Hate Mail
Featured
- Nothing to list, yet.
Hate Mail - One last thing.
| Sender: | Mike Piller <mike_piller@hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | One last thing. |
| Type: | Regular |
| Added: | Aug 03, 2010 |
| Sent to: | Edward L Winston |
Last bit a info. for you. Dr. Coleman first talked about this in 1991 and it is all coming true.
http://www.mail-archive.com/total_truth_sciences@googlegroups.com/msg01847.html
In case you never heard of it (which is most likely):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_2000_Report_to_the_President
It states that 3,000,000,000 people or as they call them "Useless Eaters" must be exicuted by 2050.
"We are going to get Global 2000 implemented,
one way or another by famine, starvation, or by choice...
We need a real economic shock,
a depression to get our message across."
--Statement of a Zero Population Growth spokesman (9/18/81)
(* Source: The Spiral Report Vol. 111 - March 31, 1982)
He first talked about it in 1991? Well then give me a usenet or similar link to a post dated then, why would you think a google groups post dated to February 2010 would convince me he predicted something in 1991, especially when the message itself talks about what happened afterward in 1993? Do you think I am as naive as yourself?
Yes, I know about the Global 2000 report to the president, Alex Jones has been talking about it for a long time, you haven't showed me anything new or interesting at all.
I'm sure you have an actual source for that quote, you wouldn't just go around posting quotes you haven't verified, would you?
[ This email was sent in addition to this one. ]
O.K. you heard Global 2000 Report to the President; that does not mean that you read it. Before this thier was a book writen by the Club of Rome called Limits to Growth; never read it ether. I love it when dumb people act smart.
Oh, I'm sure you've read it, because only someone who's actually read it would jump to conclusions based on removing context from parts of it. Doesn't matter if I haven't read "Limits to Growth" because I know you haven't either, conspiracy theorists almost never read anything at all, they just repeat whatever their masters say. I love it when conspiracy theorists act like repeating something thousands of other conspiracy theorists are saying makes them profound.
Still waiting on how a document mentioning 1993 was written in 1991, a source for your quote, and while we're at it, an answer to why you contradicted yourself vs the article you showed me, is it 3 billion or 100 million? Did you even read the article you linked me to? I'd be Ameros to doughnuts you didn't.
"Oh, I'm sure you've read it, because only someone who's actually read it would jump to conclusions based on removing context from parts of it."
What are you talking about here. Global 2000? God nobody can understand you retard.
"Still waiting on how a document mentioning 1993 was written in 1991"
I put down the wrong year so sue me.
"a source for your quote"
Source: The Spiral Report Vol. 111 - March 31, 1982
"is it 3 billion or 100 million?"
3 billion worldwide and 100 million in North America
You managed to, must be your smarts.
>> I put down the wrong year so sue me.
So, what year is then? It mentions 1993 in past tense, so ... 1994, 1995, 1996...?
>> Source: The Spiral Report Vol. 111 - March 31, 1982
Show me it online or provide a library where it's at. In fact, I'll make it really easy: prove it even exists, I can only find it mentioned on conspiracy sites, and say... how interesting, it looks like you just copy/pasted it just as they did. I guess I was right, you guys do just parrot each other, how sweet.
>> 3 billion worldwide and 100 million in North America
[citation needed] I'm sure you have one.
Let's tally it up:
+ Actual source for your quote, that is that the so-called "source" exists in reality, outside the circus of a conspiracy theorist's paranoid mind.
+ You still can't seem to figure out when the document was written, maybe you should read it before replying.
+ Proof that 100m are to be killed in North America and 300b, I'd also like to know why, for the lulz, for less power I assume?
On a side note, I'm curious, who's your glorious leader? Alex Jones? Jeff Rense? Alan Watt? Bill Cooper? Which are the truth says and which are just shills, please enlighten me.
What amazing things will Mike come up with next? Stay tuned for the next insanity ridden email!
>> What are you talking about here. Global 2000? God nobody can understand you retard.
You managed to, must be your smarts.
Global 2000? Yes or NO
A simple ansewer from your kind would be nice.
Christ on a cracker, and I'm the retard? Can you not understand context? I'm obviously implying that is what I was talking about.
>> A simple ansewer from your kind would be nice.
This coming from the guy who's first email to me told me to bow to him.
"This coming from the guy who's first email to me told me to bow to him."
Not me Dr. Coleman; the Greatist mind of art time; if not in the whole of human history.
"Show me it online or provide a library where it's at. In fact, I'll make it really easy: prove it even exists, I can only find it mentioned on conspiracy sites, and say... how interesting, it looks like you just copy/pasted it just as they did. I guess I was right, you guys do just parrot each other, how sweet."
How does that prove that it is not real? After all what is real anyway.
Well, regardless, I'm not bowing to anyone. The subject just set an overall rude tone so I responded in kind.
It doesn't prove it's not real, but it's not up to me to prove anything. I asked you to prove the quote you were using was real, in fact I clarified that I just wanted you to prove that the source was even real. I imagine you couldn't find it.
Since we're arguing what's real and what's not:
"The sky is purple, FDR's favorite food was spring rolls, and I actually only speak Russian"
-- You
So, prove that quote from you isn't real, after all, what's real anyway? See the logical fallacy there? If you couldn't find proof of the quote, just admit it, I couldn't find it after looking for a while. I'm not going to spit in your face for you being wrong.