Quote:

---

So, the 95% of us who use pseudonyms here are cowards? The simple fact is that I use a pseudonym to prevent kooks like you from knowing who I am. I can say what I want without having you and a shotgun under my nose because you are offended.

---

Do you engage in homosexuals acts Lombar? Why not? Morailty perhaps?

Right there in your own answer you tell us why you hide.

You are afraid others will do you what Wikipedia did to me.

You can say what you like hiding behind a pseudo-non and there are no conseqences....the hallmark of a bully and a coward. Your scared to show your real name, you might just as well have ended the rest of it there.


Lombar, why is it you don't jump to the defence of the RC Church or the Church of scientolgy when Malmo-Levine and Bennett are slagging them?


No you only step out and speak up for homosexuals, Whys is that?

Part of some kind of mass guilt complex that victims of the past seem to hold over our society.


Was What Bennett said was offensive to large numbers of people.

You didn't speak up for the downtrodden then.


It's some kind of guilt complex that is at work here.


So explain that to me, why you have no problem with Bennett dissing Roman Cathololics?

What makes you think I rail against the church? I rail against the government. Get the government out of the charity buisness and leave it to the church says I.

So that is support of the church doing church work.

So that the morals I have closely align with the church's world view on homosexuality is there something wrong with that?

The implication is still there and the portrayal is negative not neutral.

I signed my titles to the letter I wrote in hopes that it will recieve a better look than other letters.

I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one. Bennett already told us about the hachet job done on small dead animals.

It ugly stuff. No human being alive could withstand a skelton shaking of their closest. So to pick up on the negative or the heat of the moments flame wars and draw attention to it demonstrates the true purpose of Wikipedia.

Name any other encyclopedia that does that sort of trashy thing?

National Enquirer does. Yeah, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a racist who often told off color jokes when he thought he was in the privacy of his hotel room, but J Edger Hoover and the G-Men were on the job and caught him.

What kind of encyclopiedia would carry that kind of trash even if it is true?

"Bennett already told us about the hachet job done on small dead animals."

Actually the Kate of Hate's Wikipedia profile was very accurate, just like Buors. I am glad to have a service like Wikipedia.

Buors should be more worried about the Cannabis Culture Cult guy, he has a whole blog site in Buors' name (as well as one in mine and other folks).

I still prefer a google search on me because you get to see the whole argument I make instead of what nasty things peopele have to say about me.


Even Arnie had the naysayers crawling out of the wood work when he went politcal.

I don't mind the cannabis culture cult site as much as I mind Wikipedia.

The guy makes no bones about his intentions then parody's us all taking pleasure in yanking our chains.

No one would give this stuff any serious credibility what-so-ever.

Wikipedia on the other hand still enjoys credence because they couch their prejudices in pretended neutrality.

Wikpedia is more incidious in that respect.

There is a difference in the two following statments,

I don't like Chris Bennett and here are all the reason why you shouldn't either

I have no opinon on Chris Bennett but here are all the reasons you should not like him...link.

One is up-front with a stated bias and the other pretends to be neutral but is in effect no different from statement 1.

Both are prejudicial and not Neutral.

Neutral would be Chris Bennett is a cannabis activist, an author, a member of the Church of the Universe and co-propritor of said business located at where your at.

Here is a Wiki version of what they might have to say about you....


Chris Bennett is a cannabis activist who likes the post at forums and has this to say about the RC Church and this to say about the Scientologist too. None of this is to link Chris Bennett with all kinds of immoral behaviors his boss and great friend treated the CC gang to at a Montreal sex club here is the link to that.

And you mentioned yourself somewhere an Editor called you over a Jewish debasement I believe. so here is that link.

That would not be a very nice thing for Wikipedia to do to you, but they could. Same with Malmo-levine. These forums are a tresure trove of mis-speak absurdum. Even Marc Emery got trapped in the net.

My website will have no forum or blog now that I understand the maliciousness intent of some low lifes.

Marc ought to simply archive all post over 6 months old and make them unavalable to search engines and external links.

The purpose of this site is discussion. This is not the eternal truth record.

I see that this Wiki guy is keeping a play by play record going on at Wikipedia. My retirement from politcs annouced with the blame laid at their doorstep to boot.

This guy goes all out to protect Wikipedia in another bad portrayal of me. I really hope USA Today calls. I would love to talk to the Editor.

Look at Peter Neuman's new book on Brian Mulroney.

Newspapers don't often publish the musing of politicians because they understand no human being could live up to a political correctness inquisition.

Newspaper and legitimate reporters stick to the politcsl opinions and not the personal opionions of politicians.

That is why Brian Mulroney is angry.

Brian Mulroney once mused that history would remember him as the greatest prime minister ever.

Who knows why. A moment of self agrandisement. I'm sure every politician who ever occupied the office had that thought go through their head.

But it can be portrayed as Brian thinking a little to highly of himself and no one likes to see that.

Like I said musings at forums are not politcal policies or platforms. Reporting on them serves only one purpose: to inflame politcal passions. Politicking not informing.

But your cool with that when they attack people you don't like. I can imagine your wrath should the say something bad about you or someone close to you.

Then they will be like the cult guy to you too.

That is what bothers me the most too is that whoever sent Wiki my way had a malicious intention and Wiki is still playing off that.

That's why I have no problem calling people like this wiki fuck a coward. He hides behind a pseudo-non and cuts others but he himself remains unseen. A character assasin as it were.

You ought not lend Wikipedia credibility as a resourse least that idea come full circle to have your enemies listing your personal faults for the world to see too.

It's supposed to be about ideas. But it is not. It is about personalities and we are both pissed off because these bastard attack from the safety of anonnimity.

That's why you don't like what the cult guys has to say. You have no means of self-defense when the person behind the attack is unseen. Effective counters involves an understanding of motives and context of writer and that is impossible when the attacker is anonomus.

CCCult is obvious as an axe grinder.
Wiki is more underhanded and incidious because they claim they are not axe grinding when they clearly are...anonomusly yet.

Why would you give credence to Wiki but not CCcult? They are birds of a feather. Information providing is what they claim, one an open bias one a couched bias.

Neither deserves the time of day.
This is politcal propaganda writ large any plowman can see that.

"Chris Bennett is a cannabis activist who likes the post at forums and has this to say about the RC Church and this to say about the Scientologist too. None of this is to link Chris Bennett with all kinds of immoral behaviors his boss and great friend treated the CC gang to at a Montreal sex club here is the link to that.

And you mentioned yourself somewhere an Editor called you over a Jewish debasement I believe. so here is that link.

That would not be a very nice thing for Wikipedia to do to you, but they could."


I wouldn't have a problem with anything but this "None of this is to link Chris Bennett with all kinds of immoral behaviors his boss and great friend treated the CC gang to at a Montreal sex club here is the link to that", as it is not related to my actions or interest.

If i wrote it, link to it. I think Buors fears people knowing what he has stated and that is what this is about.

My problem with the Cult snitch is he is trying to get people busted and encouraging folks like John Snitch Gordon, to narc on people. As well, he is posting ouright lies and fabrications trying to discredit people, that is a little beyond linking to someone's words.

Here fuckin' here!

I second Chris Bennett's sentiments - "If I wrote it, link to it."

Something we'll never hear from the lips of Buors.

You are mistaken David.


I don't give a hoot what Wiki links to or I would do something about it.


I make that abundently clear.

But there is a mass psychosis of reverse guilt going on out there. Any "non-positive" remarks about Jews or homosexuals are immediately branded anti-semite and homophobic.

That is an insult to plain speaking and liberty itself.

Why would I be sending LTE's to USA Today if I was worried about whatever it is Wiki links me to?

They claim neutrality yet they cut with knives is the gist of my argument against Wiki. They are engaging in politcal propaganda and the Editor of USA Today will see that for themselves. Who knows where it will lead?

I'm not afraid of any light Wiki cares to shine my way at all. Any publicity is good publicity I say!

Maybe I can sell advertizing at my website if I get famous or notorious enough.

I urge you to have alook at the newwinnipeg.com forum board.

None of the posters there were surprized at Wiki flaming. They were all familiar with my views and had seen worse.

The anti-semite accusations are there for Wiki to link up to if they like.

I have been accused of it all.

To me, I just never wnated to be a politician and would prefer there no Wiki page on me at all. It just gives me the creeps because I do not get to face my accuser there like I do here or at newwinnipeg or elsewhere.

I doubt I would have found cccult if you had not guided me there.

Whereas ChrisBuors.com is now the first thing to pop up at google. That is where I have my say. CCCult is deserving of no mention but Wikipedia is.

There is an extreme double standard going on with this reverse mass guilt thought control atmosphere. Yesterdays scapegoats are today's sacred cows.