Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LonelyAngel Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > > Dish out what and take what? Are you planning
> to
> > > review one of Jason’s books?
> > >
> > > M.
> >
> > I'm sure Jason would love it if YOU reviewed
> his
> > work. Saw you over there on his blog sucking
> up
> > to him, it was quite stomach churning.
>
> With so sensitive a stomach, perhaps you should
> withdraw from the “arena”.
>
> I dare say readers will share my lack of surprise
> that you provide no quote and link in support of
> this claim, much as you failed to here:
>
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
> 67713,1067813#msg-1067813&v=t]http://grahamhancock
> .com/phorum/read.php?1,1067713,1067813#msg-1067813
> [/url]
>
> Here are the relevant links in this case:
>
> [url=http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-s
> cott-creightons-the-great-pyramid-hoax-part-two]ht
> tp://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-scott-cr
> eightons-the-great-pyramid-hoax-part-two[/url]
>
> [url=http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/listen-to-m
> e-on-the-archaeological-fantasies-podcast]http://w
> ww.jasoncolavito.com/blog/listen-to-me-on-the-arch
> aeological-fantasies-podcast[/url]
>
> Readers may make up their own minds. I dare say
> they will share my lack of surprise at your
> dodging my questions.
>
> > Oh, and I see you are still accusing people of
> > being other people, or being sock puppets, or
> > basically being Scott Creighton if they in any
> way
> > defend him or basically disagree with you.
> > Bizarre. And wrong.
>
> Yes, “Sean”, your summary of the case is
> bizarre and wrong. I “accused” “Jon
> Ellison” of being John Snape and I was right.
> As for the present case, who is going to go to
> such lengths in Scott Creighton’s cause, show
> such knowledge of his trivial remarks (never mind
> his books) and reproduce so much of his signature
> style, other than (outside his dreams) Creighton
> himself, or one of his clique or claque? As I say
> (second link, do pay attention), I now consider
> the latter more likely:
>
> “I concede that there is another member of the
> Creighton clique who posts under a sock puppet
> identity, while apparently several sheets to the
> wind.”
>
> What, after all, is sock puppetry, if not
> concealment of identity? Where have we all seen
> this recently?
>
> > This book has got you really, really rattled,
> > hasn't it? You are like Carrie on prom night.
>
> This review has got you really, really rattled,
> hasn’t it? That and what I know.
>
> M.

Insane. You are clearly driving yourself loopy.

Where have you been anyway this last couple of hours?

Let me guess - it's Wednesday night, so it must be watching the Great British Bake Off with mother.

That's if you got TV at the Bates Motel?