Kent, what you fail to recognize...yet again...is that the reason I posted this article...aside from the fact I thought it was fairly well done and contained information I thought everyone should see...is that I was attempting to help you, in some small way, show that there really is some odd things taking place in DC and even the "mainstream press" is coming around to recognizing this fact.
You must have realized by this time that many people do not or will not accept any of the ideas you present...or even similar themes...unless the "mainstream press" tackles them at some point. So, despite your flailing away about me paying attention to the "establishment" which is pointess and outright missing the point...and I'll ignore that...the actual goal of my post zipped by you and left you looking bad...yet again...which is one of the reasons people will give you so much crap here.
You're too busy in your response trying to tell me what I missed or what I don't know...instead of listening to what I was trying to say. The saddest part of that is it's actually you that seems a bit confused in the end and I was trying to help you in that particular area. Many people here would consider the following one of your stock responses:
What you haven't taken into account here is that this is yet another establishment publication telling you why something is the way it is. You are never going to hear anything close to the truth from such a publication.
This is why people think you're a bit out there Kent. This statement is full of errors and your own assumptions and shows you're less interested in finding more info and more interested preaching. I read the article, took in to account where it was from, and made the judgement that I thought people should read it. I said in my post I don't normally read this stuff and that I was posting it here as a gift to you. In truth Kent, not all articles in the newspaper or in these sort of publications are bad. There are sometimes solid and well written articles that show there are still people who try to do some decent reporting...you may not want to recognize that fact but it's true. Keep in mind that this is coming from a guy that's quite critical of the media...if you've read my postings in the past. This is a solid article that is loaded with some very interesting info and one very important source that you should seriously look into...let's see if you can find the source I speak of in the article. That source was part of the gift to you...I would say you responded before reading the article.
Where your response becomes even more interesting is you go on to cite Cigar Aficionado as a trusted source of information to you...Hhmmm...Kent, US News is usless for finding decent reporting but Cigar Aficionado can be trusted? People will have trouble taking these kinds of comments seriously because you contradict yourself here...these are both "mainstream publications" what is it that makes one more trustworthy than the other? Now realize that most people will assume it's the fact that the article with Mr. Franks fits in with your worldview and the article in US News does not. That's sort of weird don't you think?
Look, you need to understand with these comments I'm trying to help you understand things a bit better. You should have understood I was trying to help you when I posted that article. Try reading the article then come back and discuss it here and we'll see what you have to say then. I'm sure you'll have a better idea of where I was coming from that way.
As to the rest of your response...yes I'm aware of all of it and in fact I think we've discussed most of it here before. I don't think you give people the credit they deserve Kent...and I don't mean me...I mean people in general know more than you think.
Not to pile on here either Kent but you should do a little more research on Jesus. If you do you'll find there is actually evidence that this person did exist. Now, if you want to dispute claims of miracles he may or may not have performed that's fine...there is not proof of that...but the man did exist...who or what he was is left open to discussion.
The last thing I'll point out since I'm pointing out issues with your statements...and it's not because I wish to hurt you or make you look bad...but I'm not sure I understand your take on the Protocols Of The Wise Men Of Zion...it seems you are a bit off the mark on that as well. I'm not real clear on how you view them though so it's hard to say. You know they were a hoax though right?
Reg
