Replies

You are obviously well versed and researched on this subject. I do not intend to debate Ron Brown with you.

That's fine, just as long as we are clear that your knowledge of this subject is not sufficient to form a defendable opinion that Brown was not murdered. And in my opinion, if you can't defend it, why suggest it or come the aid of someone who is suggesting it in a conversation about Brown.

My point in entering the discussion was that you impugned other posters and called them liars, simply because they had formed a different conclusion on the subject and cited different sources for their opinion.

Then you clearly haven't paid attention to previous exchanges between me and these other posters ... nor would it appear that you've even read this thread carefully. I am not calling them liars because they formed a different conclusion on the subject and cited different sources. I am calling them liars because one has demonstrably lied about facts in the matter (like repeatedly claiming Brown was autopsied even after being clearly shown that he was not) and the other is claiming to know the facts when she clearly do not (as demonstrated on this thread in post 884). That makes them liars.

Furthermore, they did NOT cite sources. In fact, the only source that one of the posters has ever offered on her own is Ken Starr, who to my knowledge has NEVER said ANYTHING about the Brown case. She repeated the statement that this was her source on a second occasion even after being told that Starr had said nothing about the Brown matter. Doesn't that make her a liar trying to spread disinformation?

And, finally, no, I'm not mad, as I don't feel I've been lied to by anyone.

So the fact that your sources never mentioned the rape by Clinton or his abuse of women doesn't bother you? So the fact that your sources never mentioned that Sid Blumenthal lied under oath to protect Clinton during an impeachment trial about lying under oath doesn't bother you? So the fact that your sources never told you that military officers (in fact all of the military officers who have spoken on the subject and are qualified to know) say that Brown had what appeared to be a bullet wound in his head and should have been autopsied doesn't bother you? The fact that your sources never informed you of the many other "irregularities" in the Brown case doesn't bother you? The fact that this death was a very high level government official who was heavily involved in the criminal activities of the Clinton administration and DNC, and who according to sworn testimony told Clinton he was going to turn states evidence in these matters only a short time before he died, doesn't bother you? The fact that dozens of other incriminating democRAT related scandals haven't been reported by your sources doesn't bother you? And you still "feel" you haven't been lied to? I told you you might look foolish.

I have my opinion; I'm entitled to it and, in the end, you should respect that

I respect your right to "have" an opinion. But that doesn't mean I have to respect that opinion if it is baseless (as yours clearly is in this case) or the use to which you put that opinion (i.e, coming to the aid of someone else who shares that "opinion" and has just been dishonest in order to defend it).

See you again when TWA 800 rears its head at the anniversary in July.

I don't really have an opinion about TWA 800 because unlike Brown, I don't have all the facts and in that case many of the facts can be spun either way. Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, the TWA 800 case is a misdirection because it is too difficult to solve. The Brown case is easy to solve. Just exhume the body and find traces of a bullet and the whole democRAT world is going to come tumbling down.