|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 3, 2007 23:08:10 GMT -4
I'm sorry LunarOrbit, I interpreted as you saying feelfree222 should change the thread title to scumbag. I thought this change was positive enough, especially since feelfree222 is one of them. The last part was intended jokingly. especially since feelfree222 is one of them.I don't find it funny young punk ! Ad hominem www.answers.com/scumbag?nafid=3I suggest you withdraw that claim with excuses.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 3, 2007 23:37:50 GMT -4
It's a nazi we're talking about... if anything, calling him a "scumbag" is being too kind. I did not know this guy (Bollyn) was so despicable and pro -nazi from the two links i have posted. So he deserve what happened to him.(if true) Edited for precision.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 4, 2007 0:47:17 GMT -4
I've been avoiding responding to you, feelfree, since there never seems to me to be a point, but let me ask you something, here.
It's pretty easy to find out that Bollyn is a neonazi. Astonishingly so, in fact. But you didn't know. How can you trust these people if you don't do basic research about them?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 4, 2007 1:18:14 GMT -4
I've been avoiding responding to you, feelfree, since there never seems to me to be a point, but let me ask you something, here. It's pretty easy to find out that Bollyn is a neonazi. Astonishingly so, in fact. But you didn't know. How can you trust these people if you don't do basic research about them? The only thing I knew about Bollyn when i posted was the video about -the Pentagon attack - I have linked on another thread some time ago. How can you trust these people if you don't do basic research about them? Who are "these peoples" that I have not made basic research about them? Prof Jones? edited spelling
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 4, 2007 8:20:53 GMT -4
It's a nazi we're talking about... if anything, calling him a "scumbag" is being too kind. I did not know this guy (Bollyn) was so despicable and pro -nazi from the two links i have posted. So he deserve what happened to him.(if true) I don't think anybody said or meant that. The problem is I don't think any of use believe him. His fanaticism could drive his perception of events and/or justify (in his mind) being deceptive. It is interesting to note that even according to Bollyn a neighbor who saw the event is one of the witnesses against him.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 4, 2007 9:59:04 GMT -4
I'm sorry LunarOrbit, I interpreted as you saying feelfree222 should change the thread title to scumbag. I thought this change was positive enough, especially since feelfree222 is one of them. The last part was intended jokingly. especially since feelfree222 is one of them.I don't find it funny young punk ! Ad hominem www.answers.com/scumbag?nafid=3I suggest you withdraw that claim with excuses. Well, sorry. I'll withdraw that claim.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 4, 2007 16:31:09 GMT -4
The only thing I knew about Bollyn when i posted was the video about -the Pentagon attack - I have linked on another thread some time ago. Yes. That's my point. You don't know what his credentials are. You don't know if there is any valid reason to believe his opinion on structural engineering, aviation, governmental procedure, or anything else he might pontificate on. You know that he agrees with you about 9/11, and that's it. Why should you trust him over people who have shown themselves, repeatedly, to have valid credentials? Well, I don't know. Certainly not Bollyn. You're willing to trust him pretty blindly without looking into his reliability. Who else do you trust, whom you haven't done five minutes' research into?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 4, 2007 23:10:50 GMT -4
The only thing I knew about Bollyn when i posted was the video about -the Pentagon attack - I have linked on another thread some time ago. Yes. That's my point. You don't know what his credentials are. You don't know if there is any valid reason to believe his opinion on structural engineering, aviation, governmental procedure, or anything else he might pontificate on. You know that he agrees with you about 9/11, and that's it. Why should you trust him over people who have shown themselves, repeatedly, to have valid credentials? In that case it was about the Global Hawk drone theory that I presented the video for discussion. The discussion convinced me that his presentation and the theory was wrong. Well, I don't know. Certainly not Bollyn. You're willing to trust him pretty blindly without looking into his reliability. Who else do you trust, whom you haven't done five minutes' research into? That is not even a question of trust (?) I finded the video interesting for discussing the Global Hawk theory.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 5, 2007 9:04:13 GMT -4
Yes. That's my point. You don't know what his credentials are. You don't know if there is any valid reason to believe his opinion on structural engineering, aviation, governmental procedure, or anything else he might pontificate on. You know that he agrees with you about 9/11, and that's it. Why should you trust him over people who have shown themselves, repeatedly, to have valid credentials? In that case it was about the Global Hawk drone theory that I presented the video for discussion. The discussion convinced me that his presentation and the theory was wrong. Well, I don't know. Certainly not Bollyn. You're willing to trust him pretty blindly without looking into his reliability. Who else do you trust, whom you haven't done five minutes' research into? That is not even a question of trust (?) I finded the video interesting for discussing the Global Hawk theory. She can correct me if I wrong but she seemed to be referring to your “blind trust” of his claims about the incident that led to his arrest. You seem to have accepted them unquestioningly as fact, just as you do with any information that comes your way which seems to back your beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 5, 2007 15:33:33 GMT -4
She can correct me if I wrong but she seemed to be referring to your “blind trust” of his claims about the incident that led to his arrest. You seem to have accepted them unquestioningly as fact, just as you do with any information that comes your way which seems to back your beliefs. It seem that she referred to 9/11. As for the incident he expose his version and he his actually in court defending his position.I dont see any blind faith of my part. Edited for precision.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 5, 2007 23:45:10 GMT -4
She can correct me if I wrong but she seemed to be referring to your “blind trust” of his claims about the incident that led to his arrest. You seem to have accepted them unquestioningly as fact, just as you do with any information that comes your way which seems to back your beliefs. Quite right. He's a "truther" (ye Gods, what a ridiculous and lying title), so his side of what happened with the "evil" police must be accurate. It doesn't matter whether he has motive to lie or not. It doesn't matter if he's generally shown to be unreliable. He's on a certain side espousing a certain point of view, so he must be right. That's pretty blind trust.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 5, 2007 23:57:07 GMT -4
She can correct me if I wrong but she seemed to be referring to your “blind trust” of his claims about the incident that led to his arrest. You seem to have accepted them unquestioningly as fact, just as you do with any information that comes your way which seems to back your beliefs. Quite right. He's a "truther" (ye Gods, what a ridiculous and lying title), I was originally inspired by :A “truther” threatens the life of a “debunker” for the title. ;D so his side of what happened with the "evil" police must be accurate.It doesn't matter whether he has motive to lie or not. It doesn't matter if he's generally shown to be unreliable. He's on a certain side espousing a certain point of view, so he must be right. Where did I say that what he say is necessary the truth?Maybe I should have include the word "pretend that he was assaulted and TASERed by three cops "in the title? That's pretty blind trust. Again, this have nothing to do with blind trust. edited for clarity
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 6, 2007 0:13:40 GMT -4
Christopher Bollyn's trial is over Bollyn was found guilty of both charges: 1) Aggravated Assault 2) Resisting Arrest He will appeal, but sentencing is set for June 25 Source From Lenbrazil link on page one edited to add Details including police version www.dailyherald.com/news/cookstory.asp?id=319872&cc=c&tc=&t=Here an article from the Chigago Tribune tinyurl.com/2x9uho"Bollyn said he was walking back into his house when he was tackled by police." "Authorities said Bollyn was arrested after he pointed his finger in the face of one of the officers and turned to go inside his house, telling them that he was "going to get my reinforcements." Police said at the time that officers handcuffed Bollyn and used a stun gun to subdue him because they feared he was going to get a weapon."
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 6, 2007 11:24:18 GMT -4
She can correct me if I wrong but she seemed to be referring to your “blind trust” of his claims about the incident that led to his arrest. You seem to have accepted them unquestioningly as fact, just as you do with any information that comes your way which seems to back your beliefs. Yes she wrote: “It's pretty easy to find out that Bollyn is a neonazi. Astonishingly so, in fact. But you didn't know. How can you trust these people if you don't do basic research about them?” Feelfree wrote “Where did I say that what he say is necessary the truth?Maybe I should have include the word "pretend that he was assaulted and TASERed by three cops "in the title?” Actually “claims he was assaulted” would have been better, yes you should have but didn’t so we assumed you accepted his version as truthful. Feelfree wrote: “As for the incident he expose his version and he his actually in court defending his position.I dont see any blind faith of my part.” I don’t see how that adds credibility to his version of events. You wrote the above before the verdict but a jury after hearing all the evidence including his testimony and that of his wife, police and a neighbor convicted him. Here an article from the Chigago Tribune tinyurl.com/2x9uho"Authorities said Bollyn was arrested after he pointed his finger in the face of one of the officers and turned to go inside his house, telling them that he was "going to get my reinforcements." Police said at the time that officers handcuffed Bollyn and used a stun gun to subdue him because they feared he was going to get a weapon."If all Bollyn had done was point his finger at a cop the tackling, tasering and arrest seem unjustified. IT could we have been a case of police abuse, I was with my sister when she was hassled and threatened with arrest by an undercover Chicago cop because he thought she was taking to long to pull into a parking space. I have been witness to and victim of abusive behavior by US cops but I’ve also seen extraordinary restraint by cops in face of provocation. But as noted above he was convicted after a jury trial in which he, his wife and an expert witness testified on his behalf and the cops and neighbor testified for the prosecution also consider the following. “Prosecutors said Bollyn threatened the three officers, made a fist in one man’s face and said he was “getting backup.” Prosecutors said police then tackled Bollyn and used the stun gun when he struggled after they said he was under arrest.” www.dailyherald.com/news/cookstory.asp?id=318760The officers testified that Bollyn became belligerent and that they tackled him and used a stun gun to subdue him after he told them he was going into his house to get "reinforcements." Bollyn, a onetime candidate for mayor of Hoffman Estates, said the officers never identified themselves. During closing arguments, defense lawyer Paul Moreschi said it was difficult to know for sure what happened but told jurors that the "militaristic appearance" of the officers disturbed Bollyn. […] "This defense is ridiculous," said James Pontrelli, an assistant state's attorney. "Even the defendant's wife testified that one of the officers 'showed me a shiny, little badge.' " www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-bollyn_06jun06,1,1327095.y So he may have made a fist and said he was going to get others. Even his lawyer agreed that Bollyn was “disturbed” and “said it was difficult to know for sure what happened” the prosecution said he was disturbed and seem to have painted a clear picture what happened. He said the cops didn’t identify themselves but even his wife said one of them showed a badge. One of his neighbors testified against him. Bollyn even admitted to being upset when he confronted them: “I said, ‘Why are you threatening our neighborhood? Look at you, you’re dressed like you’re from Baghdad or Basra?’” Bollyn recalled on the stand. “I was very alarmed.” […] Bollyn, a writer, said he believed the three men in the unmarked car were federal agents targeting him because he published articles critical of the Iraq war and suggesting that Israeli operatives had a hand in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=319872 We don’t have enough information to say for certain who was right but even if we don’t take into account his political fanaticism and past unreliability there is more evidence to support the cops’ version of events than Bollyns. In any case his assertion that the incident was a planned conspiracy against himis absurd. How did they know he would call?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 6, 2007 17:36:34 GMT -4
yeah, not trusting his word is not the same thing as saying he deserved what happened to him. I may not sympathize with him but I do sympathize with his family and especially with his daughter. I've seen cops do both extraordinary things and horrific things, so I can't just outright say the cops were acting out of order without knowing the facts.
As a footnote, don't piss off the Houston police force. They're just about as corrupt as LAPD. I've met a few nice honest Houston cops but many more of them are corrupt and powermad. Hope I'm not offending anyone.
|
|