Martin Armstrong Discussion

[smooth]

You are not quoting stating it is fraud. You are claiming it is truth.

I don't know the truth of his factual and ethical guilt or innocence (of the ponzi, fraud, hiding of losses or whatever it is he was accused of), only the truth of the outcome of his court case (conviction after a guilty plea).

It is clearly a very complicated case (something like two dozen charges, although he only pled guilty to one), and the civil contempt aspect adds another layer of complexity to the whole thing. Either way, I'm sure as hell not going to take his blog as the authoritative truth though.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of selective quoting of stuff on his blog not being a valid source. We can see from that page that the entire document is at least 17 pages long and we're shown exactly 9 lines of one page. The last of those lines is "That's one period of losses that are excluded" (emphasis added).

Just on the basis of that small section we can already ask about other periods, and as I said above there were 20 or so separate counts he was charged with. Even if this section somehow supports his innocence in some narrow way (and it is hard for me to even tell), that's a long way from showing that all 20 charges against him were bogus on the basis of all available evidence.

There may even be contradictory evidence about this particular aspect of it on the very same page or the next page! We just don't know. In a complex case like this it wouldn't be usual for there to be thousands of pages of similar evidence, or even more. 9 lines out of one page shown out of context is just meaningless.

[TPTB_need_war]

I don't know the truth

Finally.

Just on the basis of that small section we can already ask about other periods

You are blaming him for you not doing your research.

You have chosen to convict some one who never got a speedy public trial of his peers as provided by the Sixth Admendment to the Constitution, and who you admitted was jailed without a trial for 7 years which btw is totally illegal and unconstitutional, thus you already can not delegate your trust to the fraudulent court, yet then you blame Armstrong for not writing the entire legal case in one blog post for you and then you requiring me to find it for you.

You are so quick to judge without facts and constitutionality, yet so lax to do any work. Yet I did the work for the past years than you are so quick to try to put me down.

Actually there is a long document he produced where he explained all of the legalities in exhaustive detail. Maybe if you were sincere, you would have Googled for it already.

[suda123]

According to court records, he has a criminal conviction.

Does that make you feel better?

If you believe that then you deserve your fate which you have chosen to side with.

I feel better knowing I don't believe lies and I don't associate with those who promulgate them.

I know damn well not everything that written is true. Maybe one day you will learn that. Just because it is written in a record book doesn't make it true. If you think weasel word definitions will protect you when the time comes, you will be very unprepared for your fate.

You've expended a half-day arguing that Armstrong is convicted. Yet he wasn't every truly convicted.

Harvest or singularity?

[smooth]

Just on the basis of that small section we can already ask about other periods

You are blaming him for you not doing your research.

I'm blaming him for quoting a small section of a very complex case out of context on a blog and trying to turn it into proof of his innocence, and you for doing the same.

You have chosen to convict

Nope the court did that.

speedy trial

The facts of the trial delay are contested. The government claims he requested the delays and they were willing to go to trial.

I find credible the supposition that he was and is a cantankerous and stubborn guy who wanted to fight every for single inch of process even if it meant staying in the can for 7 years, but that was his choice. Again, not proven, but plausible.

The civil contempt is another matter, but I do see that he appealed it twice and both times was rebuffed (on appeal it was found there was a valid reason to hold him). I suspect there was some actual merit to it, but who knows, maybe he's just the most unfairly persecuted guy ever, by bunch of different courts, in at least two difference cases.

[TPTB_need_war]

For Those Who Still Doubt 9/11 Wasn't a Demolition

The real reason Armstrong was thrown in jail without a public trial.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/tag/relationship-banking

Back in 1999, I stood up in court and objected Alan Cohen’s demands for my lawyers to turn over tapes of conversations I recorded to protect me as a journalist when I was writing about the various bank manipulations. I told Judge Richard Owen that those tapes revealed criminal activity by the major banks in market manipulations across the board, ..., and had nothing to do with my case.

Judge Owen told my lawyers to turn over all the tapes or they would be thrown in prison and held in contempt. That action under the law was totally illegal for it was an OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE that would land anyone else in prison for 5 years. Instead, Goldman Sachs hired Alan Cohen, awarding him a position on the board while remaining court officer still running Princeton Economics. Cohen never resigned, despite the obvious conflict of interest. I NEVER received any support from anyone in the press for what I was defending. They understood that since the media is on their side they can get away with anything.

Now four of the banks: JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, Citigroup, and RBS have agreed to plead guilty to U.S. criminal charges with fines reaching $5.7 billion. The U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, said that “almost every day” these firms were manipulating currency rates since 2007 to clip clients on transactions all the time.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/research/rule-of-law/goldman-sachs-v-armstrong

Our computers and all the evidence in our case, including the evidence gathered documenting more than a decade of organized manipulations were amazingly destroyed in the only building that was never hit by anything nor was there any major fire. This in itself has led to countless suspicions about what really went on behind the collapse of the SEC offices in World Trade Center 7. Here is a video on this strange set of circumstances plus a letter from the SEC claiming all evidence in my case was destroyed, which many believe was a convenient way to protect the New York Investment Bankers.

World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) was demolished. This is fact. Reviewing the following will explain this fact.

No steel building has every collapsed on its footprint from fire. It is simply physically impossible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

Fire marshall who was on the scene explains it was demolition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

The BBC was told in advance that WTC7 would fall and they accidentally reported it too soon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0qdLoobkUI

The networks repeatedly cut off the news reporter who was on the scene when ever she was asked about the error:
https://youtu.be/yEj-kXPfb_g?t=69

In 2001, Silverstein reworked the insurance for the WTCs to include destruction by terrorism, he won $7 billion insurance payment on his original $15 million investment:
(also watch this video for additional damning facts)
https://youtu.be/BWZELJA_fSU?t=181

The AE911Truth chief engineer spokesman astutely explains the science of why the buildings were demolished:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAGRuRKudO4

Watch him totally own a debunker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY



http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/21279

All the evidence I had gathered that included documentation and phone recordings with brokers who also were monitoring these manipulations were seized by the now Chief of Global Compliance at Goldman Sachs and Tancred Schiavoni. The court put Cohen in charge of Princeton Economics. All that evidence vanished or I would be putting on the Web those audio tapes for the world to hear. Below is a transcript of the court proceeding where I objected about the seizure of this evidence I knew would miraculously vanish.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/11429

What I can say is I had personal conversations with Bill and he knew about the Buffett silver manipulation back in 1993 and how the CFTC walked into to PhiBro demanding they reveal their client. PhiBro refused and the CFTC told them to exit the trade. For him to have known that meant he had some real sources.

I confess, I am not aware of what they have said about manipulations since. I, and many others in the industry, kept track of all the manipulations for they covered everything from Rhodium to US Government Bond auctions just like the LIBOR scandal. I have explained that manipulations were common in the commodity industry during the 1970s. I saw those skills migrate to Wall Street only AFTER the big commodity house PhiBro put in a bid for Salomon Brothers. Then Goldman Sachs bought J. Aaron in the mid 1980s. From there the game expanded and by 1991, Salomon got caught manipulating the Federal Government Bond auctions. Talk about guts. This scandal was then documented in the 1993 book Nightmare on Wall Street.

I was one of the largest traders. So I kept track of what was going on just to make sure I did not get caught up it the nonsense. They tried persistently to get to to join the manipulation crowd. I could trade so (1) I didn’t need that, and (2) how do you know when you are the patsy? I saw Salomon use analysts to say the bonds were rising and they were selling using other brokers on the floor. They take no prisoners.

There was the  Robert Maxwell (1923–1991) scandal that he had stolen hundreds of millions of pounds from his own companies’ pension funds to save the companies from bankruptcy. However, behind the scenes there may have been trading losses with the club. Eventually, the pension funds were replenished with monies from investment banks Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs, as well as the British government. Maxwell was presumed to have fallen overboard from his luxury yacht off the Canary Islands, and his body was subsequently found floating in the Atlantic Ocean. He was buried on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem with great official participation. The official ruling was death by accidental drowning.

On the second Silver Manipulation PhiBro brokers walked across the floor and showed me the Buffett orders to buy desperately trying to get me to join. They did not like it when I published “they’re back” giving the price target of $7 which was met on schedule. The silver bugs hated my guts then as well because they wanted so much to believe it was real. They have these people wound around their finger knowing that if they just make the metals rise, these people will always buy the high believing this time it is different an the price will truly soar. They need these believers so they can sell the high as always and then the fake analysts say the decline is not real, its just a manipulation to force it down (assuming the rise was real of course), so just keep buying. It works EVERY time!. When I say they are at it again, I get the hate mail because these people cannot wait to hand the bankers their money every time.

For the whole Long-Term Capital Management collapse and Russia, they tried to get me involved. I was invited to the IMF dinner just to impress me that they had the IMF in the palm of their hand just like they have the US government today. I refused to get involved, yet they knew I knew everything. When Russia collapsed in 1998, they blamed me saying I had more influence than all the politicians they could buy. They do not believe in real markets – only rigging the game. That is why they do not consider risk when you bribe everything you do not even consider what if you are wrong. That is why they ALWAYS need bailouts.

The strange thing is when my case began I believed it was really about the fact I refused to play ball with the New York boys since the contracts were clear – we bought the portfolios outright and were NOT managing their money. An idiot could just read the contracts and the accounts were ours – not client’s with a limited power of attorney. I had documented EVERY manipulation with hard evidence and taped EVERY phone call as insurance. So when they started the case and removed press that knew the truth, I understood the game was afoot. I believe they were illegally tapping my lawyers for somehow they found out I had split up that evidence and gave it to two law firms for safekeeping. They went after my lawyers threatening to throw them in jail unless they turnover that evidence. The lawyer pressing for it that day was Martin Glen who I believe was rewarded with a Judgeship and coincidentally is the presiding judge over M.F. Global who protected once again the NY banks. The receiver Alan Cohen I believe was rewarded by giving him a board position in Goldman Sachs. I guess another coincidence. The SEC head of enforcement was Andrew Geist. who selected the law firm O’Melveny & Myers to get all this evidence and then resigned from the SEC and became a partner in that very law firm – coincidence once again of course. The CFTC prosecutor Dennis O’Kkeefe was disbarred for misconduct in the other case at that time charging Sumitomo for manipulating copper not mentioning at all the NY boys or how Sumitomo was trying to defend its positions rather than “manipulate” absorbing the short sales of the NY boys so I believe they had the CFTC taken Sumitomo out of the game making them a fortune..

[TPTB_need_war]

Nope the court did that.

And you claimed you weren't promulgating fraud  

The facts of the trial delay are contested. The government claims he requested the delays and they were willing to go to trial.

Contested in what public hearing where all evidence could be presented?

Closed hearings with judges admitting on record they changed the transcripts and you claim he was truly convicted by delegating your trust in truth to the very court that refused to allow the public to hear anything first hand so they could verify it. You have remarkable powers of leaps of faith and abuse. Yet you accuse me of inaccuracy.

Call the kettle black.

I find credible the supposition that he was and is a cantankerous and stubborn guy who wanted to fight every for single inch of process

Based on what veracity? Again there was no public hearing. How do you know that anything you are reading from a court transcript is what was said or even what wasn't allowed to be presented.

And if you took the time to understand that at the end of all of this the government admitted that he never defrauded anyone and admitted that the banksters did it and even fined the other banks. And he was totally vindicated.

smooth you've dug a hole so deep with me on the issue, you can never get out. It is so pitiful to see you doing this. I see the worst side of you. I've seen hints of it in the past and I urged you to please stop picking pedantic fights, but I guess the withdrawal symptoms were too much and you've come racing back in with a vengeance.

but who knows

Certainly not you, but you talk as if you know everything.


http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33422

Of course, as long as Barrett keeps it civil contempt, then those being imprisoned are not entitled to a trial by jury. This is a serious violation of human rights and someone can die in prison at the hands of an unscrupulous lawyer and a crazy power mad judge.

Chadwick and ex wife

H. Beatty Chadwick is a former lawyer in the Philadelphia area, who spent nearly 14 years behind bars without being charged on civil contempt in a divorce case by his ex-wife. He was finally released after a judge admitted there was no remaining coercive effect.

CIVIL Contempt should be abolished as an abuse of human rights. Judges can be bribed or just be insane and you have no recourse whatsoever. That is pure tyranny.

The only reason why I was released is because my case was accepted by the Supreme Court and the only way to stop them from ruling on my arguments was to release me and tell the Supreme Court it was no longer a viable case since I was released. Chadwick’s lawyer called me, as he was denied a hearing by the Supreme Court. In my case, there was no order specifying what was to actually be produced – ambiguous.

Civil contempt means you have absolutely no rights whatsoever.  You are supposed to have a clearly defined order that says you do this and you will be released. I never had an order, for if they gave me such an order and I complied, they would have had to release me. Additionally, they were demanding my source code privately and not publicly in court, so there could be no official order. The solution was clear: don’t give me an order. That allowed them to demand the source code out of court and off the record as Tancred Schiavoni did in an email to another lawyer stating:

“In part, we are doing this because Armstrong Sr. has refused to turn over the uncompiled source code for the model that is being licensed.”

Yet I was never directed publicly in court to do so, nor was I ever given any order stating what it was I was supposed to do to end the contempt. This was an outright violation of my human rights; a violation of my family’s and employee’s civil rights. Yet I believe they will go unpunished for what I believe is clear criminal activity because the Justice Department never prosecutes their own – What’s the point of being corrupt if you have to follow the law?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/tag/the-club

During my recent European tour, people continually asked, “Why are you still alive?” True, there was an attempt on my life and I spent 3 days in a coma, but I survived, no doubt to their dismay. I doubt many people would buy a claim I committed suicide after the Supreme Court compelled them to end the contempt by agreeing to hear the case. So in my case, they will have to fake an accident or cause me to be in the wrong place at the right time.

Yet at the very beginning of my case, someone placed a bullet in my mailbox as a warning before the contempt began. That was even discussed in court and the bullet was turned over as evidence. In my case, I had tapes documenting every market manipulation of the “club” which included who they were. They were seized from my lawyers under threat of imprisoning them and then the receiver demanding those tapes was given a job inside Goldman Sachs as a board member yet continued to work as the court receiver from the board of Goldman Sachs never resigning from the court.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35517

here I was with tapes documenting market manipulations by the banks. The court receiver, Alan Cohen, was appointed to run Princeton Economics. Goldman Sachs then hired Cohen after threatening to imprison all the lawyers if the deid not hand over all tapes. Goldman made Cohen a member of the Board of Directors. However, Cohen NEVER resigned from the court and continued running Princeton Economics from the board at Goldman. Come on! You cannot make up this type of outright corruption/conflict of interest; it is to the point where they simply do not care.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31110

The New York banks have been my adversary, to say the least. Alan Cohen, the court receiver put in charge of running Princeton Economics, was simultaneously on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs. When the SEC said the contempt should end, Cohen lied to the court to keep the contempt going, without even receiving a complaint or charges since the original charges were dropped.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30398

In my own case, Alan Cohen seizes all evidence about market manipulations by the banks and then I believe was rewarded by Goldman Sachs and hired as a board member. Yet he did not  resign from the court and continued to be the receiver in court while running Princeton Economics from the boardroom of Goldman Sachs. You cannot make up this stuff.

So yes, Alan Cohen of Goldman Sachs was intimately involved to prevent my release and advocated holding me until I died even though there was no crime, no description of a crime, no trial, not entitlement to lawyers, or anything that was supposed to be American. Under Due Process of Law you are supposed to be advised what you are being accused of and you then enter your plea guilty or not guilty. I was NEVER advised of any such crime and this is what Alan Cohen of Goldman Sachs stood before the New York court loaded with the “free” press who NEVER would report a single word or bothered to question anything Goldman Sachs every does.

Americans are entitled to a “PUBLIC TRIAL” where everything is supposed to be open to the public for review. That does not do much when the press is pro-government and they close the courtroom illegally and throw the Press out as Judge Richard Owen did on April 24th, 2000. That event caused the Associated Press to report that it was a “closed” hearing and to question whether I would ever receive a “fair trial” in New York City.

What Alan Cohen did that from confiscating all evidence to protect the New York Investment Bankers, arguing I be imprisoned forever even though there was no longer any crime even described, to advocating throwing out the press on April 24th, 2000, one can only wonder just what is going on in New York City.

Because they could not even describe a crime I might have done, Alan Cohen dispensed with the problem of even charging someone and providing notice to defend. His solution, just imprison me until I died knowing the NY Press will NEVER go against the NY boys. So much for liberty and justice for all and the land of the free except when you expose the New York Bankers and their destruction of the free markets and world economy. It is always about shutting people up to protect their illegal activities.

Alan Cohen even admitted HSBC pleaded guilty criminally, nobody went to jail, and they just gave back money they tried to pocket by blaming me. The bankers got away with precisely that in M.F. Global. The losses with illegal trading at the banks was covered by depositors at M.F. Global. That is precisely against the law.

The most insane corruption in New York is the acknowledged alteration to the transcripts that the judges in New York Federal Court claim the power to change the very words you speak in court. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the practice as being “unique” to New York, but on page 97 of their decision in UNITED STATES v. ZICHETTELLO, they claimed they lacked the power to order judges to obey the law.

[smooth]

Contested in what public hearing where all evidence could be presented?

It was reported as such in the press. I don't have the transcripts from the case but it would not surprise me at all if there were hearings or motions on the trial delays. Anyway, I'm more inclined to give any weight at all to an independent source as opposed to his blog that you keep foolishily quoting as the authoritative source that it quite literally cannot ever be given its one-sided nature and the inherent self-interested bias of its author.

the government admitted that he never defrauded anyone and admitted that the banksters did it and even fined the other banks. And he was totally vindicated

Sorry, I don't believe it. Where is it documented that he was "completely vindicated" of all of the charges?

What I believe is that some aspects of the case were probably found to be more attributable to the actions of others.

But as I said it was a very complex case with so many pieces and in reality there are so many complex laws and conflicting requirements, especially when it comes to vague conspiracy and fraud charges that just challenging the burden of proof is hard enough. It is almost impossible to ever be completely and provably innocent. So when he claims to be "completely vindicated" that just tells me that he is full of shit and trying to rehabilitate his image (or possibly self-image) with such puffery.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...

You keep quoting his blog as if that one-sided source matters one whit in a contested case. It does not.

I don't disagree in general about injustice and abuses of civil contempt. But in this case, had he gone forward with trial and then fully prevailed at trial, the civil contempt would also have ended because the order was to turn over assets associated with the alleged fraud. There is also a bit of verbal slight of hand in the statement of his that you posted (not unusual it seems). You do not have a right to a trial for civil contempt (though can appeal the order, which he did, twice, and lost twice), but being held in contempt does not prevent being tried in another case, which is what he was facing. If he wasn't going to turn over the assets, he needed to prevail on the fraud (and other) charges to render the civil contempt order moot.

I'm sorry but Armstrong is apparently full of shit on a lot of this stuff, and even a lot of the stuff that he says that may well be true is often a complete misdirection or distraction from his case (such as banks manipulating the silver market -- interesting and probably true, but not at all demonstrative of his innocence), or selective quoting or half truths (such as that 9 line section of a 17+ page document showing "one period" without losses). You shouldn't blindly reading and quoting his blog and do your own independent research. It seems not infrequently to disagree with his spin on it.

[THX 1138]

I'm afraid I can't contain myself any longer. I've been biting my tongue long enough.

TPTB_need_war, is developing Ion more important than these battles?

Maybe certain individuals on here know which buttons to press in order to distract you from your purpose.

Do the symptoms of your illness prevent you from coding but allow you to write thousands of words a day on this forum?

I can't believe I'm the only one here who thinks this? Maybe one reason they don't is that they believe they will end up with a tongue lashing from you.

Shoot me down if you want. I really don't have the hours to spare to get bogged down in the kind of squabbling Ive just read over the last few pages; I'm too busy at work.

I've been reading your often fascinating ideas and plans for nearly two years, but I've pretty much lost patience now.

I really do hope you get to beat your illness, but too often it seems you spend your good days in arguments on here.

Hoping you take this in the friendly but firmly encouraging manner it is intended.

[TPTB_need_war]

Contested in what public hearing where all evidence could be presented?

It was reported as such in the press.

The same "free" press that didn't report any of the damning facts such as the MOA that ordered the receiver to withhold all evidence from the Defendent, thus a violation of discovery in law due process.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14767564/More-Proof-Of-Martin-Armstrong-s-innocence#scribd

I don't have the transcripts from the case

Then what do you have that emboldens you to promote fraud as truth and simultaneously destroy your relationship with me with insane behavior?

but it would not surprise me at all if there were hearings or motions on the delays.

It would not surprise you. That is evidence of some sort in your unconstitutional world?

Anyway, I'm more inclined to give any weight at all to an independent source as opposed to his blog that you keep foolishily quoting as the authoritative source that it quite literally cannot ever be given its one-sided nature and the inherent self-interested bias of its author.

Oh grasshopper did you ever learn that scientists pull information from what appears to be noise by using tools such as correlation of multiple data points.

You are more inclined to give weight to a source which proved it is not fair as documented above.

Who is foolish?

the government admitted that he never defrauded anyone and admitted that the banksters did it and even fined the other banks. And he was totally vindicated

Sorry, I don't believe it. If that were true he could go to count and get a finding of factual innocence. He wouldn't have to argue his innocence on a blog.

Did you already forget the court orders they put on him disallowing him to do certain things which I presented in one my earlier replies to you today.

On what basis do you not believe it? Can you even recite to us the details of his case and the related court cases where the banks involved were fined and admitted their culpability for the entire incident?

I am asking you first, before I print in your face so you can eat some humble pie.

What I believe is that some aspects of the case were probably found to be more attributable to the actions of others.

But as I said it was a very complex case with so many pieces and in reality there are so many complex laws and conflicting requirements, especially when it comes to vague fraud charges that it is almost impossible to be completely and provably innocent. So when he claims to be "completely vindicated" that just tells me that he is full of shit and trying to rehabilitate his image (or possibly self-image) with such puffery.

Again you lash out because of your laziness because you don't know the details of the case into a slander of a man you have no evidence with which to support your leanings to slander him.

You assume it is so complicated because you never even bothered to understand it. Yet you are simultaneously an expert able to boast and boast post after post.

But in this case, had he gone forward with trial and then fully prevailed at trial, the civil contempt would also have ended because the order was to turn over assets associated with the alleged fraud.

He turned over everything he was given a court order to turn over.

He did not turn over those items he was told to turn over only in an email.

Of course he wanted the demand on the official record why they wanted the source code to his computer model. And the banksters were unwilling to put it on the official record because they knew they had no basis with which to officially demand it.

So because he wouldn't give them the computer source code to his model (which has absolutely nothing to do with the case and allegations against him) without an official court order, they keep in civil contempt for 7 years.

There is also a bit of verbal slight of hand in the statement of his that you posted (not unusual it seems). You do not have a right to a trial for civil contempt (though can appeal the order, which he did, twice, and lost twice), but being held in contempt does not prevent being tried in another case, which is what he was facing. If he wasn't going to turn over the assets he needed to prevail on the fraud (and other) charges to render the civil contempt charges moot.

Do you have any point? He had already complied with all court orders on which assets to turn over. What more could he do but appeal the unconstitutional use of civil contempt to prevent his speedy public trial by a jury of his peers.

He told them if they wanted other assets then give him a court order. They refused. They kept him in civil contempt for 7 years.

At the end of it all, he was entirely vindicated and then his appeal was going to the Supreme Court so finally they had to move.

I'm sorry but Armstrong is apparently full of shit on a lot of this stuff. You shouldn't blindly reading and quoting his blog and do your own independent research. It seems not infrequently to disagree with his spin on it.

You call anything you don't understand well "full of shit" so then who is full of shit.

[TPTB_need_war]

I'm afraid I can't contain myself any longer. I've been biting my tongue long enough.

TPTB_need_war, is developing Ion more important than these battles?

Maybe certain individuals on here know which buttons to press in order to distract you from your purpose.

Do the symptoms of your illness prevent you from coding but allow you to write thousands of words a day on this forum?

I can't believe I'm the only one here who thinks this? Maybe one reason they don't is that they believe they will end up with a tongue lashing from you.

Shoot me down if you want. I really don't have the hours to spare to get bogged down in the kind of squabbling Ive just read over the last few pages; I'm too busy at work.

I've been reading your often fascinating ideas and plans for nearly two years, but I've pretty much lost patience now.

I really do hope you get to beat your illness, but too often it seems you spend your good days in arguments on here.

Hoping you take this in the friendly but firmly encouraging manner it is intended.

Today I took my antibiotics again and I started the Azithromycin in addition to the Doxcycline. I was supposed to go to the mall tonight to buy N-Acetyl Cysteine but see below. And so far all day I felt mentally okay although I am having some weird sensations now at 3am because I've been up the entire day and night dealing with this crap from smooth.

I was thinking about doing some work this afternoon, but smooth ensnared me in this long fight you are reading here.

What would you suggest I do about this argument with smooth?

Just quit?

[jehst]

You've both said your piece. Any outside observer, such as myself, will need to do his or her own research to decide what to believe. My advice is to move on.

[smooth]

because I've been up the entire day and night dealing with this crap from smooth.

Again, why?

Who appointed you the defender of the legitmacy (or lack thereof) of Martin Armstrong's criminal convinction/plea bargain

It doesn't have to be your concern at all unless you decide that is your priority in life, and again if you do then I would ask why.

I don't know about you, but I get other work done during these discussions. Maybe that's why I don't go and drag bunch of references from his blog. I just give my opinion and get back to work. Perhaps try the same.

[THX 1138]

I'm afraid I can't contain myself any longer. I've been biting my tongue long enough.

TPTB_need_war, is developing Ion more important than these battles?

Maybe certain individuals on here know which buttons to press in order to distract you from your purpose.

Do the symptoms of your illness prevent you from coding but allow you to write thousands of words a day on this forum?

I can't believe I'm the only one here who thinks this? Maybe one reason they don't is that they believe they will end up with a tongue lashing from you.

Shoot me down if you want. I really don't have the hours to spare to get bogged down in the kind of squabbling Ive just read over the last few pages; I'm too busy at work.

I've been reading your often fascinating ideas and plans for nearly two years, but I've pretty much lost patience now.

I really do hope you get to beat your illness, but too often it seems you spend your good days in arguments on here.

Hoping you take this in the friendly but firmly encouraging manner it is intended.

Today I took my antibiotics again and I started the Azithromycin in addition to the Doxcycline. I was supposed to go to the mall tonight to buy N-Acetyl Cysteine but see below. And so far all day I felt mentally okay although I am having some weird sensations not at 3am because I've been up the entire day and night dealing with this crap from smooth.

I was thinking about doing some work this afternoon, but smooth ensnared me in this long fight you are reading here.

What would you suggest I do about this argument with smooth?

Just quit?

Those who go out of their way to read what you say will understand if you do quit. Otherwise, anyone who intended to prevent you from completing Ion knows that they simply have to engage you in one of these verbal contests in order to stall the development of Ion indefinitely. If you are well, mate, then for pity's sake please code!

[TPTB_need_war]

I just give my opinion and get back to work

And thus fuck everything in the process. Nice work.

If you actually had a reasoned grounding in what you say, then you wouldn't waste the time of people who do. And you wouldn't slander and promote fraud.

[macsga]

I'm afraid I can't contain myself any longer. I've been biting my tongue long enough.

TPTB_need_war, is developing Ion more important than these battles?

Maybe certain individuals on here know which buttons to press in order to distract you from your purpose.

Do the symptoms of your illness prevent you from coding but allow you to write thousands of words a day on this forum?

I can't believe I'm the only one here who thinks this? Maybe one reason they don't is that they believe they will end up with a tongue lashing from you.

Shoot me down if you want. I really don't have the hours to spare to get bogged down in the kind of squabbling Ive just read over the last few pages; I'm too busy at work.

I've been reading your often fascinating ideas and plans for nearly two years, but I've pretty much lost patience now.

I really do hope you get to beat your illness, but too often it seems you spend your good days in arguments on here.

Hoping you take this in the friendly but firmly encouraging manner it is intended.

Today I took my antibiotics again and I started the Azithromycin in addition to the Doxcycline. I was supposed to go to the mall tonight to buy N-Acetyl Cysteine but see below. And so far all day I felt mentally okay although I am having some weird sensations not at 3am because I've been up the entire day and night dealing with this crap from smooth.

I was thinking about doing some work this afternoon, but smooth ensnared me in this long fight you are reading here.

What would you suggest I do about this argument with smooth?

Just quit?

Those who go out of their way to read what you say will understand if you do quit. Otherwise, anyone who intended to prevent you from completing Ion knows that they simply have to engage you in one of these verbal contests in order to stall the development of Ion indefinitely. If you are well, mate, then for pity's sake please code!

I've stopped posting here for the same reasons that THX 1138 reported in the quote above. TPTB_need_war, has a much more important task to do rather than spending his time on this forum debating about his beliefs. He has made clear of his thesis on certain subjects, I don't have to agree with everything he does, but I DO RESPECT THEM!

So, I will say it again, please let him do his job. It's what matters most.

[TPTB_need_war]

If you are well, mate, then for pity's sake please code!

I did ask earlier this afternoon if he is filibustering me.

But I know it is not about that. I embarrassed him on the Georgia Guidestones so he was stalking my posts after that waiting for a chance to get a quip in to heal his bruised ego. I didn't really want to embarrass him on that but he forced this really obtuse incongruent interpretation that made no sense. And so then I showed the hard proof that his interpretation was indeed way off course.

He is willing to use Armstrong as a pawn in the process of trying to get back at me, slandering the man without any evidence whatsoever simply on the hearsay of the corrupt court.

I pushed this along because I wanted to see how far his obnoxious behavior would go. Because one little unknown fact is that Smooth and I were almost going to work together on Ion, but at the last minute I decided against it because he actually does the same arguing and wasting of time even on technical issues in private conversations. He is amazingly inefficient to work with in my experience. He can take a small issue and turn it into an arduous back and forth pedantic slough. That is my experience and opinion and others who have worked with him may not have the same.

For a long time I respected smooth for his logic and also for his desire to be fair minded. I have no idea what happened today. It has gone totally off the rails.


I read all your posts asking me to stop. If I make another post about this, it will only be a final one to document how Armstrong was vindicated. But I may just stop now.

[smooth]

If you are well, mate, then for pity's sake please code!

I did say ask earlier this afternoon if he is filibustering me.

But I know it is not about that. I embarrassed him on the Georgia Guidestones so he was stalking my posts after that waiting for a chance to get a quip in to heal his bruised ego.

No, no and no. (Especially, I admit that my interpretation of the Guidstone inscriptions was likely incorrect based on the explanation in the book, but I face no embarrassment from being incorrect then or ever.)

I read this thread normally so there is no stalking involved at all. I disagreed with your reply to the original post on the topic of Armstrongs criminal record, and I said so. If you want to turn that into a day-long exercise in reposting his blog posts here, that is your choice.

[TPTB_need_war]

smooth is never culpable. Remember that.

[luigi1111]

For a long time I respected smooth for his logic and also for his desire to be fair minded. I have no idea what happened today. It has gone totally off the rails.

(as someone who hasn't participated in this thread before/has no stake in this/whatever)

This looks to me like a fairly good indicator that you should back off a bit and maybe give yourself a chance to see others' perspectives.

[THX 1138]

If you are well, mate, then for pity's sake please code!

I did ask earlier this afternoon if he is filibustering me.

But I know it is not about that. I embarrassed him on the Georgia Guidestones so he was stalking my posts after that waiting for a chance to get a quip in to heal his bruised ego. I didn't really want to embarrass him on that but he forced this really obtuse incongruent interpretation that made no sense. And so then I showed the hard proof that his interpretation was indeed way off course.

He is willing to use Armstrong as a pawn in the process of trying to get back at me, slandering the man without any evidence whatsoever simply on the hearsay of the corrupt court.

I pushed this along because I wanted to see how far his obnoxious behavior would go. Because one little unknown fact is that Smooth and I were almost going to work together on Ion, but at the last minute I decided against it because he actually does the same arguing and wasting of time even on technical issues in private conversations. He is amazingly inefficient to work with in my experience. He can take a small issue and turn it into an arduous back and forth pedantic slough. That is my experience and opinion and others who have worked with him may not have the same.

For a long time I respected smooth for his logic and also for his desire to be fair minded. I have no idea what happened today. It has gone totally off the rails.


I read all your posts asking me to stop. If I make another post about this, it will only be a final one to document how Armstrong was vindicated. But I may just stop now.

Well it was probably a lucky escape for both of you that you didn't work together.

Look, all I'm trying to ask is if you find making your point on this matter with smooth - or any one of dozens of others over recent months - more important than developing Ion. At one point I thought you were going to disappear until you were ready with the finished product. At least then there wouldn't have been the temptation to get involved in more of these heated discussions which eat up time and distract you from your goal.