Epstein Commits Suicide While on Suicide Watch (Maybe?)

Prof. Plum did it with a noose in the jail cell.

nan said:

 You start out by smearing LIsa Pease, whose book I am going to read soon.

Lisa Pease starts out her own Twitter page by describing herself this way: “Author of ’A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.’”

paulsurovell said:

 I think PVW's subsequent comment on Iverson indicates that my question was not far off the mark:

PVW said:

The history of anti-semitism isn't really my beat, so I'm not really the
 right person for this discussion, but just a heads up that blaming 
"this Israelis" is trafficking in some very ugly, very dangerous 
territory.

No, it demonstrates the exact opposite.

DaveSchmidt said:

Lisa Pease starts out her own Twitter page by describing herself this way: “Author of ’A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.’”

 Yeah, so?  That's what her book is called.  Should she have used a different title such as "A Maybe important Lie: My version of kinda sorta what might have happened?"    That's probably not what her publisher would want.

nan said:

 Yeah, so? 

 I guess she was smearing herself, was my point.

DaveSchmidt said:

 I guess she was smearing herself, was my point.

 I don't think so.  I think she is a sincere person and, rather than finding ways to attack,  I'm going to read her book.  

nohero said:

 So we've gone from "It's unconscionable that the FBI acted on a tip that Russian intelligence could have had sexual entrapment compromat on Trump" to "Don't minimize how much the CIA used sexual entrapment".

@nohero's latest attempt to defend the fraudulent Steele dossier, its fraudulent use by the FBI and its fraudulent promotion by the mainstream media.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

 I think PVW's subsequent comment on Iverson indicates that my question was not far off the mark:

PVW said:

The history of anti-semitism isn't really my beat, so I'm not really the
 right person for this discussion, but just a heads up that blaming 
"this Israelis" is trafficking in some very ugly, very dangerous 
territory.

No, it demonstrates the exact opposite.

 How so?

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

 I think PVW's subsequent comment on Iverson indicates that my question was not far off the mark:

PVW said:

The history of anti-semitism isn't really my beat, so I'm not really the
 right person for this discussion, but just a heads up that blaming 
"this Israelis" is trafficking in some very ugly, very dangerous 
territory.

No, it demonstrates the exact opposite.

 How so?

By reading what PVW wrote.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 So we've gone from "It's unconscionable that the FBI acted on a tip that Russian intelligence could have had sexual entrapment compromat on Trump" to "Don't minimize how much the CIA used sexual entrapment".

@nohero's latest attempt to defend the fraudulent Steele dossier, its fraudulent use by the FBI and its fraudulent promotion by the mainstream media.

I'm agnostic with respect to Steele's field notes a/k/a "the dossier".  I was just making an observation on the 180 degree reversal in the arguments, depending on which country's intelligence service was the subject.

nan said:

I was raised to NEVER say anything bad about Israel and my mother's response to the Palestinian crisis was to say, "Good, kill them all."   

Which, as a strong and irrational point of view that is not the norm, may be informative in understanding your own defense of different irrational points of view that are not the norm.

sprout said:

Which, as a strong and irrational point of view that is not the norm, may be informative in understanding your own defense of different irrational points of view that are not the norm.

You don't even play a psychologist on TV, and yet here you are with more pile on personal attacks.  My mother is a Floridian condo dweller, and her political views are shared by the others in her weekly politics discussion group at the clubhouse.  I'm hoping to end up living somewhere more open-minded, so let me know where you are going and I'll cross it off the list. 

Say what you will about my views, but I always back them up with evidence.  I don't call people anti-semitic out of the blue or accuse them of an "irrational point of view that is not the norm" unless I can support that with something more than fake psychoanalysis.  

Interesting group. Wishing ethnic cleansing on another peoples seems to be an extremely detached point of view in terms of both recent and distant Jewish history.

nan said:

Say what you will about my views, but I always back them up with evidence.

Considering that the year 2000 is not the year 2007, I'm not sure you know what 'evidence' means.

sprout said:

Considering that the year 2000 is not the year 2007, I'm not sure you know what 'evidence' means.

 Again with the cryptic personal attacks.  I went above and beyond explaining why I posted the video I did and why I like it.  I did not say I agreed with it or that all facts were verified or needed to be considering it was openly a stab at "who done it."   You were clearly pissed, but instead of arguing about it, you just attacked me personally, and have continued to do that. What is your problem?  I have barely conversed with you on MOL and did not even have a negative view of you, although I seem to remember some other times when you got angry about things I said.  I got the impression that you have a very strict idea about what can be said in public and that any kind of creative, free-flowing, "let me throw this out there and what does everyone think" kind of approach, gets under your skin to the nth degree. But, I have no idea--I'm just trying to figure out why you are acting like this.

Let's see-so far without evidence you 1) you called me anti-Semitic,  2) you said I had psychological problems, and now 3) you accuse me of not know how evidence works, by picking out a detail and ignoring the bigger picture. 

I think it is time for you to go away.  You should be banned for personal attacks.   I will try to avoid you in the future so maybe that will help.   

I usually try to avoid you too. But if you post something that is demonstrably false, and in the *even bigger* picture is a made-up conspiracy theory (as self described by the person in it), and it plays to anti-Semitic tropes, then I might say something again.

sprout said:

I usually try to avoid you too. But if you post something that is demonstrably false, and in the *even bigger* picture is a made-up conspiracy theory (as self described by the person in it), and it plays to anti-Semitic tropes, then I might say something again.

 It was openly a made-up conspiracy "theory" from the get-go so it was never intended to be anything other than demonstrably false. This death has made most of us conspiracy theorists whether we want to or not. I think it's interesting and I wanted to post some other people's theories for comparison, but the personal attacks sidetracked me.  I like to watch videos of people who discuss ideas--and I don't' mind if they sometimes make me uncomfortable. I don't think this video plays to anti-Semitic tropes, although I think Iverson was a bit nervous that people might think that, and I think her focus on Ghislaine Maxwell's family and past is a valid red flag.  You seem eager to blame what you see as my faults on the influence of my upbringing--so why not others like Maxwell?  Is that only when you want to smear people?

I found the Iverson video interesting because I liked the way she tried to sort things out and ask questions and try to answer them.  Clearly, she was missing some key facts, but that's how people work things out.  She will need to see that she was wrong about some things she was assuming and then go back and ask more questions and revise again. She may end up rejecting the whole thing or only part. She was thinking out loud and trying to pull things together.

That's how the learning process works.  You seem to feel that if a theory involves Isreal, then, you are anti-semitic and you need to throw the whole thing out and pick something else.  I don't agree with that. And I'm fine with you complaining about what I say, but it would be better if you tried to discuss things instead of trolling.

nan said:

This death has made most of us conspiracy theorists whether we want to or not. 

 Temporarily. Then many remember Occam's razor. But "some of us" do not.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 So we've gone from "It's unconscionable that the FBI acted on a tip that Russian intelligence could have had sexual entrapment compromat on Trump" to "Don't minimize how much the CIA used sexual entrapment".

@nohero's latest attempt to defend the fraudulent Steele dossier, its fraudulent use by the FBI and its fraudulent promotion by the mainstream media.

I'm agnostic with respect to Steele's field notes a/k/a "the dossier".  I was just making an observation on the 180 degree reversal in the arguments, depending on which country's intelligence service was the subject.

Do you have a problem with the term "Steele Dossier" to describe the fraudulent Russian-sourced Democratic Party opposition research project that was endlessly reported on by the mainstream media and submitted by the FBI to a FISA Court to obtain a surveillance warrant on an American citizen?

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

 I think PVW's subsequent comment on Iverson indicates that my question was not far off the mark:

PVW said:

The history of anti-semitism isn't really my beat, so I'm not really the
 right person for this discussion, but just a heads up that blaming 
"this Israelis" is trafficking in some very ugly, very dangerous 
territory.

No, it demonstrates the exact opposite.

 How so?

By reading what PVW wrote.

 Which words?

What’s worse.  Commissioning a burglary to dig up dirt to discredit a shrink, or fraudulently obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on an opposition Presidential campaign and sitting U.S. President.

sprout said:

nan said:

This death has made most of us conspiracy theorists whether we want to or not. 

 Temporarily. Then many remember Occam's razor. But "some of us" do not.

Doubts about the suicide explanation are pretty mainstream. 

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I'm agnostic with respect to Steele's field notes a/k/a "the dossier".  I was just making an observation on the 180 degree reversal in the arguments, depending on which country's intelligence service was the subject.

Do you have a problem with the term "Steele Dossier" to describe the fraudulent Russian-sourced Democratic Party opposition research project that was endlessly reported on by the mainstream media and submitted by the FBI to a FISA Court to obtain a surveillance warrant on an American citizen?

Why would someone quote me using the word "dossier" and then ask if I had a problem with it? 

@paulsurovell

Thanks. From that tweet from 4 days ago, I'm now convinced it was the Israelis.

paulsurovell said:

 Which words?

All of them.  In general, if you skip some, you're more likely to say something stupid if you're trying to comment about what was written.

Robert_Casotto said:

What’s worse.  Commissioning a burglary to dig up dirt to discredit a shrink, or fraudulently obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on an opposition Presidential campaign and sitting U.S. President.

 Nothing compares with promoting a fraud to poison relations between the United States and the one country that can destroy us in 10 minutes that continues to remind us that we cannot rely on its technical competence to distinguish between a missile attack and a false alarm.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

 Which words?

All of them.  In general, if you skip some, you're more likely to say something stupid if you're trying to comment about what was written.

This is pretty stupid.

sprout said:

@paulsurovell

Thanks. From that tweet from 4 days ago, I'm now convinced it was the Israelis.

 I doubt that's Moore's theory.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I'm agnostic with respect to Steele's field notes a/k/a "the dossier".  I was just making an observation on the 180 degree reversal in the arguments, depending on which country's intelligence service was the subject.

Do you have a problem with the term "Steele Dossier" to describe the fraudulent Russian-sourced Democratic Party opposition research project that was endlessly reported on by the mainstream media and submitted by the FBI to a FISA Court to obtain a surveillance warrant on an American citizen?

Why would someone quote me using the word "dossier" and then ask if I had a problem with it? 

 "Steele Dossier." You have a problem with that term.

paulsurovell said:

sprout said:

@paulsurovell

Thanks. From that tweet from 4 days ago, I'm now convinced it was the Israelis.

 I doubt that's Moore's theory.

It was sarcasm. Moore hasn't put forward any theory as far as I can find. I'm also not finding any more about this from Moore in the past few days. So, it's possible he's also considering that voluntary suicide has a greater-than-zero probability.

nan said:

sprout said:

Which, as a strong and irrational point of view that is not the norm, may be informative in understanding your own defense of different irrational points of view that are not the norm.

 My mother is a Floridian condo dweller, and her political views are shared by the others in her weekly politics discussion group at the clubhouse.  I'm hoping to end up living somewhere more open-minded, so let me know where you are going and I'll cross it off the list. 

 +10