Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LonelyAngel Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > You remind me of a Mr Unintended
> Self-Commentary I
> > > used to know.
> > >
> > > M.
> >

> > And you, strangely enough, remind me of John
> > Douglas, the 9th Marquis of Queensberry, a
> bully
> > and a boar, who spent his last days driving
> > himself daft that he was being pursued and
> > surrounded by the "Oscar Wilders".
>
> The word you were looking for is “boor”.
>
> Good job you’re not a writer. You’d embarrass
> yourself.
>
> > In your case, in Scott Creighton's absence from
> > this board, you have decided that everyone who
> > speaks up for his work is either he himself or
> > part of his gang or brigade. The paranoia is
> > ripping out of you. Cladking knows me from
> years
> > back, yet on this board and on Jason the
> bloggers
> > website you keep insinuating that I am either a
> > sockpuppet or have multiple profiles - both
> > totally 100% wrong. You even accused some guy
> > called Peter or Robert of the same thing on
> here.
>
> Where to start?
>
> That you fail (yet again) to support your claims
> with quotes and links is merely what we have come
> to expect. Here (again) are the relevant links:
>
> [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]
>
> As I wrote
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
> 67713,1069447#msg-1069447&v=t]last time[/url],
> readers may make up their own minds.
>
> “. . . everyone who speaks up for his work . .
> .”
>
> Which excludes you. You’re “withholding
> judgement”, remember?—but then that was a lie
> so transparent as to leave us with no reason to
> believe anything you say.
>
> “. . . is either he himself or part of his gang
> or brigade . . .”
>
> The words I used were “clique” and
> “claque”.
>
> Who do you think you are kidding here? Have some
> respect for the readers of this board. They’ve
> seen the extent to which this is observably true.
> As for the sock puppets, no one but Creighton
> himself or his clones would go to the lengths that
> you and “Peter Robertson” have. Remember
> clones? Not so common, now. I mean fans who
> copied their idols to an extent that it was hard
> to tell them apart—but, in fairness to clones,
> they were not usually such abject suck-ups as
> Creighton attracts. Talk about stomach churning!
>
> Your behaviour would be healthier if you were
> Creighton—and shouting about “paranoia” is
> misdirection. Sock puppetry is real and
> commonplace and everyone here knows it.
>
> “ . . . you keep insinuating that I . . . have
> multiple profiles . . .”
>
> Quote and link, please.
>
> “You even accused some guy called Peter or
> Robert of the same thing on here.”
>
> Who do you think you are kidding? You know it’s
> “Peter Robertson”, else why are you even
> mentioning it?
>
> Would it be this you have in mind?
>
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
> 67713,1068420#msg-1068420&v=t]http://grahamhancock
> .com/phorum/read.php?1,1067713,1068420#msg-1068420
> [/url]
>
> Again it’s left to me to supply the link.
> Readers will note that it was Origyptian brought
> “Peter Robertson” into the discussion.
>
> Words of “Peter Robertson” (second Colavito
> link above):
>
> “Still not twigged yet Martin?”
>
> A strange thing for Peter Robertson to say.
> Shouldn’t he have protested indignantly that he
> was Peter Robertson and no other?
>
> > Instead of embarrassing yourself like this, and
> > discrediting any worthy points you do have on
> this
> > subject with your appalling accusations against
> > anyone who disagrees with you, why don't you
> wait
> > till Robert Bauval returns to this forum (as he
> > surely will) just before Scott's book is due
> out
> > to present his own "new ideas and thinking"
> which
> > surprise surprise contradict and discredit
> > whatever it looks like Scott's book is saying?
>
> The paranoia is ripping out of you.
>
> > That way you won't be alone and seem so
> unhinged
> > about the whole thing.
>
> Putting this as kindly as I can, you are in no
> good position to give advice on this.
>
> > A good pointer to The Return of the Great Man
> will
> > be Richard Fusniak appearing. Keep watching
> the
> > skies.
>
> You remind me even more of Mr Unintended
> Self-Commentary.
>
> M.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what you call "psycological projection".

Why you think I am suddenly not "me" and some kind of sockpuppet after all these years is more down to your convenience than anything else - another sign of a panicked mind shutting down.

In all the years (10) I've known him on the Internet, Scott Creighton has never backed down from an argument or deployed the kind of tactics that fill your twisted view of how to debate - sockpuppets and all - and I'm sure if he wanted to engage with you he would come back and do it himself.

And - as usual - wipe the floor with you.

The sad fact that he - like quite a few others - doesn't bother with this forum anymore is probably less to do with him personally and more to do with the fact that the tone of debate from inflexible, angry orthodoxy defenders like yourself has become toxic and downright thuggish.