-Caveat Lector- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mentally masturbated thusly: >Those of you who have *carefully* read my contributions to this list, I've been on this list almost from it's inception, and can't seem to place YOU amongst the longtime contributors of good information here... >Housewife June has asked The fact that you state that I'm a 'housewife', and that you use it in a lame attempt to insult (and obviously are more interested in starting a flamefest than in any serious investigation/discussion), amply displays two things: a) your total lack of investigative skills, and b) a blatant misogyny I have nothing against housewives, but point of fact is, I'm not one; secondly, why COULDN'T a 'housewife' be capable of conducting research into this area, any housewife could do as good -- or, as in your case, as bad -- a job at it as any other amateur... ANYONE can run a 'small local newspaper', that doesn't give them the right to expect the police to divulge details of an ongoing investigation to them... >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. Colorado is not unique in this regard; but you are talking about off-duty policemen and women moonlighting at another job, and NOT talking about private security guards, as I was... >Revcoal truly does not know what she is talking about, and >she is [unfortunately] spreading disinformation through her >own lack of credible data. Actually, I haven't been 'spreading' anything, only responding to what YOU have been spreading...and spreading mightily thickly, I might add... >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? THere will be, for the 21st person trying to contact 911... If you had say, 30 to 40 students and teachers attempting to call in, plus a handful of neighbors living in the area, to a system that only has 20 lines, then a goodly number of those people trying to reach 911 will either get a busy signal, or a recording asking them to stay on the line until an operator is free... >Do *YOU* know how many emergency calls were placed >between 11:00 a.m.and 11:30 a.m on Tuesday the 20th? Do you? I'm only pointing out what SHOULD be obvious, to your disinformation regarding some calls to 911 not being answered right away... >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. You make absolutely NO sense. OBVIOUSLY the teacher got thru, that's why they have the tape of her describing what's going on FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE ATTACK; but because she, and the other's who got thru in the first few minutes, were KEPT ON THE LINE, thereby TYING UP THE LINE, that means calls trying to get thru later on would have had a problem, as more and more of the limited number of lines were being kept utilized... To try to be more succint, since you obviously have a problem with comprehension, this teacher got thru on the 911 within the first 4 minutes of the attack starting...we've been told that dozens of students with cellphones, both inside and outside the school, made calls to 911 when the thing started...so you have a couple of dozen people getting thru on the 911 lines in the first few minutes, and then being kept on the lines until help arrives (normal 911 procedure), thereby tying up those lines as people tried to call in say, 10 minutes after the thing began... >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. Only what I read in the papers (perhaps yours) and on the Internet, regarding at least 'dozens' of students with cellphones making calls to 911...and a presumption that perhaps a few people who lived in the neighborhood of the school perhaps also made calls, when they saw something was awry... >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. No, I HONESTLY couch my speculation AS speculation, unlike you who attempt to pass your musings off as 'facts'... >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. So then you ARE slamming the 911 operators, while I OTOH can see that THEY did nothing but follow established procedure; if you have a problem with THAT, then I suggest you take it up with your local Dept. of Public Safety, or whatever unit is responsible for running 911. >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. Again, I have never said that I don't think that the way the authorities handled the situation was atrocious...but that does NOT mean they should then compound their blatant display of unprofessionalism with furthur unprofessionalism, and reveal details of an ongoing investigation to the public. >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. Those parents deserve a THOROUGH and PROFESSIONALLY CONDUCTED investigation which will hopefully capture the TRUE culprits in this horror; anything less would be a disservice not only to them, but to all the people who died in that massacre. >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". You slam housewives, but value the hearsay opinion of a janitor...? >Housewife June You have a real hangup on that, don't you? What's your beef with housewives? >Lastly, we have the fact that the second officer on the scene, >reports that he was literally there within two minutes. Which corresponds with one of the 911 tapes released, where a girl outside the school called 911 right away, and within about a minute or two, she tells the 911 operator that she saw a policecar pulling up... >This >officer reports that he exchanged gunfire with one of the >suspects through one of the school windows. Considering that Klebold and Harris were supposed to be in the library at the time, this then obviously mean at least one other person was involved... >June has failed in her quest to win her argument I have no quest to 'win' ANYTHING...just point out silliness when it is obvious... >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. I type 65 to 70 wpm, and don't spell check either, yet I don't make the amount of blatant grammatical and spelling errors YOU do... >I have now had first hand experience with June's desire to >win brownie points Brownie points with WHOM? As I said earlier, I've been on this list for years -- any points I may have earned were garnered years ago... >I will go out of my way to delete ALL future posts from REVCOAL; Thereby proving your ineptitude in being able to deal with your inadequacies being pointed out to you... >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. Again, blatant misogyny... >We can at least hope that REVCOAL has the decency of >removing her future attack on me Know, the PERSONAL attacks have been solely YOU attacking me (witness the 'housewife' slams), while I OTOH NEVER made personal attacks on you... >Still muttering, No, you're still masturbating... June Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com 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
