Re: PERSONAL CHALLENGE TO AUGRAY
From: Ed Conrad (edconrad_at_verizon.net)
Date: 06/23/04
- Next message: Simeon Nevel: "Re: Evolutionists' Belief in the IMPOSSIBLE"
- Previous message: gxdata: "Re: rotation on UTM grids"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:42:20 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:39:43 +0000 (UTC), Augray <augray@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:24:28 +0000 (UTC), Ed Conrad
><edconrad@verizon.net> wrote in
>news:<159fd050gi0kndqp0v4rcsu5p9ni3a7keb@4ax.com>:
>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > Repeating. Original apparently never made it.
>>
>> Augray:
>> I have been so right about the stench in physical
>> anthropology -- deceit, deception, collusion and
>> conspiracy -- in promoting, and dearly safeguarding,
>> the erroneous Theory of the Evolution of Man.
>
>Not that I can see. If you were right, you wouldn't have to lie.
>
>
>> I am certain, also, that YOU are on the payroll
>> of the Scientific Establishment,
>
>Based on...?
>
>
>> paid to respond
>> to my postings on talk.origins and elsewhere
>> with all your lies and all your venom, just like
>> Attorney David Sienkiewicz before you.
>
>Heck Ed, you don't *know* the venom I'm capable of...
>
>
>> Please post permission for me to contact the
>> General Accounting Office (GAO) to document
>> that you are -- or are not -- a paid hit man for the
>> Smithsonian, the American Association of Physical
>> Anthropologists or some other sad-sack organization
>> shoving a monumental fraud down our throat.
>
>Go ahead Ed.
>
>
>> If you do not respond favorably to my request,
>> then I am indeed right -- and all of your postings
>> and all of your rebuttals to my discovery of petrified
>> bones, teeth and soft organs (some human) haven't
>> a leg to stand on.
>
>Ed, just because I might not respond favorably to your request doesn't
>mean that I'm wrong about your claims. For instance, it's very obvious
>that you blatantly lie about the beliefs of Earnest Hooton. It's also
>obvious that your purported "lab reports" weren't done on your
>"specimens".
>
>
>> I might add that Attorney Sienkiewicz doubted I would
>> contact the GAO to see if he was on the Scientific
>> Establishment payroll and was told it couldn't answer
>> my request without his written approval.
>
>Actually, it was the Office of Personnel Management that told you that
>it couldn't answer your request without his written approval, and not
>the General Accounting Office. I don't know if this is a deliberate lie
>on your part, or just your faulty memory.
>
>But according to the guide at http://www.opm.gov/feddata/recguide.pdf
>the information you're after won't require my signature. On page 6-9
>(page 88 of the PDF document) we find this:
>
> In most cases, the following information is available to the public
> without the prior written consent of the employee(s):
> - Name;
> - Present and past position titles and occupational series;
> - Present and past grades;
> - Present and past annual salary rates (includes Meritorious or
> Distinguished Executive Ranks, awards, and allowances and
> differentials);
> - Present and past duty stations (includes room numbers, shop
> designations, or other identifying information regarding
> buildings or places of employment); and
> - Position descriptions, identification of job elements, and those
> performance standards (but not actual summary ratings) the
> release of which would not interfere with law enforcement
> programs or severely inhibit agency effectiveness. Performance
> elements and standards (or work expectations) may be withheld
> when they are so intertwined with performance appraisals that
> their disclosure would reveal an individual's summary rating.
>
> These data may be withheld if the disclosure would reveal more
> about an individual on whom information is sought than the listed
> items, creating a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
> or if the data is otherwise protected from mandatory disclosure
> under an exception of the Freedom of Information Act.
>
>But yes, I'll sign a Privacy Release Form from the United States
>Government. But obviously I don't have access to such a form, living in
>Canada and all. Could you mail one to me? Please send it to:
>
> PO Box 654 Stn P
> Toronto ON M5S 2Y4
> Canada
Please forward your name and I'll get
working on i..
That you live in Canada, if indeed you do, please
remember that the CIA has agents everywhere.
The Scientific Establishment may have, too.
Also, prefer your address, not some PS
box number. You know my name and home
address, also where I work.
Thanks.
Ed Conrad
>
>I can understand how you might not have one on file, so I'll give you a
>month to mail it to me, which should be more than enough time to find
>one, put it in an envelope, and stick it in a mailbox. I'm putting this
>onus on you to see just how serious you are about all this. If it
>doesn't show up after a month, you lost your window of opportunity.
>
>
>> I politely requested Sienkiewicz" approval and he
>> surprisingly stopped following me around the news
>> groups with his nose up my ass.
>
>Let's see... You posted this request in
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pr7dov04cc2dn2kdrn4hrthitbculkivli%404ax.com
>and David replied in
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=35fa3772.0310102009.551ba6%40posting.google.com
>
>Did you ever provide evidence that David works for the "pseudoscientific
>establishment"? That *was* his condition, after all.
>
>And as for the claim that he stopped following you around the news
>groups, that's not true, as these posts show:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35fa3772.0312070305.144d4025%40posting.google.com
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35fa3772.0312070313.38dec4f8%40posting.google.com
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35fa3772.0311220126.7d9cf3dc%40posting.google.com
>
>David also had a family emergency around that time, so his absence for a
>period was quite understandable.
>
>Then again, you've been silent for the last three months, and a large
>gap in January, so this might explain why he hasn't been following you
>around: because you haven't *been* around. One might also argue that you
>haven't been posting out of fear of David (or perhaps even of gen2rev).
>
>
>> Meanwhile, I might add, Augray -- formerly genrev2 --that
>> you have never personally examined any of my specimens
>> nor been on the scene of any testing.
>
>Interesting that you should bring that up. I'd *love* to examine your
>"specimens". When can that be arranged? I'd like to bring along others
>(possibly as many as three) of my choosing (or, if I'm unavailable,
>specify up to four representatives), and be allowed to take all the
>pictures of the "specimens" that I (and my companions/representatives)
>want.
>
>If you do not respond favorably to my request, then I am indeed right --
>and all of your claims of discovery of petrified bones, teeth and soft
>organs (some supposedly human) haven't a leg to stand on.
>
>Now we'll see who's afraid of the truth...
>
>[snip of oft refuted "specimens"]
- Next message: Simeon Nevel: "Re: Evolutionists' Belief in the IMPOSSIBLE"
- Previous message: gxdata: "Re: rotation on UTM grids"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
