN MACK be blocked from posting on this thread. Many thanks!
cite Eustace Mullens BECAUSE I have never heard of him. Each of us has
acquired his own perspective. And, as though it were not obvious enough,
I invited his commentary BECAUSE he is an expert in dealing with psy ops,
which I am not. Why would I invited his comments and then censor or re-
write them? Your critical capacities are clearly diminished and not worth
the bother. Dawn must have had you in mind as the immature attention
seeker. This thread is too important for your shallow distractions. I ask
that ADRIAN MACK be blocked from posting on this thread. Many thanks!
Adrian Mack Wrote:Quote:Are you going to answer me?
Until he mentioned Eustace Mullens, I had never heard of him. So I would not be citing him as a source, either. But with so much material here that is of such extraordinary interest, why are you so fixated upon trivialities? Don't answer, because I really don't want to know. If you have better things to do, then spend your time on other threads.
Do you normally co-sign information that you aren't sure about?
If you are saying you reject Eustace Mullens as a source, does that mean you reject your expert as reliable?
These are hardly trivialities.