Was the Titanic Sunk On Purpose?

[antiaristo]

thoughtographer,<br>Did you visit in the past under a different name, perhaps before the registration requirement?<br><br>On the emad thing. I'm no vandal, and believe in live and let live.<br>A clued up Brit would have known straight away that he was talking nonsense. But an American audience would not. Why should you? Both posts seem equally arcane.<br><br>THAT is what he was exploiting.<br><br>Did you see the supplementary thread I posted shortly thereafter? Where I included all the source links for my claims? emad never posted any links to support what he said.<br><br>We had run-in after run-in, until I finally caught him in two succesive lies. First on the murder of a woman called Jill Dando, then on the story of BCCI.<br><br>He was making it up as he went along. But these were BRITISH stories, not likely familiar to the audience here.<br><br>I don't have a blog.<br>But what I have done is to post an archive in Data Dump.<br>This archive contains correspondence from 1999 to 2004, exactly as written.<br>It comprises raw, unprocessed source documents, doubtless very tedious, especially on that side of the pond where the personalities are likely not well known.<br><br>But I did it that way because it is something that is damn near impossible to falsify.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=7.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...ID=7.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Thank you for the warm vibes.<br><br>Peace unto thee<br><br><br>rothbardian,<br>I don't know much about the Jesuits and the Titanic.<br>But my perception is that the Society of Jesus has been eclipsed by Opus Dei.<br>What I don't like about Opus Dei is that they are a personal prelature of the Pope. That means the local bishops have no influence at all on the organization. It answers only to the Pope in Rome.<br><br>So far as I am aware, this is the first personal prelature since the Templars. It was created by Pope John Paul II.<br><br>Two other things about JPII.<br>He did not swear the mandated oath, which means his personal power was unlimited, like a medieval monarch.<br><br>And he legalized the nemesis of the Catholic Church: Freemasonry.<br><br>What seems to have emerged is a mutual backscratching between the Roman church and the British Crown.<br>Opus Dei are`promoted in the English speaking world (Ruth Kelly was made Schools Minister by Blair, for example). And in return Freemasonry has been able to establish itself in Catholic countries.<br><br>In Spain, for example, they have a pretty strong grip on the judicial branch (the King of Spain is of the Order of the Garter, which rules worldwide Freemasonry of the Scottish Rite variety).<br><br>If you are looking for nefarious activity within the Catholic Church the place to look is within the personal plaything of the Vatican.<br><br>IMHO<br> <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>thoughtographer,<br>Did you visit in the past under a different name, perhaps before the registration requirement?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>No, but I suppose I probably followed the exchange while I was "lurking" before I registered. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I registered not long after the registration requirement was instated. If I were to go by a different name, I would probably announce the fact to spare any possible confusion or suspicion.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>On the emad thing. I'm no vandal, and believe in live and let live.<br>A clued up Brit would have known straight away that he was talking nonsense. But an American audience would not. Why should you? Both posts seem equally arcane.<br><br>THAT is what he was exploiting.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Well, I'm not totally clueless with regard to British corporate and political issues and the associated personalities, but the depths to which you go admittedly fall far outside the scope of my knowledge and interests. You're right in that both posts do seem equally arcane, and I guess that's partially the point I was addressing. Whether "emad" was a shill or not, it's important to examine the facts presented, and I appreciate your perspective on trying to maintain that focus. If he was exploiting ignorance on the part of the reader, then he was being irresponsible at the very least -- though we're all irresponsible every now and again when it comes to promoting our views.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Did you see the supplementary thread I posted shortly thereafter? Where I included all the source links for my claims? emad never posted any links to support what he said.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Yeah, I did read that. Maybe you scared him away, but it's equally probable that he was just not motivated enough to reply for one reason or another. He didn't attempt to refute your claims with facts to support his, so I see that as an unresolved dispute. He's gone, regardless -- so I guess that's good? I get the feeling that some people would like to see me confuse a fact here or there and shame me into leaving, but unlike you, I have no overall thesis to prove and I certainly don't have your troubles -- I have my own.<br><br>As far as the blog suggestion goes: I only asked because I've <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>tried</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to make some sense of exactly what happened to you, but it's not easy to follow. Maybe if you consolidated the basic facts into a timeline or synopsis, and used the information you've collected here as footnotes, more people could understand your story and perhaps help you out somehow.<br><br>That's all I've got at the moment. Take care. <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 5/22/06 4:30 pm<br></i>