Brad Guth's Credentials

Good lord, Brad... that message was the worst psychotic drivel that I've ever
seen posted on usenet, even eclipsing your own previous bests!

It's pretty clear that whatever problems you're having are getting much,
much worse. Do yourself and your family a favor, and have yourself admitted
to a mental health facility before it's too late and you do something to hurt
yourself, or others.


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
Those were radar images of Venus from Magellan BTW, not photos.
Here's hidden NASA evidence of life on the Moon:
http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moo...n_landings.htm
Usenet wizard Pat Flannery's credentials are every bit as equally
hocus-pocus and/or bogus and otherwise illusive as Usama bin Laden
and/or remaining as stealth as all of those WMD, thus not at all unlike
the Skull and Bones credentials of his perverted and favorite
bed-wetting sex partner "Art Deco".

The per usual topic/author ****ology as derived from our warm and fuzzy
"Pat Flannery" and "Art Deco", plus from all sorts of their mutual
incest cloned partners in crimes against humanity, is exactly what it
is. Notice how their supposed credentials don't even exist because
such e-spooks don't actually exist as actual humans.

Instead we honest folks get to deal with each of their Third Reich, or
else mindset. I'm to guess this is the absolute very best we can ever
expect from such a Third Reich collaborating collective of such Jews,
and like all the others trying to perform their brown-nosed minion
duties as infomercial-history, infomercial-science and subsequent
damage-control rusemasters on behalf of continually wiping their pagan
god's butt with each of their long and very status quo suck-up brown
noses.
-
Brad Guth

On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:01:42 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Malcolm
Reynolds" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Good lord, Brad... that message was the worst psychotic drivel that I've ever
seen posted on usenet, even eclipsing your own previous bests!

He does seem to be attempting an entry into the annals of Usenet
history.

David Bacque,
I see that you're still badly Usenet sucking and blowing as per usual.
Still looking for the utmost naysay and the most negative aspects of
absolutely everything under the sun. Does this mean that you're
turning yourself into a black hole?

My life and direct experience based masters degree in observationology
is just that because, there's apparently none others better than
myself. You've certainly not proven otherwise, and you haven't even
once attempted to present your photo interpretive expertise because you
obviously suck at it.

My credentials don't enter into the question of Brad's qualifications
to interpret photographs.
Once again, you obviously have absolutely no basis whatsoever for
judging upon my expertise, and you're obviously unwilling to so much as
demonstrate whatever photo interpretive expertise it is that you've
got. Therefore, your's must be pretty pathetic.

Since I've already explained as to exactly where my degree was derived,
and you haven't posted squat upon anything that's even remotely
similar, perhaps this is why I'd have to say that your qualifications
are not worth squat.

Or do I just need enough common sense to know that some people lie?
Now you're suggesting that you usage of "common sense" is perfectly
fine and dandy, but it not for anyone else to use. I suppose that
ology applies to whatever deductive reasoning as based upon the laws of
physics and hard-science can only be used by the likes of wizard David
Bacque.

Your ulterior intentions have been clearly of those to discredit and/or
to disqualify whomever isn't in 100% agreement with your naysay mindset
(I might add, both of your fat butt-cheeks worth). If you want a
masters degree in my observationology, as such you can start off by
forking over at least $100,000 for the first year's worth of a 20 year
program. As only then you'll know exactly where and how such a masters
degree in observationology is obtained.
-
Brad Guth

I might add that our David Bacque can't even explain as to how such an
inert massive Saturn V got 25t into orbiting our moon, much less 50+t
so quickly past LL-1, yet David claims to know a great deal about such
rocket-science. I wonder why their own numbers don't add up,
especially of whatever's their newest and best alternatives for
actually accomplishing that very same task at hauling a fraction of the
inert mass.
-
Brad Guth

How do you think Brad would respond when asked to defend his thesis?
I would have to use the best available facts as the basis that I
believe makes for the most deductive and common sense, rather than
continually suck-up and lie as you've had to do all of your life.

I would also have to give and/or share all the credits wherever such
credit is due. How about yourself?
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
ups.com...
I might add that our David Bacque can't even explain as to how such an
inert massive Saturn V got 25t into orbiting our moon, much less 50+t

It has been explained, many times.

You simply lack the brain power to understand it.

A chimpanzee has a better chance learning to play Vivaldi's "Four Seasons",
than you do of grasping the basics of Newtonian physics.

Don't blame others for your own lack of mental capabilities.

Malcolm Reynolds wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
ups.com...
I might add that our David Bacque can't even explain as to how such an
inert massive Saturn V got 25t into orbiting our moon, much less 50+t

It has been explained, many times.

You simply lack the brain power to understand it.

A chimpanzee has a better chance learning to play Vivaldi's "Four Seasons",
than you do of grasping the basics of Newtonian physics.

Don't blame others for your own lack of mental capabilities.


Actually, Malcolm Reynolds, you and I are on the same side when it
comes to the Apollo Missions. I believe they really took place too.

But Brad shouldn't be castigated just because of one viewpoint. His
posts are often filled with insights coupled with original thought.


tomcat

On 25 May 2006 13:41:19 -0700, in a place far, far away, "tomcat"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Actually, Malcolm Reynolds, you and I are on the same side when it
comes to the Apollo Missions. I believe they really took place too.

But Brad shouldn't be castigated just because of one viewpoint. His
posts are often filled with insights coupled with original thought.

His original thoughts and insights are filled with lunacy.

"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...

But Brad shouldn't be castigated just because of one viewpoint. His
posts are often filled with insights coupled with original thought.

Actually, his posts are filled with paranoid conspiracy theories, juvenile tirades,
antisemitic trash, and incomprehensible nonsense. There is nothing "insightful"
about it - and Brad has not posted anything "original" in eons - he simply recycles
the same tired crap over and over and over again.

Brad is not being "castigated" over "one viewpoint". He's being called on the
carpet for what he is - an unremitting spooler of bull**** drivel.

But Brad shouldn't be castigated just because of one viewpoint. His
posts are often filled with insights coupled with original thought.

His posts are filled with unjustified insults far more often than
anything else.