You also mention Stan Monteith.

He undoubtedly explains the financing of Cecil Rhodes and the "Round Table Groups" well, but he ALSO believes it's a mix of the Illuminati, Jesuits, Vatican, OTO, Satanists, Luciferians etc...

But never Zionists and jews.

You should clarify HEAVILY your position's on these subjects before you move on.

If you dont the large fonts and funny smileys will come out in force. Not to be trifled with.

That comment was directed at Debus some while backin the thread. You may have noticed my tag. I don't "ignore" anything so if you are suggesting I bow out of this thread then you have no idea of my function here.

I also noticed your other comments. First off, you might want to limit the number of posts you respond with when addressing a single poster. There is no need to use three posts when one will do. Doing so is a cheap way to spam the board. Secondly you've responded in the very same style as Debus... with invective and by demeaning those that YOU don't agree with.


Try it and you will rue the day.

You know little of what I want. I cannot speak for PlanetQuo, nor would I. I fully agree with his assessment of Debus in which he makes clear that presumption is too often a methodology of argument that serves little purpose except wrangling over strawmen.

What I want is civil discourse governed by logic and reason. It should be obvious to you that just about everyone these days is operating entirely on emotions, which in itself is not necessarily a crime but patently absurd when reason is called for. Furthermore, the powers that be these days, in the media as well as in politics are ALL basing their propaganda on emotion of false patriotism and self-serving platitudes. Yet underneath it all there exists a cold logic of a Machiavellian stripe which very much manipulates emotion so as to avoid any confrontation with reason, truth and logic.

However, that being said, I do comprehend your emotional investiture in these issues as I share them myself, that is, if despair is properly classified as an emotion. But allowing emotions to overwhelm our reason merely creates an imbalance within ourselves which only serves to distort the true feelings of outrage and disgust that should result if more was known of the full extent of the mendacity of our public servants.

We are dealing here with a text discourse in which emotions are not easily observed, and even if they were I do not share your conviction that emotions are appropriate to the current task at hand. It is only by presenting the truth unemotionally that the truth will out, that through outrage every man and woman will see how they have been deceived and seek the appropriate means to reverse the current trend toward fascism hidden below the velvet gloves of false sympathy and feel-good rhetoric. In any case this is going way off topic and I see little point in bringing in emotions as a means of analysing the verity of a purported conversation in a cemetery.

My reasons for addressing his "cool reason" are below...


I add this to explain the invective...


I maintain this position to settle the dispute...


You will NEVER stop my smileys! Never!  

Did I miss something?  Has debus been kicked off this forum?  I notice he hasn't posted for a long time.  Who was his sidekick?  Someone please clue me in.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7169205203825782546

know anything about this video?

24.02-26.40 a piece on the 5 dancing Israelis. Are these 'witness interviews' for real?

(Sequiter - there might be a bit of Hebrew...)

Thank you for the accolades Donnie Dimbo. It's a shame you won't be getting any from me in return.

Am I fucking retard, you enquire? The answer to both parts of your question is no. I am sexually inactive at the moment, and I would not consider myself to be obtuse. Furthermore, I doubt very much if a mentally-defective person would be capable of authoring what you describe as "beautiful pages of fine reading and analysis." I would think that a retard would be limited to writing inane comments such as the ones you wrote, Donnie Dildo.

Your logic is astounding, Divvie Dorko. Debus uses Alex Jones to attack DBS, EH and CB. That is perfectly acceptable to you. Debus can refer to Jones if it suits his case. But if I then utilise video footage of Alex Jones attacking David Icke to debunk Debus' assertion that Alex Jones would not treat a fellow researcher with the same contempt, and in the same shabby manner that Debus alleges the aforementioned trio did with MCP, I am, according, to your warped reasoning a fucking 'retard'. Rational thinking and logical deduction are clearly not your strongest suites, but if degrees were awarded for vitriolic abuse, you would be a Professor emeritus. I can take it though, and I trust that you can too because I'm about to pour large doses of your own medicine down your throat...open wide.


That's Mr. Moron to you. Show some respect peasant.

I was unaware that David Icke was involved in the adulteration of Lizard excrement. I have, however, learned that you are definitely full of unadulterated Bovine excrement. So full of of crap are you, Donnie Turdo, that it pours forth from your mouth like lava flowing from an erupting volcano. Fetch a roll of Andrex and wipe your mouth. Your breath must stink something awful.

If my position is not clear to you Dorkie Dicko, then I suggest that you remove your head from you ass, wipe the crap off your eyes, then go back and re-read what I wrote. You might then see that I made a polite request that the discussion be returned to the 'conversation in hebrew'.

I have said nothing about David Icke in my posts other than that I respect him, and that Alex Jones slags him off in one of the 'secret Rulers Of The World' videos. If you wish to interpret my statement as unqualified support for Icke's work, then feel free to do so. To be pefectly honest, I really don't give a fuck about what you think. You are but a cork floating on the sea of inconsequence as far as I am concerned. Think whatever you like.

To say that one respects another is not to say that one is supportive of their work. Respecting an individual for who they are is entirely different from respecting them for the work that they produce. But although this is not too onerous a concept to grasp, you, however, are encountering great difficulty in doing so.

I feel no great desire to explain myself to you. In fact, I feel no desire at all. And even if I did, I doubt very much that you could even begin to understand a character as complex as I. You are fortunate that I even acknowledge your existence. I don't usually waste my precious time trying to reason with buffoons. Start looking for someone else to play psychological tennis with because after I make this post you become persona non grata. As I said, I prefer to communicate with people higher up the food chain.

Now where were we?...Oh dear...it's 'retard' time again.


From moron to oxymoron. 'Retarded' and 'genius' don't quite fit together Donkey Dippo. As mentioned earlier in my post, I am not sexually active at the moment, and if it wasn't obvious to you before that I am not mentally-deficient, it should be now. Having eliminated 'fucking' and 'retarded' from your statement, it now reads: You have to be a genius. Thank you kindly sir. I'm afraid that I can't return the compliment though, as I consider you to be an imbecile, and if divvies could fly, you would be a squadron leader.


It is extremely generous of you to confess what is already glaringly obvious.


A bomb is an incendiary device that, when detonated, explodes. The Mossad like to place such devices in hotels, automobiles, buses, and trains, and then blame Arabs for doing so. Zionists placed bombs in the World Trade Centre buildings too, and also blamed that on Arabs too. They now have their shills active in forums such as this trying to comnvince us that it wasn't bombs at all that were placed in the WTC buildings, but 'mini-nukes'. And when one Zionist shill is debunked and exposed, then, hey presto, up pops another to replace him. The organ-grinder has been taken-out, and you, the monkey, have been sent along as his replacement.

A Shell can be defined in a number of ways. One such definition would be: a hollow projectile for a cannon or mortar that is filled with an explosive charge which is designed to explode upon impact, after penetration or in-flight. The Israel Defense Forces used them last Summer to murder a familiy of Palestinians on a Gaza beach, and to decapitate children in Lebanon. Israeli children like to autograph them before they are fired.

In future, please do not be such a lazy twat, and learn to use a dictionary. You will find a dictionary useful whenever you come across words that you don't know the meaning of.


I leave the choice of who individuals may consider worthy of their respect, to the individuals themselves. Who individuals choose to respect, or not respect is no concern of mine.


You appear conversant with some of Icke's work, so it is therefore safe to assume that you have read some his books. You refer to some of what was written in Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster. As you appear appreciative of such titles, I recommend this book. It is an essential read for those with a mental age of between 5-11 years. You should find the book just about within your grasp.


What "ridiculous assertion" do you refer to pea-brain? Could you be specific please? While I appreciate that to do so would incur some extra effort on your part, it would, however, go a long way to preventing vagueness creeping into the discussion.

Like Debus, you pounce on the minutest of details, and inflate them out of all proportion. I say that I respect David Icke, and you infer that statement to be an endorsement of a variety of Icke's beliefs. That comment was made over six weeks ago yet it has taken you all of this time to raise objections. Why the delay? Why do you wait until now? Debus tried to discredit me via my stated endorsement of DBS, EH and CB, and you are now trying to achieve the same objective by attempting to establish an endorsement of David Icke on my part.

You enter this discussion with all guns blazing and immediately focus on David Icke. I mention Icke by name just three times - twice in the same paragraph - in the posts that I have made prior to this one. I make no mention of his work, his theories or his beliefs. It is you who does that. That you do so, and that your opening comments follow in the wake of my comments on Debus gives the game away. You played your cards too soon.

Debus homed-in on what I wrote in two sentences, and managed to create three posts worth of material from my words, and you have equalled his oustanding achievement in semantics and pedanticalness. Like him, you focus on a few sentences, but ignore everything else that I've written.

I do not promote Icke's theories about shape-shifting, blood-drinking Reptilians from the fourth dimension. I do not believe in aliens or UFOs - I never have. I do not share his interpretation of who the Illuminati may be. I definitely do not concur with his views on the Vatican, and, I can assure you, Doggie Barko, that I most certainly am not in accord with his contention that Zionists are not responsible for the slaughter of almost 3,000 people. My position on who did 9-11 is crystal-clear - if you could  be bothered to make the effort to discover what it actually is.

And so too are my views on David Icke. Do now what you should've done before you chose to use David Icke as the conduit through which you attempt to discredit me - go and find out for yourself what my thoughts on the guy actually are. Go find, or would that be asking too much of you?

As for the Milli Vanilli solo, I'd much prefer a milky Vanilla Soda, thank you.


Yes I do. So what?


Yes, Donner Kebabo, I am aware of Dr. Monteith's lessons, but thank you for the synopsis anyway. As with, Icke, my respect for the man, does not equate to a mass-approval of all his work. As I have already explained, respecting an individual as a person is entirely different from respecting the work an individual produces. It is possible to not entirely agree with someone, but still respect them nonetheless. But you cannot seem to wrap your head around that simple fact. Try dwelling on what I have just said for a while, and it might then sink into your thick skull.


That is his opinion. I do not share it. Texe Marrs and Michael Rivero, however, differ in their views, but you conveniently ignore the fact that I also named these two as people for whom I also have respect. I am not quite sure if you have highly-honed skills in all aspects of gardening or if your talent in this sphere is limited to cherry-picking and spreading manure. How appropriate - a fruit loop who cherry-picks.


My position is already quite clear to those who know me and are familiar with my web sites. Those who do not know me can easily find-out for themselves what my position is on specific issues - assuming, of course, that they actually want to.

Rather, it is you who needs to clarify to your position, Doggie Barko. Are you here to participate in the discussion or have you come here to cause disruption, discord, and fights? The question is, of course of a rhetorical nature - your sudden Jack-in-the-box appearance on this thread reveals your true intentions and shows your true colours. Your contribution to the topic under discussion has been absolutely zilch. You haven't mentioned the 'conversation in Hebrew' even once. All you have done since your arrival is attempt to discredit me. And you attack the messenger because you cannot attack the message.

You question my motives and accuse me of being a shill while portraying yourself as a genuine Zionist-exposer. But if you truly were what you purport yourself to be, then you would also wish to expose this 'conversation in Hebrew' story. That you have yet to make any reference to it leads me to conclude that you have no interest in the 'conversation in Hebrew', and that in turn leads me to question your motives.

If you were a genuine 9-11 researcher, then you too would have spotted the inconsistencies in this story that I and others have detected. But you have not. Indeed, you have shown no interest whatsoever in the issue. Strange behaviour indeed for a Zionist-exposer.

You have accused me of being a shill, so why not Drop Eric Hufschmid an e-mail to inform him that you have uncovered a Zionist mole who is posting in the NOLAJBS forum under the name of PlanetQuo? You do trust Hufschmid, don't you? Eric Hufschmid doesn't cover-up for the Zionists. Eric Hufschmid doesn't believe in space-aliens, flying-saucers or shape-shifting, blood-drinking aliens who operate from the fourth dimension. Eric Hufschmid does not believe that the Jesuits and the Vatican control the Zionists. Eric Hufschmid doesn't attach great importance to the Illuminati. Eric Hufschmid does not have any of the faults that you find with David Icke.

You are determined to expose me as a shill. I look forward with great amusement to viewing the 'evidence' that you produce to substantiate your allegation. You are amusing if nothing else. Have you ever considered a career doing stand-up comedy? You really should consider becoming a comedian. It would make such a refreshing change for you to have an audience laughing with you rather than laughing at you.


I defy you. I spit in your face, you snivelling reprobate. So go on, do your worst, use large font to bash me. Thump me with your smilies.


Pom - a disparaging term for English immigrants to Australia or New Zealand.

Once again, Dunnie Dumpo, you remind us what am ignoramus you are. I'm neither English or resident in Zionist-infested Australia. I have not emigrated to New Zealand nor do I have any intention of. Sorry to piss on your parade, Tinnie Drunko, but, I share your loathing of cricket, and that is about all you and I have in common.


Yes, you do - with alarming frequency...but that, after all, is one of the weapons in the shill's arsenal...and there he goes again...digress...digress...digress...obfuscate...obfuscate...obfuscate...


Very crafty indeed, but your ploy, as you Ozzies would say, stands out like a shag on a rock. You have done to me what the Zionists did to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. First, you twist what I actually said (respect) and replaced it with another word (admire), and you then enclose the new word within quotation marks to make it appear as if I had said "admire" when I had said no such thing. You attributed a quotation to me that I did not make. You're nicked sunshine - bang to rights. The record of my posts provide irrefutable evidence that never have I stated that I "admire" Monteith or Icke. You lying sack of scum. You duplicitious maggot. You mongrel.


Okay donger-head, I'll explain. I don't play cricket therefore I  don't "throw a decent googly." I do, however, throw a decent Googlely, so catch this you vomitous toad. Howzat? Now grab a shovel, and start digging. But be careful when you are digging, being in Australia you might end-up falling out of the bottom of the world and begin to float into space. Wow! What a lovely thought - you drifting-off into space never to be seen again!!

Start digging Diggie Dingo. And when you are finished your excavations, rush back to proclaim of how you have discovered 'evidence' which 'proves' I am a shill. Tell everyone of how your discovery of two articles that I have on my web site which were both written by David Icke is concrete and absolute cast-iron 'proof' that I am a shill. That one is in connection with Zionism, and the other the Federal Reserve, is irrelevant. The subject matter is inconsequential, all that matters is David Icke wrote them. Go get the smoking guns...hop to it Skippy...and good luck with your fossick!!

I must say this. David Icke has a large following. Your logic decrees that all of his supporters are therefore shills. This is but one example I could use to demonstrate how twisted your logic is. While I perceive some of Alex Jones' supporters to be somewhat gullable, I do not consider anyone who supports him to be a shill. Naive? Yes. A shill? No? - John Conner excepted. I am not a supporter of David Dicke yet this, in your eyes, still means that I am a shill. In your warped logic, even to respect someone with whom you entirely disagree is sufficient grounds to be labelled a shill. Do you honestly believe that you have a convincing argument here? Good Lord, I think you actually do believe so.


Is that so, clacker? We shall see about that. From where I'm standing, you are the one who is neck-deep in Roo-poo, whacka.


Holier than thou? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Is it because I have the audacity to question the integrity of other researchers and you, Mr. whiter-whiter-than-white? If so, then you too are 'holier than thou'. Hypocrite? Is not what I have just highlighted a vivid example of hypocrisy? Are you not guilty of being that which you accuse me of being, or is there one set of rules for me and another for yourself? It appears so.

There you go again Icke...Icke...Icke...David bloody Icke...you seem obsessed with David Icke. Has he shagged your missus or something? I have the "nerve" to say that I respect David Icke. So what?  Am I to allow you to be the arbirter of who I may, and who I may not respect? I have already pointed-out on several previous occasions my views on this issue. This thread is not about David Icke. It is about Ed Haas, Alex Jones and the 'conversation in Hebrew' story that they are peddling. If you want to discuss David Icke, then why not join a David Icke forum where he is the centre of discussion?

I won't ask you politely, as I did Debus, to return to the topic for which this thread was created because you are not a polite person. Instead, I will demeaningly and invectively just tell you to shut your mouth if you have nothing constructive to say. You are beginning to sound like a hyperactive Parrot on speed. You evidently have nothing intelligent to contribute to the 'conversation in Hebrew' discussion, and show no obvious sign of interest in the subject.

May I remind you that it is not David Icke who is pushing the 'conversation in Hebrew' story, it is Ed Haas and Alex Jones. And despite this inconvenient fact, and despite Jones having been caught time and again diverting attention away from Israel's involvement in 9-11 you choose to focus on David Icke who has no connection whatsoever to the 'conversation in Hebrew'. You seem extremely reluctant to discuss Alex Jones and Ed Haas. Why the reticence?

Why, when you chide Icke for being a shill do you not do likewise with Alex Jones. You believe Icke to be "one of the biggest shills of all," and yet many others believe the same to be true of Alex Jones, and since it is Jones who is promoting this 'conversation in Hebrew' story, and Not Icke, and since both are considered to be shills, why do you then fail to condemn Jones with equal voracity?

Your objections to me are based on the assumption that I am being hypocritical because I respect Icke and not Jones. If I were to work from the logic that you have worked from, and if I were to operate within the parameters that you have set, and respected Jones but not Icke, would I then meet with your approval? You rip me to shreds for respecting Icke and Monteith, but offer no acknowledgement of the fact that I have also stated that I also respect Mike Rivero and Texe Marrs, neither of whom could be accused of being Zionist shills. Why? Because it doesn't suit your cause? I reckon so.

As you have yet to state your opinion of Alex Jones, we do not yet know what views you may hold. So, what are you views? Do you support Alex Jones? Yes or no? Do you believe that he is covering-up for the Zionists? Yes or no? Do you believe this 'conversation in Hebrew' story that he is promoting to be true? Yes or no? Are the points that I have raised so far in connection with this story valid? Yes or no? Am I correct in my assumption that, considering you have not raised a single objection of the research that I have so far presented to the forum regarding the 'conversation in Hebrew', that you are therefore in full agreement with what has been published? Yes or no? I ask simple, straightforward, direct questions, so simple, straightforward, direct answers will suffice.

I have never made any statements within this forum, any other forum or on my website to the effect that I support David Icke or that I subscribe to his theories and beliefs. I have given him credit where I felt it was due, and castigated him, as you do, when I felt it was merited. Overall, the criticisms I have made of Icke are in excess of any praise. You can verify this via my blog on MySpace. This is the only post that I have ever placed on the Internet regarding David Icke. Hardly the sign of a David Icke fan.

I accuse you of creating a straw-man argument via which you attempt to discredit me. Indeed, the totality of the case that you have so far presented hinges exclusively on isinuation, innuendo and implication. You attack the messenger but not the message. Take Icke out of the equation, and what are you left with?

You state that I 'demand' "certain standards." I challenge you to produce text that I have writtten where I actually make this 'demand'. Show me where I have a statement outlining a 'demand' for these "certain standards" that you speak of. Show me where I have stated that I 'demand' something. The fact is, I have 'demanded' nothing from no one. That you resort to Debus' tactic of quoting people on what they haven't actually said, using specific words that they did not write, is indicative of how weak your argument is, and of how desperate you are.

"...do I need to post a long winded, highly detailed, point by point examination that no one will read," you enquire. Yes, I think that you do. I have made a great deal of effort and invested a considerable amount of time in presenting my arguments. Granted, my last post was lengthy, and so too is this one, but what you define as 'long-winded', I define as articulation. I will be delighted to read any future post of yours that is written in great detail and offers a point-by-point analysis of the 'conversation in Hebrew'.

I am, though, not in the slightest bit interested in reading any more posts of yours that discuss anything other than the 'conversation in Hebrew'. I will not be engaged on any topic other than the one for which this thread was created, and I will ignore any subsequent post you make that is off-topic.

You assert that the length of my posts will result in no one wanting to read them. Since when did you become the spokesman for everyone else? Having first appointed yourself as the arbiter of whom it is acceptable to respect, and who not to, you now appoint yourself as the single unitary voice that is representative of all who are following this thread, and of all who may read it in the days yet to come. Your arrogance is breath-taking. And you have the brass-neck to say that I am overblown. Go take a look in the mirror.

I can assure you that there are a considerable number of people who are closely following all that is being written here. The audience that you purport yourself to be representative of is much larger than you could ever imagine! So far, you are the only person who has commented on the length of my posts, and as, I have already said, what you may think is of no consequence to me whatsoever.

You like to keep your posts brief, because that way you can do a succession of quick 'hit and runs'. What you do does not require much of an effort, and takes only minutes to create. My style of post requires a lot more effort and a lot more time. I very much prefer quality to quantity. Don't most people? Let's see you produce something of this magnitude and substance.


As Lone Wolf has already pointed-out to you, how could you possibly know whether he and I want a "controlled debate"? Are you a mind-reader as well as a mind-gamer? And having read our minds, you say that the Wolf and I both want a "controlled debate" that is "free from human emotions." No dipstick, we both want a debate that focuses upon the 'conversation in Hebrew' and so too do several others. But you, being the obstinate, puerile twat that you are, refuse to allow that debate to take place at all.

And how can a debate in which humans are active in possibly be "free from human emotions?" What a ludicrous statement to make. Granted, emotions can be controlled and even misrepresented - ask any professional Poker player - but they cannot be absent. Wherever humans are to be found, so too are emotions. You sure do come out with some crap. It's Andrex time again!

PlanetQuo will, you state, "tell you that the surest sign of a "shill" is how they lack emotion until they lose the plot because they cant stand it anymore." I will say this once, and once only: whenever I wish to relay information to another, I will do it myself. You do not speak on my behalf. I do not require anyone to speak on my behalf, and if I did, it most certainly would not be you to whom I would delegate this authority.

And in any event it is H. Michael Sweeney who is telling you of the traits that are to be found in a disinformationalist, not PlanetQuo. There are eight in total, although you only mention one of them. I wonder why. I invite you, dear reader, to study the eight traits of a disinformationalist. I open myself to your close scrutiny. I invite you, after having become familiar with these traits, to examine the posts that I have made here.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. Please retire to consider your verdict. Do you find PlanetQuo guilty or not gulity of being a shill as Donnie Darko alleges?

I await your verdict.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. I now invite you to closely scrutinise what Donnie Darko has written on this thread. There are many more of his posts to be found on this forum, and perhaps in others, and elsewhere on the Internet. If you wish to amass a greater cluster of evidence, then that is your prerogative. Mr. Darko may wish to furbish further evidence in his defence as I have done, and that too is his prerogative.

I now invite you to once again look at the eight traits of a disinformationalist and decide for yourselves if Darko exhibits any of these eight traits. Number isn't really applicable so please ignore it:


1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about  their presentation implies their authority and  expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face  conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they  really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes  itself and the author. For instance, one such  player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation.


Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. Please retire to consider your verdict. Do you find Donnie Darko guilty or not guilty of exhibiting any of the eight traits?

I await your verdict.



No, you are not. You are creating straw-man arguments via which you attempt to discredit me. You do not know what my standards are, as I have not stated what my standards actually are. Indeed, it is you introduced the word 'standards' to begin with. And if I have not stated what my standards are, then how can you possibly shove in my face something that does not exist? The tactic you attempt to deploy here is precisely the same failed tactic that Debus also tried to deploy with regard to me supposedly "quoting" from an article written by Michael Piper-Collins which does not exist, and which I have never read.

If you cannot stand those who you deem to be "holier than thou," there must then be a fair amount of self-hatred dwelling within yourself. In reaching this conclusion, I merely applied the same litmus test that you applied to me. If your definition of 'holier than thou' is applicable to me, then it also applicable to you. And by the yardstick that you measure my integrity, I measure yours. Therefore, if I am 'holier than thou', then so too are you.

As far as the crime that Zionists committed on the morning of 11th Septemner, 2001 is concerned, I am indeed positioning myself on high moral ground. That, I feely admit. I feel entitled to position myself there because I am trying to expose Zionist foreknowledge of, and execution of the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington. Alex Jones, I believe - as do plenty of others - is covering-up what I am trying to expose, and that was my sole reason for initiating this discussion.

I have but one objective on this forum, and that mission is to further investigate, and get to the bottom of what lies behind the 'conversation in Hebrew'. This story stinks like a kipper on a hot Summer day, and I, and several others are on the case. You, on the other hand, have shown not the slightest sign of interest. You prefer to denigrate me, and waffle-on about David Icke and his shape-shifting, blood-drinking Lizard creatures from the fourth dimension.

As I was saying....


There you go again...you just can't leave Icke and the Lizards alone, can you? To say that you overstate your case would be an understatement! The man doth indeed protest too much. Your case against me has been constructed entirely around David Icke and the Lizards. That you do not offer any criticism of what I have posted regarding the 'conversation in Hebrew', is, as far as I am concerned, sufficient enough reason for me to assume that you offer no criticism because you have no criticism to offer. If my assumption is incorrect, then it is time that you voiced your criticism now or forever hold your tongue In others words, put-up or shut-up.

Yet again you resort to lies and deception. I have never stated that David Icke is a person who is "worth respecting."  I said that I respected him, and that is an entirely different statement altogether - although you misrepresent two different statements as being one and the same. And whenever it suits your cause, you twist what was actually said. I would never say that any specific individual is "worth respecting," because my belief is that who an individual chooses to respect is entirely a matter for the individual concerned. Moreover, I care not who respects who, and who does not respect who. Why should I? Why should I concern myself with other people's personal opinions? You evidently consider who respects who to be a major issue. I do not.

But are you really as concerned as you represent yourself to be? Is it not more likely that you really couldn't care either, and that your outrage is fake, phony and completely staged? You find no other avenue of attack other than via David Icke, and it is by using Icke as a conduit that you try to discredit me. You raise the same points over and over, and that, in my perception, is indicative of someone who has a very weak case indeed. Why do you ignore the overwhelming volume of material on my web sites that clearly shows where I'm coming from regarding Zionists, Zionism and 9-11? Why do you choose to ignore the evidence that completely refutes your allegations, and choose instead to focus exclusively on Icke?

You state that I show myself to be "well informed," and you are correct in your observation. This is the consequence of two and-a-half years of intense study and research. I have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. You award me kudos when you say that I am, "an excellent hand at debate." Thank you kindly for the praise, but, once again, alas, I feel unable to reciprocate the compliment. But the praise you lavish upon me is short-lasting, because just two spaces and a hyphen later, you allege that I "suck people in."


You qualify this statement by referring to a previous statement which I quoted four paragraphs back.

So, I am well-informed. You have no problem with that. So far, so good. I can hold my own in a debate. Again, You have no problem. So far, so good. The problems arise when we get to....here we go again....David Icke, 12 foot Lizards who possess the physical bodies of politicians, Royalty, Bankers, Military figures and Lord knows who else. Problem time again. You find no problem with the quality of research I have brought to the forum pertinent to the 'conversation in Hebrew' - the actual topic of discussion - you find a problem only with the fact that I respect David Icke. A problem that you created, but the real problem is not the problem that you created - the real problem is YOU.

By making this statement, not only do you resort to the tactic of attempting to smear your opponent by accusing them of utilising the same disinformationlist tactic that you yourself are using, you also insult the intelligence of those who accept what I am saying as being the truth. When you imply that I am clever, devious, and cunning to the point where I can, as you allege, successfully deceive others and "suck people in," you, by default, also imply that those who you contend to have been 'sucked-in' by my alleged deception, are stupid. I know a lot of people who will be seriously pissed-off when they learn that you are insinuating that they are stupid.

And then cor blimey...Gordon Bennet...strike a light Guv'...blow me over...knock me down with a feather.....you return yet again to Icke and Monteith. You took me by surprise there Donald, I really didn't see that coming at all.


And what exactly is the 'shit' that I have supposedly thrown in? Let me guess...creatures from another dimension? Not so. It was you who began a sub-discussion on Icke and the Lizards. "Not know better" - about what? What exactly is it that my writing ability and knowledge should make me know better? That I shouldn't have the freedom to respect whoever I like?

Once more, we end up back where we started. We're going round and round in circles here. You are not going to drop the Icke angle, and I certainly am not going to apologise for respecting someone who you don't. The discussion that I started on the 'conversation in Hebrew' has given way to a debate on whether or not I am a shill because I respect David Icke. Prior to that, Debus had turned it into a debate on Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid and Christopher Bollyn. Why is no one talking about Alex Jones and Ed Haas?

I was going to post the next part of the 'conversation in Hebrew' this weekend but will not now being doing so. This issue is too important to be obscured by Mr. Darko's obsession with David Icke and the Lizards. I am holding fire with part two until the conflict on this board is resolved one way or the other. Clearly, things cannot continue as they are. Something has to give. I refuse to be side-tracked with David Icke-related sub-issues that are of no relevance to the thread. I feel that I have devoted ample time to refuting Darko's sole point of objection, and, frankly I am not prepared to devote not another nanosecond to this sub-discussion. I am not prepared to waste my precious time running around in circles like a dog chasing its tail because one solitary figure - and I don't care what his status is in this forum, and I don't care how many friends he has here - has a problem with me respecting David Icke.

In summary, Darko joins the thread seven weeks after I open the discussion. He comes in all guns blazing, shooting rapid-fire derisory comments right, left and centre. He makes absolutely no comments whatsoever on the topic in question - 'the conversation in Hebrew'. He addresses not a single issue relative to the thread. He raises objections, and calls into question my integrity, honesty and truthfulness on the sole basis of me stating that I respect two men who he doesn't. He spams the board with repetitious posts. He misrepresents what I say, worse, he lies. He quotes me as saying things that I did not say. He creates a straw-man argument, and uses the false argument that he has created to attempt to discredit to me. He builds me up by praising my writing and debating skills, and then attempts to knock me down by suggesting that my literary and debating prowess, and knowledge mean that I can have no other intention but to "suck people in" before then poisoning the well. He does not use those exact words, but, that is nonetheless his thrust. He appoints himself as arbirter of who it is acceptable for one to respect, and of who is unacceptable for one to respect. And all the while he makes absolutely no reference whatsoever regarding the 'conversation in Hebrew'. And all the while he shows absolutely zero interest in the topic under discussion. He accuses me of being a shill solely on the basis that I respect David Icke. He asks no questions as to why I respect Icke. He makes no endeavours to find out. And ultimately, after having created a conflict, he then issues the terms under which he is willing to "settle the dispute." And this he does, safe in the knowledge that he has created a win-win situation for himself, and a lose-lose scenario for me. He will "settle the dispute" only if I 'apologise'. And although there is more chance of icicles forming in the bowels of hell than there is of me apologising for the 'sin' of having the sheer audacity to decide for myself who I feel worthy of my respect, if I were to back down and comply with his terms of surrender, he would then be in a position to discredit me by arguing that I cannot be trusted because I changed my story. And if I stick by my guns - as I fully intend to - he will then simply resort to his initial tactic of hammering-on about David Icke. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. And if after all this you still cannot see that this guy is a disinfo artist, then you never will.

HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS COULD IT POSSIBLY BE? - CRYSTAL IS OPAQUE BY COMPARISON.

But this is not Darko's forum. He does not have the final say in any outcome. It is not his place to decide whether or not the 'conversation in Hebrew' continues nor is it mine. I would like it to, but I refuse this bastard to blackmail me. I can just as easily remove my posts, transfer them to my main website, and continue from there free from distraction and disruption. I introduced this thread to the forum so that others could contribute to what I believe an extremely important issue. So, members of NOLAJBS, where do we go from here? Are we discussing the 'conversation in Hebrew' or are we discussing 12 foot Lizards? Are we exposing Alex Jones and Ed Haas or are we exposing David Icke and Stanley Monteith. Are we talking about Reptoids from the fourth-dimension or are we talking about IDF veterans who stumble upon conspiracies in cemeteries?

Do you want me to continue with the 'conversation in Hebrew' or don't you?

And the next one please....


You are privvy to information that I am not. I had no idea that Debus had temporarily left the forum. The timing of my "huge effort" is completely unconnected with Debus' 'leave of absence'. Observations that other people have made about Debus, along with the conclusions they have drawn, were reached independent of me. I played no part in this whatsoever.

Late? I was unaware that there was a time limit on responding to posts. After 'Don L. Rondeau' posted, I smelt a rat. I was not convinced that this was a genuine post so I decided to wait and see what became of it. I was also pre-occupied conducting further research on the 'conversation in Hebrew' story following the publication of Ed Haas' follow-up article, and following his second appearance on the Alex Jones show. Had I been privvy to the information that you are, and known that Debus had gone elsewhere, suggestions of my previous post being opportunistic would then be valid. I had no knowledge of Debus being banned therefore I think it would be unfair for me to seen as being opportunistic.

What do you mean when you speak of an invitation? To what? And would you elaborate on the "or worse..." please?

My suspicions about 'Don L. Rondeau' were confirmed earlier this week when NOLA confirmed that it was indeed a fake post. Someone on the forum is using multiple accounts. I know not who, but  I know why. One need not be a genius to figure it out.

My post on Debus was an ongoing project that I began working on towards the end of last year. It was not written in one big chunk, but progressively in stages. I had other, and more important commitments at the time, and rersponding to Debus' post wasn't one of them.

I'm sure that you will appreciate that I am a very busy man. I run two web sites which take-up huge chunks of my time. I am also active on MySpace. In addition to maintaining and developing my web sites, posting on my blog, posting bulletins on MySpace, carrying-out research, and trying to keep abreast of fresh developments out there in the external world places considerable constraints on my time. I also have a life outwith the Internet. I simply do not have any extra time to add this forum to my list of daily calling points. My visits here all have been, and always will be infrequent.

My prolonged absence is easily explained, and my time away from the forum easily accounted for. But because you do not know me, I can understand why you may harbour suspicions. You need not be concerned, and I have no problem with you in this respect (oops...I said that bad word again ).

Oh, just one more thing - Debus' disappearance. There is another possibility that you appear to have overlooked: RULE 25

And finally....the straggler


I don't have an answer. I do not post on any forums other than this. And as you have just discovered smart-ass, the thread has not whimpered and died. On the contrary, it just come to life.

That was real bad-timing on your part. You try to have a laugh at my expense, but had the misfortune to make your post just as I was about to make mine. Poetic justice.   I'll bet that the smirk has now vanished from your face. 


I do have a question:

Then why are you posting on this thread? Why not do a parachute jump into a parachute junping forum if 9-11 research is of no interest to you?

And now I realise that I have mainly disinformation artists, trolls and parachute jumpers for company, I'm beginning to wonder what I'm doing here.