In article <47ec5682-7fa2-4f29-b487-cc3202c2c18f@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, David Von Pein says... "Let me clue you in--both VB's and McA's positions are outdated." <<< LOL. That's rich and high-caloric, to say the least, John! I wonder how these two items below can become "outdated"?: Typical twist of the words by DVP. I said their P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N-S were outdated

John Canal wrote: In article <487bed8c.277194156@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says... On 14 Jul 2008 18:38:36 -0400, John Canal <John_member@newsguy.com> wrote: Durnavich, and probably most of the rest of the people you named, agree with me. You couldn't be more wrong. You haven't bothered to read his essay, have you? He's just recycling his same old

Herbert Blenner wrote: On Nov 28, 6:48 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: If what you state with absolute confidence were correct then your argument that the skull deflected the bullet upon entry falls apart since a severely deformed bullet follows a straight path. So decide whether the contents of the cranial vault or the skull deflected the bullet. First

On Nov 28, 6:48 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: If what you state with absolute confidence were correct then your argument that the skull deflected the bullet upon entry falls apart since a severely deformed bullet follows a straight path. So decide whether the contents of the cranial vault or the skull deflected the bullet. First, I say, the hard rear skull