Look at this!!
She says:
[[12:24:28 PM] rosalee.grable says: How I can tell Holmgren was opp'ed is that he pulled his site in blind anger just a couple hours after putting up the Reynolds article that would have reunited us all again.]
What??!
Am I going mad or is it you?
Reunited who?
Holmgren says Morgan is a liar up to no good.
= an enemy agent.
I agree.
Wood was found to be facillitating Morgan's deception by her silence.
You were facilitating it also by creating a lot of noise and unconditionally bodyguarding Wood.
Remember you threw in a load of sexist crap to divert the issue?
And then tried to attribute that to me?
And you were cheering for Morgan's intentionally fatally flawed article (if it had been a mistake he'd have changed it when alerted).
And you said that you thought Dr Wood was a NASA android and that it was ok because her website is good.
So exactly who was Gerard's article going to re-unite???
Anyone who didn't follow what happened and reads your stuff will get totally the wrong idea.
I call that lying.
But that's one of those rules you like to break isn't it?

[[12:25:20 PM] rosalee.grable says: If judy wood peeped up one syllable in Reynolds defense, then she'd be fair game in my book.]
-She didn't need to.
It was her silence that shielded him.
Within the group it was HER who had academic authority on the subject of contention.
You further distanced her from the fight by your actions.
And now you come and say that you would be ready to oppose her if you saw her support Reynolds.
She supports him by being his co-researcher, linking to his site from the front page of hers and not criticising his errors.
And you support him by shielding him from Wood, by shielding Wood from making the contribution that only she among us is capable of.

[[12:26:03 PM] rosalee.grable says: But she is protected by the Right to Silence and by the Golden Rule that says you don't dish out what you wouldn't want to take.]
The "right to silence"?
In this context her right to silence was the same as a warrior's right to go and hide in the middle of a most important battle.
And don't dish out what you don't want to take???
WE WERE ASKING FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT NEWTON'S 3RD LAW, THAT'S ALL.
But she wouldn't want THAT thrown at her would she?

[[12:26:47 PM] rosalee.grable says: The month long dirt digging about Judy Wood, anybody named Wood and anything ever associated with Clemson is not something anybody I know of would consider a fair tactic if that were aimed against them.]
-Infiltration and subversion are unfair.
We are within our rights doing whatever necessary to uncover such activity.
These are not personal matters.
If there is nothing to hide, then there is nothing for any investigation to uncover.

[[12:27:44 PM] rosalee.grable says: I don't know of anybody who doesn't have something in their lives that could not be looked at suspiciously.]
-We are only concerned with information that affects our research community.
If she's a stoner or had fifteen abortions or has an unusual sex life none of that would be of interest to us.

[[12:29:29 PM] rosalee.grable says: Just what BSR has shared in conversation would be enough to fuel the smear machine.]
-Personal smears or research related ones?

[Fred's anonymousness would be used for discredit exactly like Judy Wood's silence.]
-There you go again, distracting from the fact that because of her academic status, it was actually Dr Wood's call to comment on the issue.
Cheating.
Another one of the rules you like to break.

[[12:31:13 PM] rosalee.grable says: The most omnious of Coffinman's pronouncements was how Judy Wood's website's "Singularity was Hangoutable"]
-Sort of.
I said her work was singular and hangoutable.
Separate issues.
You say that I said that the singularity itself was hangoutable.

[[12:34:01 PM] rosalee.grable says: This is NOT Holmgren, who was about individual individuals individually taking their own power.
Aka, Universal Singularity.]
-Singularity of a person is not the same as a person having singular concepts.
Don't try to confuse people.
That's more cheating!

[[12:34:56 PM] rosalee.grable says: If we were correct, we would be seeing reasonably the same thing naturally and voluntarily, just because it was what was real and what was there, exactly like the lie based imaginations look like from the inside.]
-People don't just automatically understand what they see.
And what the hell does [exactly like the lie based imaginations look like from the inside.] mean??

[[1:41:45 PM] ewing2001 says: to rick : [2:40:58 PM] ewing2001 says: dont kick coffin...its more important to reveal himself ;]
-Is that right Rick?
Am I reading this with the right idea?

[[5:05:34 PM] rosalee.grable says: That is so lame.
I hope someone catches on pretty soon to what Coffinman and his cohorts like Griz and Miranda Priestly are doing.]
-Why don't YOU explain it to everybody??!

[[5:07:34 PM] rosalee.grable says: It is whatever they feel like imagining from a no planer perspective.]
-Now that's rich from the most openly idealist person here!

[[5:13:38 PM] rosalee.grable says: Anyone who objects to a purge is added to the enemies list of tue purge. It is a self replicating cycle.
[5:13:52 PM] rosalee.grable says: Classic authoritarian blackshirt style.]
-I can't purge anyone.
I don't have any control over what people decide to do.
All I can do is discuss.
If it seems that an individual is acting against the interests of our research to find the truth then I will discuss it.
If I am wrong, then that can be exposed in the discussion.
How else should things be done?
Everyone with their own ideas, many of them contradictory but nothing ever said about that?
You need Griffinland for that.
Oh, and btw, you slate Griffin enough (so do I) but has he ever actually said that the no-plane hypothesis is definitely wrong?
Or has he, like Wood merely remained silent on the issue?
You are a hypocrite.
You wore steel-toecapped hobnail boots with hidden poison blade fitted and you booted everyone who dared contradict your ideas.
You called names instead of discussing.
The truth can be determined by evidence.
I have done nothing except to oppose lies and deceit, and I will continue to do so.

Coffinman

I just looked and Judy no longer names Reynolds as her co-researcher.
However she was doing so when I mirrored this:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/beam_weapon_used_to_destroy_wtc.htm
And that is still up here:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
That was in the period during which Morgan has admitted that he was lying for the truth.
With Wood being such an excellent scientist she must have noticed that what Morgan was saying was incorrect.
They could even have discussed the matter, being co-researchers.
Yet she kept quiet, and allowed a whole load of half-assed theories about what could have hit the buildings develop, causing confusion for the newly-interested people who wanted to see what the "conspiracy theorists" had to say about 911.
Yes the description is very similar to that of Fetzer.
She's not got Morgan's name on her front page any more though, and she changed that CIA-type photo for one with a smile and a hat, once somebody told her it looked like a CIA photo (that took her less than a day, apparently).
So she won't open her mouth in case her foot goes in there, but she's trying to keep appearances right.
That is why we should not judge by appearance, but by material actions.

Coffinman