 Part 1
Hart.
Got home to find 4 pieces of junk email. They were all from 24h gold alerting me that a response had been made to one of my comments and not to my surprise, they all came from you. Well, 3 of them did and 1 was from Verboten. That is officially speaking. But I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
i considered whether or not to respond to your barrage of criticism, for dealing with what you have presented appeared rather pointless from my perspective. However, as you can see, i have decided to do so and will respond to them all in this one place. This forum has been chosen for 2 reasons. The first being that it was my response to Snafu on this page that set the comments flying back at me from Verboten and Schwerpunkt yesterday and from you today. None of you appreciated my having referred to the pair with the German names as lap dogs. They showed their disdain immediately. By repeating my use of yipping and yapping in one of your posts from today, you showed your own displeasure. That you went back weeks into the archives to locate things you believed you could attack me for only fortified the sense of displeasure you experienced. The second reason will become more apparent a bit further down the page.
I have no intention of dealing with all of your rather absurd criticisms. But let me not totally ignore them. You complained about my response to Ranting Andy thusly: “Only thing pitiful here is that you attack the man and his intelligence rather than correct him.” How you failed to miss that the entire first part of my response examined each and every one of the charts he had used to illustrate his point that he had found a new time that the cartel was taking down gold. It was pointed out that none of the 6 or 7 charts showed more than an $8 drop beginning at the appointed time and some of them actually showed that gold was going up. The charts did not support his conclusion. That you had to dig in the archives to reply to this comment of mine is troubling. Where you took it after your quoted opening criticism--that you would have physically assaulted me were you to have been present in the imaginary scenerio proposed to deal with Andy‘s pitiful presentation--it made me think that you are really pissed at me. That is so sad and yet too bad. Things are going to get worse. Trust me, it is coming.
In another of your postings you carped “ Correction, gold is money. If you have any doubts that this statement is true I suggest you consult 6000 or more years of history. Once again, you hold up your opinion as valid while trashing the opinion billions of other people hold”. Your position would have held more water if history did not decisively declare that gold ceased to be money when Nixon cut its last remaining attachment. Since then gold has been a commodity. It is not a matter of opinion as you would like me to believe, but a matter of fact. As for opinion, most believe that their paper money is really and truly money and that is reinforced every time that it is accepted for payment.
Let me now deal with the charge levelled against me by Schwerpunkt: “As for being someone's lap dog, I would proffer that this is what your aiming to be for OTE, you seem to be doing a lot of sucking up whenever he or she posts.” (Remember this quote, for it will come up again later.) Yes, in some of my responses to him, i have mentioned points of agreement and even once said that he had made me laugh. So what? Taken in context, it is cherry picking gone wild. The majority of my responses to OTE comments have attempted to offer a reasoned, different perspective to his own on a site relevant topic.
Let me now address how you responded to Lovetochat and FreedomFirst on this page, for it will be important for what is coming. You treated each as though they were not who they claimed to be, but Jim C. logged on under a different name. You based this entirely upon the fact that like Jim--and let us not forget the majority of Americans who rightly or wrongly see Lincoln as being worthy of his place on Mount Rushmore--their view differed from that of DiLorenzo. Is it really so incredible that others would also hold the majority opinion of Lincoln that the only explanation you could put forth for their comments is that they must be coming from Jim using a different account. Your charge that they have only ever posted in defence of Jim was lame given that neither have posted very much and probably most of it has concerned this one topic. Why would you immediately suspect these fine two folks are really not who they claim to be, but Jim under a different guise? Were it that they were supporting him in a position that was really out there, say that the decline of civilization is being orchestrated to facilitate the takeover of the planet by aliens with bad intentions, then there might be something to your criticism. But this is mainstream stuff coming from two folks who have barely posted. Your attack on these virtual newbies was both gratuitous and revealing.
You may not so much like to hear what it helped to reveal, for it is something about you. You had managed to perceive the 2 posters in a way that would not have crossed my mind and i understand that one would not be able to assume multiple identities without first wondering if it could be done. As this is not the first time that you have raised this as either an accusation or allegation, it means that you had at very least reached that stage of development where you could test the idea if you so choose.
Let us examine whether a far more compelling case can be made against you for precisely the same transgression you accused Jim of committing. With regard those you stand accused of being, it cannot be disputed that both have twice or more commenting history than your 2 supposed dupes combined, so there is more to draw upon. Given this far broader sampling from Verboten and Scherpunkt, or Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber as i prefer to call them, we should expect to see a greater degree of divergence of opinion from yours than you allege was demonstrated in the few posts by Lovetochat and FreedomFirst. But surprise, your two never disagree with you about anything. Yes, anything. Not just Lincoln. Not one of the 3 of you can stand Jim and most of your comments have been directed at letting that be known. Okay, no big deal, many seem to not appreciate Jim. That can be said to be majority opinion. However, the zeal you times 3 exhibit in going after him is uncommon. But hey, why not? We got 3 Lincoln supporters, we can admit to 3 zealous Jim detractors without concern that the more compelling case against you can still be made.
The 3 of you all have the same sort of contempt for me that you have for Jim. It shall not be disputed that it is more likely than not another example of majority opinion and so not conclusive, But it is now 2 separate things that the three of you are in total agreement.
Let us now add to the count that you all profess to believe in God, you are all not just Christians, but evangelic Christians and the 3 of you zealously dispute the theory of evolution while touting creationism. You all come across as believing that only gold is money. Not one of the 3 amigos differs in the slightest when it comes to what is thought of American foreign policy or domestic politics….This list of where the 3 faces of Hart have been in perfect alignment could be expanded. It is not necessary in that having shown so many more points of perfect harmony and not being able to identify even a single difference between them despite the considerably larger database from which to draw upon, a stronger case has already been made.
 Commented 3953 days ago |
