LonelyAngel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Strange how you have so much in common with “Jon
> > Ellison” and “Peter Robinson”.
>
> So I'm also those two people as well? You are
> actually losing it.

Get a child to help you with your reading—and look how “Jon Ellison” has joined in, just to show how wrong I am.

> > Try telling readers of this board that Audrey
> > Mulertt is an epitome of the female gender. Now
> > that would be misogyny!
>
> What a disgusting thing to say about a lady - but
> nothing compared to what you actually said to her
> on GHMB previously.

Oh, a “lady”, is it? Some “ladies” I’ve known would call that “patronising”.

Which century are you in?

Care to quote me? Or do you (like “Peter Robinson”, with whom you have much in common, such as this) prefer to give the reader an uncheckable innuendo?

As in the earlier case, I’ll do it for you.

What I said to Audrey was this:

“If you behaved like this in public, someone would end up punching a glass into your face.”

Readers may wish to see it in context:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1052112,1056101#msg-1056101

Did I say it was a man would do this? Who’s making a sexist assumption now? Five minutes with Audrey and Andrea Dworkin would go for her.

Did I say it would happen because she is a “lady”? No, I did not. The point (which in your hopeful malice, you missed) is that it would happen despite her being a “lady”. Her obnoxiousness would result in a suspension of the taboo.

> > Revised:
> >
> > I see what the con is. You’ve edited your post
> > and added a bit which wasn’t there when I
> > replied.
> >
> > http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,334576,1069556#msg-1069556
> >
> > What this says about your honesty is left as an
> > exercise for the reader.
> >
> > M.
>
> Don't make a fool of yourself - I hadn't seen your
> reply when I added my edit.

But you had seen it when you posted this:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,334576,1069559#msg-1069559

“. . . I think if we're talking about misogyny you'd better just keep your head down. . . .”

No one was talking about misogyny until your edit added it. It was not there when I hit quote for my reply.

> You have descended into paranoia and false
> accusation. What is the point of your getting
> yourself into this state BEFORE the book actually
> comes out?

Paranoia is your mere assertion—and what false accusation am I making currently?

What are you complaining about? I’m taking my standards from Scott Creighton and his mouthpiece “Peter Robertson”. I don’t have to prove my case. I’ve raised a reasonable doubt and I’m fully entitled to express it—and even to put it in print and charge money for it.

In the spirit of Creighton’s demands, prove that you are who you say you are. Prove that “Sean Hunter” is authentic.

Get the parity of reasoning here?

> You're like a dog chasing your own tail here.

You remind me of a Mr Unintentional Self-Commentary I used to know.

What your clunking attempt to cook up a misogyny charge says about you I leave for the reader to decide.

M.