-Caveat Lector- At 12:10 PM 4/26/99 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -Caveat Lector- > >Previous thread: The FACTS are still the FACTS. > >Fellow Lollards, >Housewife June has asked if I can document my "claim", and >adds that: "[S]ecurity guards as a rule are worthless in defending >the public, rarely if ever receive any sort of professional training, >rarely if ever even get trained in first aid and CPR..." You aren't winning in this "argument". All you're doing is showing that instead of dealing with issues, you're more interested in spewing out the ad homenim insults to make your "ego" look "right". What possible difference could it make that June is a "housewife" ? Are the opinions of "housewives" any less important than yours? Mae Brussel was a housewife too..and probably the best conspiracy researcher of all time. You lose in this round. Next time, try dealing directly with issues and drop the insults. > >Gee June, did you happen to know that the security guard >was an off-duty Jefferson County Officer who, by radio, WAS >in direct contact with the dispatch center? > >Here in Colorado, where we are one officer at a time becoming >a police state, off-duty officers rotate in shifts, or work opposite >of their regular police shift, in schools; video rental stores; high >traffic entertainment centers; etc. > >People like myself, are part of a movement which is pointing out >that these off-duty officers are using state vehicles, gas, etc., >while making money at their part-time jobs. Either way, this >was a COP on duty as the High School's security guard. > >This proves to be only ONE of Revcoal's ill-informed statements. > >Revcoal's entire argument about "point to point" radio contact, >as well as your assumptions toward the inability of the "security >guard, are BOTH completely irrelevant in light of the fact that >this was an off-duty POLICE officer. > >Revcoal truly does not know what she is talking about, and >she is [unfortunately] spreading disinformation through her >own lack of credible data. > >In a message dated 99-04-26 07:48:43 EDT, revcoal says: ><<Remember, there are over 2000 students at this school...even if >only one percent of them tried to call on pay and cell phones, you're >talking approximately 20 calls coming in at once on a system that >probably only has about 20 lines operational...>> > >You have a valid point!!! > >Let's see, 20 incoming calls, 20 lines operational. > >Is there supposed to be a problem here? > >Before you open your piehole, make sure that you >are not falling into the trap that I am setting for you. > >Do *YOU* know how many emergency calls were placed >between 11:00 a.m.and 11:30 a.m on Tuesday the 20th? > >In a message dated 99-04-26 07:48:43 EDT, revcoal says: ><<The teacher was only one of DOZENS of >callers who were kept online...>> > >This is irrelevant. The point of contention, was that this teacher >could not have been on hold, blocking her OWN call's inability to >get through to 911; which, Revcoal's own contradictive statements >foolishly concluded. > >In a message dated 99-04-26 07:48:43 EDT, revcoal says: ><<The teacher was only one of DOZENS >of callers who were kept online...>> > >Considering that we have not been able to confirm ANY calls >more than the couple that have been released via tape, I would >sure like to see this assumption of Revcoal's documented. > >The readers on this list should note that the great majority >of my own statements do not begin with, "we can guess" >or "presumably", "probably", as Revcoal's are forced to. > >In a message dated 99-04-26 07:48:43 EDT, revcoal says: ><<I can't see any fault with the 911 operators themselves.>> > >Readers, this is just one of June's semantic arguments which >were never the point of discussion in the first place. The point >was that the 911 dispatch operator's "hide and wait" plan, was >also what we witnessed to be the plan from the police who >patiently waited outside for the gunfire to end. > >That is the bottom line. > >In a message dated 99-04-26 07:48:43 EDT, revcoal says: ><<Press conferences are NEVER given to 'unleash facts'...they are >given to 'sell' something those holding the conference wish to provide>> > >We must address this because this was the central issue. > >Are the police not offering information because of an ongoing >investigation? Well of course, yes...and it doesn't take even >a numbskull to figure that one out, and June's presence on >this list has not failed to prove this to be true. > >Readers, it is my hope that we understand-- when we agree with >the people who are *actually* covering up their OWN mistakes >under the guise of "not tipping their hand" to future suspects >--as June would have us foolishly believe-- we are part of the >problem and not the solution. > >The reason I find Davis' press conference SO disconcerting, is that >the parents of children who were sent to school TODAY, have a right >to know the FACTS that Davis' did not answer. > >If there IS another suspect; if there IS reason to believe that there >will be another attack today, the 26th, these parents have the RIGHT >to know that their children are in possible danger. > >I just got off the phone, and have confirmed via channel 4's Brian Moss >that the janitor who IDENTIFIED Eric Harris as sneeking around within >the doors of a school called Stoney Creek (somewhat near Columbine), >the night before the shooting-- has stated that Harris "looked ready to >go to war", and also stated that the janitor should "watch T.V. news >tomorrow". > >Now, if the suspects had pre-positioned supplies in the school(s?) >with part of a CORE GROUP that the police ARE now looking for.... > >If there is information regarding a second part of this CORE GROUP >striking a second time, then parents have a RIGHT to KNOW that >their children are at risk. Especially those at Stoney Creek. > >Housewife June can call it "professionalism"; I call it >unneccessarily putting the children of this state into >harm's way. > >Lastly, we have the fact that the second officer on the scene, >reports that he was literally there within two minutes. This >officer reports that he exchanged gunfire with one of the >suspects through one of the school windows. > >This cop believes to have shot this *specific* suspect, but >believes that the assailant was wearing a bullet-proof vest. > >This officer was alerted to the shooting, by a student >who had JUST fled from one of the shooters OUTSIDE. > >Many students have reported that two of the shooters >entered the building AT THE SAME TIME. > >What does this mean? It means that the assailant with >whom the officer exchanged rounds with at the second >story window, made some REAL TRACKS from the out- >side area where students were initially attacked by BOTH >of the attackers....T > >hat is, of course, if it is the same suspect.... > >Again, we are forced to wonder if the Davis' press conference >could not have been more reasonable in offering parents AT >LEAST enough information to reasonably assess whether >their children were in harm's way TODAY, as information >to date points to more than two assailants. > >Consider the following factors: > > 1) One shooting already has occurred, where > pre-positioned supplies were in place. > > 2) A (possible) threat made for a future attack. > > 3) One of the dead assailants already identified as being > suspiciously in a DIFFERENT school-- afterhours. > > 4) A press conference that confirms NONE of the above facts. > > 5) The possibility of MORE CHILDREN in harm's way. > > >Control's readers are wise enough to sort this out, and when >they do, they will clearly see the validity of my argument, and >will also clearly see the motive behind my contention. > >It's about the safety of children, and if no >other attack takes place, then we all win. > >June has failed in her quest to win her argument like this >is some kind of high school debate. She tries to assume >debate points based on mis-spelled words, from a person >[myself] that is typing forty words a minute, who doesn't >bother to spell check. > >This is not about June and her prideful attempt to win herself >debate stars; it is about the possibility of more children's lives >NEEDLESSLY being on the line through the police's lack of >informing the public to the possibility of further danger. > >Go argue with your husband, June. > >I have already had more than enough of your foolishness. > >Having read a few of REVCOAL's previous posts to CTRL, >I was *already* in the habit of automatically deleting her >worthless contributions to this list. > >I have now had first hand experience with June's desire to >win brownie points; and seeing that her own desire for such >out weighs her ability to make reasonable judgments.... > >....seeing that rather than putting down her pride and admitting >that there are facts that should have been stated by Davis'.... > >....facts which could possibly affect > the lives of more innocent children..... > >I will go out of my way to delete ALL future posts from REVCOAL; >as her posts prove themselves to be useless and self-centered >drivelous aberrations by someone who should be cleaning the >bathroom or making beds before hubby gets home. > >We can at least hope that REVCOAL has the decency of >removing her future attack on me to an off-list mailing, so >that I may delete it without bothering the rest of the people >on CTRL's list. > >Still muttering, >Tsadowq > >DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER >========== >CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic >screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters >and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright >frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects >spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL >gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; >be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and >nazi's need not apply. > >Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. >======================================================================== >Archives Available at: >http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html > >http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ >======================================================================== >To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: >SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: >SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Om --- "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
