Prayer Man Poll

Thu 19 Sep 2013, 11:08 pm

First topic message reminder :

Where do you stand?

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 8:32 am

Paul,
I do not take it personally so long as no one directs their insults at me personally. I have no problem that we disagree, and you are free to have your opinion of my methods. The difference in my view is I am not claiming something is conclusive without conclusive evidence. I am not claiming that Sean is wrong, I am just offering my view that the idea is not definitive. I do not claim regarding this specific issue that my investigation is more compelling that Sean's, because I have read about and only stated it is not conclusive, not impossible. In my view it is open to reasonable question, as all contentions should be.

I do not endorse photographic ideas without substantial evidence, repeated expert analysis, and consideration of the many examples of prior mistakes by similar claims. Consider the hundreds of unidentified spectators, and that creates sufficient room for doubt. I wish you best in your research despite our disagreement.

Goban,
The "likes of this" as you refer to is called reasonable deductive inquiry in my view. Relying on the FRE and other legal guidelines strengthens our case and evidence. Relying on personal views without conclusive evidence in my view does not. I am just as critical of all the Commission's many deficient claims and assertions. I do not presume to be able to divine the motivations of those who disagree with me via speculation based on a evidentiary disagreement.

The burden of proof is upon those who make the contention, not those who might question it. If a contention cannot endure reasonable questions and critical ideas it is not a conclusive as you might imagine. This is why it is reasonable to contend other ideas without substantial evidence. Such as portions of the President's (Warren) Commission.

I would not claim that my contention is conclusive as you do, since neither of us has presented conclusive evidence. However, feel free to if you like. Reading into the non words of another is not substantial inquiry in my view. Just because Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante refused to answer questions about the assassination to the HSCA does not implicate them in it. Only substantial evidence can accomplish that.

Greg,
Indeed, it should be a wide array of corroborating evidence, including all the contending portions of official reports. Some ideas will be verified, some will not, it is the strongest supported by evidence that are most persuasive. I value your judgement and that of others here and am willing to remain open minded about the issue. Yet I retain my skepticism, it has served me well thus far. I just hope those who disagree are willing to consider the fact they may be incorrect. We all shall be at times.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 8:55 am

Carmine,

As I have already refuted every point you make in the section of your post addressed to me, no further reply from me is necessary.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 9:28 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:The burden of proof is upon those who make the contention, not those who might question it. If a contention cannot endure reasonable questions and critical ideas it is not a conclusive as you might imagine. This is why it is reasonable to contend other ideas without substantial evidence. Such as portions of the President's (Warren) Commission.

The burden of proof is upon the government to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty, and that there was no conspiracy. Period. They are the ones "making the contention," as you say. Oswald still has the presumption of innocence. No POS Warren Report can take that away. Oswald said he didn't do it. No evidence places him on the sixth floor. He said he was down in front. The earliest, most reliable statements suggest he was telling the truth. There is photographic evidence that (to me and others) strongly suggests he was telling the truth. The government has so royally bastardized everything (i.e., evidence chains of custody, proper procedures ignored, incomplete investigations conducted, etc.) that it's a sick joke. So I have a bias when I look for anything exculpable as far as LHO is concerned. He deserves it. The official story does not.

That's how I see it. The government (and their boot-licking sycophants) need to STFU, reopen this son of a bitch, and this time DO IT RIGHT!

PS: I'm not saying the Warren Report is 100% wrong. It's a tad better than a broken clock, which is right twice a day.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 10:28 am

Stan,
I do not disagree the presumption of innocence and burden of proof that Oswald was guilty was upon the Commission and in my estimation they failed. The substantial contending evidence does grant Oswald in my view reasonable doubt. However, the Prayer Man contention alleges something as well. It too is subject to reasonable doubts unless it is has substantial evidence.

In my view it is the critical periods of the Commission I have found based upon most contending evidence. Indeed it should be re-opened but we cannot let our will to see it done lead to definitive claims without definitive evidence.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 10:29 am

Goban Saor wrote:Carmine,

As I have already refuted every point you make in the section of your post addressed to me, no further reply from me is necessary.

Goban,
Believe what you like, prove what you can. Claiming to have settled the matter without substantial evidence is precisely the reason I doubt your methods.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 5:49 pm

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Greg,

I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

He would either again prevaricate, or he would confirm that PM is Oswald – more likely the former.

In this situation prevarication and confirmation are the same because, as I have already explained, the only possible reason for such prevarication is that PM is Oswald.

He has effectively precluded the third possibility, the possibility that he would deny that PM is Oswald. Because if PM weren’t Oswald he would have denied it already. If he did actually deny it on the witness stand we would have to conclude that his change of mind resulted from ‘pressure’ – the kind of pressure that he himself has spoken of.

Frazier’s testimony is crucial to solving the PM problem and he has already given it to us. Why prolong the uncertainty?

Sun 19 Oct 2014, 9:59 am

My quick 2 bob's worth. If the the figure in the photo is unconnected to the TSBD, why stand there?. Dealy Plaza had any number of better vantage points.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:15 am

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Greg,

I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

He would either again prevaricate, or he would confirm that PM is Oswald – more likely the former.

In this situation prevarication and confirmation are the same because, as I have already explained, the only possible reason for such prevarication is that PM is Oswald.

He has effectively precluded the third possibility, the possibility that he would deny that PM is Oswald. Because if PM weren’t Oswald he would have denied it already. If he did actually deny it on the witness stand we would have to conclude that his change of mind resulted from ‘pressure’ – the kind of pressure that he himself has spoken of.

Frazier’s testimony is crucial to solving the PM problem and he has already given it to us. Why prolong the uncertainty?

Goban, I'm not sure where you're coming from there mate.

This is tactical and strategic war to get history to reflect the facts at least as much as that is possible. Doesn't really matter what he says on the stand - though a confirmation would be tremendous. It's not needed though. He is just the tojan horse to present the PM case.

We live in a world of rules and laws - a legal framework around which we organize ourselves and decide on the evidence, what has taken place in certain significant events. I want my kids to read the facts; not an officially sanctioned fairy tale, and you, me and others here being convinced of x, y, and z is not going to get the history books rewritten. Or for that matter, get any justice that still can squeezed out, to be squeezed out - whether that's in the form of compensation for those left behind and adversely affected by illegal acts, or whether it is punitive action against any particular person or persons.

The war is a bit one-sided because we are an ill-equipped and squabbling rabble without any power.

But I like the underdog role. And I thoroughly believe that the pen can be harnessed as a mighty weapon.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:30 am

Greg,
Your reasoning is why I recommended this place on my website. We must use the verified evidence to construct a feasible case that most opposing claims cannot evade. In my view the only way to counter official suppression is to gather the most compelling evidence to expose it.

Rabble? I would give us all at least occasionally insightful peasant status. Smile

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 7:32 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Greg,
Your reasoning is why I recommended this place on my website. We must use the verified evidence to construct a feasible case that most opposing claims cannot evade. In my view the only way to counter official suppression is to gather the most compelling evidence to expose it.

Thanks you, Carmine.

Rabble? I would give us all at least occasionally insightful peasant status.

Origin of RABBLE
Middle English rabel pack of animals
First Known Use: 14th century

Origin of PEASANT

Middle English paissaunt, from Anglo-French paisant, pesaunt, from pais, paiis country, from Late Latin pagensis inhabitant of a district, from Latin pagus district; akin to Latin pangere to fix — more at pact

First Known Use: 15th century

We are too wide-spread to be peasants geek

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 7:41 am

greg parker wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Greg,

I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

He would either again prevaricate, or he would confirm that PM is Oswald – more likely the former.

In this situation prevarication and confirmation are the same because, as I have already explained, the only possible reason for such prevarication is that PM is Oswald.

He has effectively precluded the third possibility, the possibility that he would deny that PM is Oswald. Because if PM weren’t Oswald he would have denied it already. If he did actually deny it on the witness stand we would have to conclude that his change of mind resulted from ‘pressure’ – the kind of pressure that he himself has spoken of.

Frazier’s testimony is crucial to solving the PM problem and he has already given it to us. Why prolong the uncertainty?

Goban, I'm not sure where you're coming from there mate.

This is tactical and strategic war to get history to reflect the facts at least as much as that is possible. Doesn't really matter what he says on the stand - though a confirmation would be tremendous. It's not needed though. He is just the tojan horse to present the PM case.

We live in a world of rules and laws - a legal framework around which we organize ourselves and decide on the evidence, what has taken place in certain significant events. I want my kids to read the facts; not an officially sanctioned fairy tale, and you, me and others here being convinced of x, y, and z is not going to get the history books rewritten. Or for that matter, get any justice that still can squeezed out, to be squeezed out - whether that's in the form of compensation for those left behind and adversely affected by illegal acts, or whether it is punitive action against any particular person or persons.

The war is a bit one-sided because we are an ill-equipped and squabbling rabble without any power.

But I like the underdog role. And I thoroughly believe that the pen can be harnessed as a mighty weapon.

Greg,

You say, ‘Goban, I’m not sure where you’re coming from there mate.’

What I’ve said is perfectly clear. You have failed to point out what is unclear about it. And as nobody else has done so either, its validity stands.

That’s the way it’s supposed to be in ‘the world of rules and laws’ as you put it. Presumably the rules of rational discourse apply in discussion forums.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 8:34 am

Goban,

I never said it wasn't clear. I was wondering about where you expect it to lead. If your only interest is in satisfying yourself, then I guess it does not have to go any anywhere at all. I'm not averse to that option. In the end, it may be the one we all have to settle for.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:35 pm

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
I do not take it personally so long as no one directs their insults at me personally. I have no problem that we disagree, and you are free to have your opinion of my methods. The difference in my view is I am not claiming something is conclusive without conclusive evidence. I am not claiming that Sean is wrong, I am just offering my view that the idea is not definitive. I do not claim regarding this specific issue that my investigation is more compelling that Sean's, because I have read about and only stated it is not conclusive, not impossible. In my view it is open to reasonable question, as all contentions should be.

I do not endorse photographic ideas without substantial evidence, repeated expert analysis, and consideration of the many examples of prior mistakes by similar claims. Consider the hundreds of unidentified spectators, and that creates sufficient room for doubt. I wish you best in your research despite our disagreement.

You probably don't want to claim that much, Carmine, but judging by your selection in the poll, it is quite clear that you think your investigation to be the more compelling of the two.
We definitely disagree on that.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:29 pm

greg parker wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Greg,

I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

He would either again prevaricate, or he would confirm that PM is Oswald – more likely the former.

In this situation prevarication and confirmation are the same because, as I have already explained, the only possible reason for such prevarication is that PM is Oswald.

He has effectively precluded the third possibility, the possibility that he would deny that PM is Oswald. Because if PM weren’t Oswald he would have denied it already. If he did actually deny it on the witness stand we would have to conclude that his change of mind resulted from ‘pressure’ – the kind of pressure that he himself has spoken of.

Frazier’s testimony is crucial to solving the PM problem and he has already given it to us. Why prolong the uncertainty?

Goban, I'm not sure where you're coming from there mate.

This is tactical and strategic war to get history to reflect the facts at least as much as that is possible. Doesn't really matter what he says on the stand - though a confirmation would be tremendous. It's not needed though. He is just the tojan horse to present the PM case.

We live in a world of rules and laws - a legal framework around which we organize ourselves and decide on the evidence, what has taken place in certain significant events. I want my kids to read the facts; not an officially sanctioned fairy tale, and you, me and others here being convinced of x, y, and z is not going to get the history books rewritten. Or for that matter, get any justice that still can squeezed out, to be squeezed out - whether that's in the form of compensation for those left behind and adversely affected by illegal acts, or whether it is punitive action against any particular person or persons.

The war is a bit one-sided because we are an ill-equipped and squabbling rabble without any power.

But I like the underdog role. And I thoroughly believe that the pen can be harnessed as a mighty weapon.

My kids don't need no stinking history books, Greg. Those things just keep repeating themselves every new edition. History books should be bunk.
Lets start recording history. Not write about it.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 3:06 pm

Paul,

what you're suggesting is what I'd refer to as "metahistory"

Metahistory - Approaches to History and the Uses of History
Metahistory is a collection of subjects related to the study of history, including historiography (the writing of history and the history of historical study), the tools of historical investigation, approaches to history and the uses of history. Whether you want to learn history, teach it, investigate it in depth, write about it or simply have fun with it, look here for insight and resources.
http://historymedren.about.com/od/metahistory/

It is also what I regard as what we do here.

I want to get beyond that, because no one is held to account if we leave the status quo as is.

I look at it this way: what if a whistle-blowers sat on the information he/she obtained because stuff everyone else, I have the truth and I can pass it on to my kids?

Nothing changes. The corruption and lying and the deceit go on unchecked. I don't see this as any different. The reasons for doing it are multi-faceted. Correcting history/justice/changing the concept of government secrecy/accountability to name four.

But as I said to Goban, if in the end I can only satisfy myself, I'll live with that (and pass it on to my kids so at least they learn to question)

I'm not saying my way is right and everyone else is wrong. I'm just saying it's my way - full stop.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 9:30 pm

greg parker wrote:Goban,

I never said it wasn't clear. I was wondering about where you expect it to lead. If your only interest is in satisfying yourself, then I guess it does not have to go any anywhere at all. I'm not averse to that option. In the end, it may be the one we all have to settle for.

Greg,

I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying here. I’d like to deal with just one point for now if I may. It concerns my analysis of Frazier not denying that Prayer Man is Oswald. I’ll call it the Frazier/PM analysis for the nonce.

When you say, ‘I never said it wasn’t clear’, are you referring to my Frazier/PM analysis? And if you are saying that my analysis is clear, do you mean that you consider it to be valid?

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 10:25 pm

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Goban,

I never said it wasn't clear. I was wondering about where you expect it to lead. If your only interest is in satisfying yourself, then I guess it does not have to go any anywhere at all. I'm not averse to that option. In the end, it may be the one we all have to settle for.

Greg,

I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying here. I’d like to deal with just one point for now if I may. It concerns my analysis of Frazier not denying that Prayer Man is Oswald. I’ll call it the Frazier/PM analysis for the nonce.

When you say, ‘I never said it wasn’t clear’, are you referring to my Frazier/PM analysis? And if you are saying that my analysis is clear, do you mean that you consider it to be valid?

Goban,

yes, I understood that part - and yes, I consider it valid for what I think I will hereafter for the sake of clarity refer to as our exercise in metahistory (refer to previous definition).

What I was trying to get my head around is this part I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

If we don't take it to court, where do we take it? Apparently nowhere. If so, what is the point, apart from satisfying our own curiosity?

Putting him on the stand is not about advancing our knowledge through his testimony (unless he suddenly has a change of heart). It is a tactical way of presenting the PM case for the larger purpose of ...... fill in your own blanks (or not). I have already laid my purposes/aims out.

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 10:51 am

Greg,

Thanks for that clarification. That means we agree that we have conclusive evidence in Frazier’s testimony that Prayer Man is Oswald.

I won’t pretend that the question you ask, ‘where do we take it?’ is an easy one to answer. I have some ideas swirling around in my head and I’ve jotted stuff down but nothing very coherent.

Stuff like the truth being the most powerful weapon but without people to first acknowledge it and then uphold it nothing will change. So acknowledging and speaking the truth about Prayer Man is an important first step. Mahatma Gandhi’s term ‘Satyagraha’ meaning ‘truth force’ or ‘soul force’ etc but nothing more concrete than that.

And so long as it is left as a mere possibility or even probability that Prayer Man is Oswald we are stuck there going round in circles. Once we have accepted the conclusive evidence that he is Oswald, only then can we think about where that takes us. Once we have empowered ourselves with the weapon of truth then we can think about the tactics and strategies.

As for what those tactics and strategies might be I haven’t come up with anything new.

As it’s well past midnight here, I’ll have to let it percolate overnight and probably beyond before I come back with anything constructive.

I just wanted to get back to you before hitting the scratcher to say thanks for your unequivocal reply.

Good night up here. Good morning down there.

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 11:41 am

greg parker wrote:......Putting him on the stand is not about advancing our knowledge through his testimony (unless he suddenly has a change of heart). It is a tactical way of presenting the PM case for the larger purpose of ......

Under oath on the witness stand, a person is under some constraint to tell the truth. Whether he would tell the truth or not, or just say "I don't know," he would know he was going on public record and there is at least the possibility of a penalty for perjury. That public record becomes part of the historical record, so one way or the other, down the line it will be known whether he was being truthful or not. He can say whatever he wants in interviews, just like anybody else can.

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 8:12 pm

Dan,

I agree that getting Frazier into the witness box is important for those reasons and, of course, for the purpose of eliciting what he knows about aspects of the case other than the Prayer Man aspect. I also agree with the overall aim of this forum of getting the JFK assassination case reopened.

However, it’s worth bearing in mind that, as described by James Douglass (p. 498, The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease), that on December 8^th 1999 a Memphis jury’s verdict found that Dr Martin Luther King Jr ‘was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government’.

Douglass continues:

I can hardly believe that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect, scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?”

That is a stark illustration of what we’re up against – almost total public indifference to the truth about the evil forces that really rule the US and the world. Why is that? ‘Know thine enemy’, the ancient text says. Do we not need to agree on who or what the enemy is before deciding on tactics and strategies?

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 9:03 pm

Goban,

the point that needs to be made is that the King trial was a civil trial and therefore had a lower standard of proof required. Nonetheless your point is taken.

I do believe this is a different situation and one that is winnable. We have a puncher's chance. But that requires that the punches keep being thrown with at least some landing. If we stop throwing them, we may as well throw in the towel and buy shares in Fox.

Wed 22 Oct 2014, 2:09 am

Greg,

Your mention of the King trial indeed is relevant because the Commission operated on the same standard a lower threshold for Oswald's guilt. I agree we need to have higher standards than the Commission if we are going to overturn its most unproven findings.

Dan,
You are spot on. We must use every legal means available to demonstrate the feasibility of our contentions.

Goban,
To know that officials suppressed and denied feasible justice in my view is not enough. Some people have wasted decades making enemies lists and launching crusades that have done in my view little to actually further the reopening the case. If we seek to change things it is not enough to believe they are guilty, we must prove it.

Wed 22 Oct 2014, 3:50 am

Carmine,

Here you go again. The MLK Memphis case proved in a court of law that MLK ‘was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agents of his own government’.

Now you say we must prove what is already proven.

Can you explain this perverse behaviour – and there has been a pattern of such online behaviour by you on this thread and previously – by you?

Wed 22 Oct 2014, 5:38 am

Goban Saor wrote:Carmine,

Here you go again. The MLK Memphis case proved in a court of law that MLK ‘was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agents of his own government’.

Now you say we must prove what is already proven.

Can you explain this perverse behaviour – and there has been a pattern of such online behaviour by you on this thread and previously – by you?

Goban,

Indeed, "there I go". The case was proven in a court of law, however as Greg stated it was under "a preponderance of evidence" the same standard the Commission used. However, it is not beyond a reasonable doubt and thus a lesser standard. I actually support the King case finding, but also realize the standards used to arrive at the judgement are important.

Again your attempt at personal attacks are deficient. If you wish a lower legal threshold and use the same methods the Commission did have at it, I will prefer higher standards. Higher standards can rebuff the attacks that plague decisions based on lesser ones.

Additionally, the popularity of ideas does not infer they are correct, it infers they are popular.

Wed 22 Oct 2014, 5:59 am

Carmine,

The standard of proof applied in the MLK Memphis case was the relevant one. End of story. Introducing the Warren Commission in this context is a misdirection for various reasons that I won’t even go into.

The repetition of your baseless accusation that I am attempting ‘personal attacks’ on you does not make it true. I have addressed that baseless accusation earlier on this thread and I am not going to belabour it again here. You tried the ‘personal attack’ allegation ploy on Martin Hay too recently in this forum when he caught you out misrepresenting documentary evidence. The ‘personal attack’ allegation is a standard ploy of a certain kind of disruptive individual in internet forums. So on that score also you have a case to answer in my view.

Prayer Man Poll

Who is Prayer Man?

Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll