In article <C5y1LJ.7At@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes: >>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >>>In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes: >>>>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes: >>>>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works... >>>> >>>>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid  >>>>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned >>>>themselves to death. >>> >>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press >>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base >>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose >>>of paranoia?  Then post what the press has said, not what you wished they said. The Medical Examiner has refuted the FBI "facts" and if you don't believe someone who has a LOT more reason to be impartial then  what do you have to say for yourself.  >>Are you a moron or just illiterate? The "facts" that the FBI  > >Neither.    I was willing to grant this for sake or argument until I read the following.  >>proclaimed on Monday suddenly weren't "facts" anymore by  >>the Tuesday press conference. > >You don't have to pay attention to any one source, neither do you >have to abandon your critical thinking, but to disregard all sources >of information as 'lies' and 'distortions' and substitute your own >pet theories is more likely to get you wild untruths than by basing >your theories on the 'facts' as they are reported by the media and >the government. > The FACTS as reported by the press and impartial government sources support ME.  >> There has beed NO evidence of >>anyone setting the fire deliberately you simpleton so > >Actually there was evidence of the fire being set deliberately - >both testamony by the survivors and IR tape showing the fire >being set in 3 places AND the petrochemical soot that the fire  >was giving off (indications of kerosine or gasoline feeding the >fire).    There is NO testimony, at the press conference, the FBI said they had NO testimony, the SURVIVORS as reported by CNN and Newsday wire service said that ALL the survivors gave consistent stories refuting the FBI. They were lighting and heating with kerosine. Are you trying to PROVE you're an idiot.  >You might not believe 1 or 2 if you are totally paranoid or very >skeptical, but my 3rd point is visible to anyone who watches the >tapes of the fire and has started a BBQ grill. >   >>what are YOU basing your statements on? Oh, I forgot, you're >>the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need electricity, >>never mind. > >Ho ho ho.  I listen to NPR, watch CNN, NBC.  I also read the >papers.   Where do you get YOURS?  Then open your eyes and ears, at least 3 of those 4 sources have reported your full of shit.  >--  ><><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ><>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <> ><><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>