A Debate with a Bircher: Part 2

©1997 by Gerry Rough <politico8@maplenet.net>

In part one of this debate, the patterns set forth there
continue to be apparent here in part two as well.  To wit, some of part
two below is something of an embarrassment, especially at the very end when
events happen that call into question my own credibility.  More on this
later.  The debate continues below with another conversation that JAQ
initiated.  The conversation only lasts for two emails; I sent
a response, but it was admittedly pretty weak.  At the time, of course, it
seemed perfectly logical.  I should have explained it much better.
But remember that by this time I had no inclination to giving this debate
anything more than nuisance status for my daily routine, albeit a time-consuming
one at that.

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> This pretty much seals it, although what you’ve already seen is definitive.
>
> MEDIUM RARE
> By Jim Rarey

> May 2, 2001
>
> YOU VE COME A LONG AWAY, BABY!

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

Here we go again, another opinion piece with no .plot in sight.  All
you did was give me someone who agrees with you.  Fallacy of logic,

John.  Duhh!!  All this nutcase did was deliberately rearrange history
to his liking to say what he wanted it to.  Prove that any one of the
examples above were enacted for the purpose of a socialist agenda.
Ridiculous.  Just because you can plug a square peg into a round hole
proves nothing.  Think, John, ANYONE CAN PLUG ANYTHING INTO HISTORY

THEY WANT!  And again, I ask you: Where’s the .plot?  Even granting
the entire piece is COMPLETELY CORRECT, what does any of this have to
do with any kooky global plot?  Nothing at all!

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Below is yet another conversation initiated by JAQ.  In this
conversation, there are hints that *finally* something approaching substance is
near at hand.  Unfortunately, the thought was indeed fleeting, as we will
see shortly.  Note also the subject change.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: International Criminal Court

> The UNITED NATIONS WANTS YOU! To become a slave with no rights.
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: International Criminal Court

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

Right.  Some idiot says there’s a plot without a smidgeon of proof,
and you fall for it.  We’re all just impressed, John.  You gave us
what you wanted to hear, nothing more.  Plenty of conclusion and
innuendo, no evidence for any .plot anywhere.

Give me evidence for a conspiracy, John.  Opinion and innuendo prove
nothing.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: International Criminal Court

> >Right. Some idiot says there’s a plot without a smidgeon of proof,
> >and you fall for it.
>
>          That IDIOT, Mr.
Rough, happens to be Doctor Alan Keyes – former
> Reagan – appointed ambassador to the United Nations.
> Just how stupid are you, Gerry?!? If Keyes doesn’t know (having served as
> an ambassador), then we’re all <expletive-deleted>, dig?

>
> >We’re all just impressed, John.
>
>          Cut the condescending
horsefeathers, boy!
>
> >  You gave us what you wanted to hear, nothing more.
>
>          I, sir, did not
author any of that text. Again, it came from Dr.

> Alan Keyes, former Ambassador to the United Nations.
>
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: International Criminal Court

> >Right. Some idiot says there’s a plot without a smidgeon of proof,
> >and you fall for it.

>
>          That IDIOT, Mr.
Rough, happens to be Doctor Alan Keyes –
former
> Reagan – appointed ambassador to the United Nations.
> Just how stupid are you, Gerry?!? If Keyes doesn’t know (having
served as
> an ambassador), then we’re all <expletive-deleted>, dig?

>
> >We’re all just impressed, John.
>
>          Cut the condescending
horsefeathers, boy!
>
> >  You gave us what you wanted to hear, nothing more.
>
>          I, sir, did not
author any of that text. Again, it came

from Dr.
> Alan Keyes, former Ambassador to the United Nations.
>
>

Alan Keyes is what we call a demagogue.  Look it up in the dictionary.
Thank you for admitting that we’re all <expletive deleted>.  He gives

us not a shred of evidence and you fell for it.

You misunderstood the last part; you gave us what someone else said
that you wanted to hear, nothing more.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

To underscore my indifferent attitude at this point, I could have expounded
my disagreement with Alan Keyes *much* better than I did.  Instead I chose
the safe path of saying little for little effect.  But frankly there wasn’t
much that JAQ could do with it either.  Alan Keyes didn’t give a shred of
evidence for his global plot, just a lot of demagogic foolishness.  If JAQ
wanted to prove his point, all he had to do was name a single smidgeon of

“proof” from Alan Keyes’ opinion piece, which he didn’t, of course,
nor could he have.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: International Criminal Court

> >Alan Keyes is what we call a demagogue.
>

>          I believe that Dr.
Keyes knows more about the situation that
> either of us – combined! First of all, Phds don’t go to mere demagogs.
> Secondly, give the man his due. He served as an ambassador, for cryin’ in
> the bucket!
>
> >Look it up in the dictionary.
>

>          Don’t get cute, okay?
FWIW, I spent more than two decades as a
> freelance print journalist in my hometown area. My vocabulary is equal to
> yours – at the very least.
>
> >Thank you for admitting that we’re all <expletive deleted>. He
gives
> >us not a shred of evidence and you fell for it.

>
>          What precise evidence
are you seeking?!? What will make you a
> “happy camper”?
>
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: International Criminal Court

> >Alan Keyes is what we call a demagogue.
>
>          I believe that Dr.
Keyes knows more about the situation
that
> either of us – combined! First of all, Phds don’t go to mere
demagogs.
> Secondly, give the man his due. He served as an ambassador, for

cryin’ in
> the bucket!
>
> >Look it up in the dictionary.
>
>          Don’t get cute, okay?
FWIW, I spent more than two decades
as a
> freelance print journalist in my hometown area. My vocabulary is

equal to
> yours – at the very least.
>
> >Thank you for admitting that we’re all <expletive deleted>. He
gives
> >us not a shred of evidence and you fell for it.
>

>          What precise evidence
are you seeking?!? What will make you
a
> “happy camper”?
>
>

I’m proud of you, John.  FINALLY SUBSTANCE!!

Without getting into legal semantics (the definition is something like
70 pages or so if I remember right, complete with legal precedents,
etc.), a conspiracy has to have two things: an explicitly illegal or
unlawful goal, and actions that lead toward the goal.  The actions do
not even have to be illegal themselves, but the end goal is ALWAYS
illegal or unlawful.  A good example is a bomb; all of the components
can be legally obtained (powder, pipe, wire, timer, etc.), but put it

together and you are hereby considered to be legal toast.  A
destructive device is known to be illegal and it is unreasonable that
you could have not known this.  In other words, you knew what you were
doing, and you knew it was illegal.  Period.  You cannot make
exceptions to this, because there aren’t any.  That’s what a real

conspiracy looks like.

In the case of a global dictatorship, which is what the Birchers
describe, you have to prove an explicitly stated goal or end that is
unequivocally outside the bounds of international law.  In the case of
a global takeover, this would be easy in some respects, since no one
at that level of diplomacy even sniffles without a memo or a meeting.
This stuff also explains why there is always a paper trail for

investigators to follow, such as the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan
era, or the Watergate scandal of the Nixon era.

What do you need to prove this?  I need the actual plan of the
takeover; the time of the coup, the date, the timetable of the
imposition of international martial law, the timetable of military
force objectives, who is the new leader, when he/she will announce the
takeover, the timetable to confiscate all weapons, the plan to move

military forces to put down all resistance, who are the people who
will carry out said plan, when did the meeting/meetings take place,
when was the final plan adopted, who voted for it, what date, the
minutes of the meeting where this took place, the names of witnesses,
etc., etc., etc.  In effect, John, what you need is the very thing
that a prosecutor would need to prove a case for this: the blood, the
guts, the culture dish, and the DNA test.

This is precisely why the John Birch Society has deliberately lead
it’s audience astray.  The sort of thing you would need to prove a
real conspiracy would never even remotely be seen in public.  The
memos and meetings that we would need to prove a real conspiracy are
far beyond even top secret.  This stuff might not even be shredded,
for Pete’s sake. We’re talking actual timetables, names, dates,

expense accounts, etc.  Yet the JBS has not a shred of any of this;
they’ve been leading you down the path that leads to nowhere, the path
of fear, fabricated fact and innuendo, rather than the path to the
truth.  That’s what demagogues do, and it’s why you don’t belong
there.

Gerry Rough

http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: International Criminal Court

> >I’m proud of you, John.  FINALLY SUBSTANCE!!
> >
> >Without getting into legal semantics (the definition is something like

> >70 pages or so if I remember right, complete with legal precedents,
> >etc.), a conspiracy has to have two things: an explicitly illegal or
> >unlawful goal, and actions that lead toward the goal. The actions do
> >not even have to be illegal themselves, but the end goal is ALWAYS
> >illegal or unlawful. A good example is a bomb; all of the components
> >can be legally obtained (powder, pipe, wire, timer, etc.), but put it

> >together and you are hereby considered to be legal toast. A
> >destructive device is known to be illegal and it is unreasonable that
> >you could have not known this. In other words, you knew what you were
> >doing, and you knew it was illegal. Period. You cannot make
> >exceptions to this, because there aren’t any. That’s what a real
> >conspiracy looks like.

>
>          Again, it’s not even
a “conspiracy” any longer, since it’s wide
> out in the open. Now, then…………the “illegal” aspect would
be
> subversion of our Constitution. Just for some background……..most of the
> things that Franklin Roosevelt did (for example) were unconstitutional.

> Like what? Like setting up a phony “retirement” program (called
“Social
> Security”). Like calling for a banker’s holiday. Like making gold
illegal
> to own – whether coins, or jewelry. Like setting up the WPA –
> works-progress alliance. None of these things were (or ever should be)

> within the purview of the federal government. FDR, arguably, has done the
> most damage to the Constitution of any President in American history. Billy
> Clinton gives FDR a great run-for-the-money, though, with his plethora of
> Executive Orders.
>
> >In the case of a global dictatorship, which is what the Birchers
> >describe, you have to prove an explicitly stated goal or end that is

> >unequivocally outside the bounds of international law.
>
>          I’m not really
concerned with international law. What I/we
> (Birchers) are concerned with is the erosion of the Constitution.
>
> >In the case of a global takeover, this would be easy in some respects,
> >since no one at that level of diplomacy even sniffles without a memo or
a

> >meeting. This stuff also explains why there is always a paper trail for
> >investigators to follow, such as the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan
> >era, or the Watergate scandal of the Nixon era.
>
>          Ever notice how
nobody at the top ever gets prosecuted?!? Don’t
> you find that awfully curious?!?
>

> >What do you need to prove this? I need the actual plan of the takeover;
> >the time of the coup, the date, the timetable of the imposition of
> >international martial law, the timetable of military force objectives,
who
> >is the new leader, when he/she will announce the takeover, the
timetable
> >to confiscate all weapons, the plan to move military forces to put down
> >all resistance, who are the people who will carry out said plan, when
did

> >the meeting/meetings take place, when was the final plan adopted, who
> >voted for it, what date, the minutes of the meeting where this took
place,
> >the names of witnesses, etc., etc., etc.
>
>          What you’ve
apparently not noticed is all of these things are
> being done incrementally. Why? So few will notice. It’s takeover by
> stealth, since they (the 3,500 “insiders”) know that a full
assault would

> hurt them the most. The old “cooking-the-frog” adage is
applicable. Don’t
> toss a live frog into a boiling pot. He’ll leap right back out. Crank up
> the temp s-l-o-w-l-y, he’ll adjust to the change along the way. Before he
> knows it, he’s cooked!
>
> >In effect, John, what you need is the very thing that a prosecutor
would

> >need to prove a case for this: the blood, the guts, the culture dish,
and
> >the DNA test.
>
>          Nixon was the first
to overtly attempt a coup. Former General
> William T. Still wrote a book on the topic, which I have, but cannot find
> for the moment. Both Still and his father served in the Nixon White House.
> This book provides chapter and verse of a Nixon-conceived takeover.

>
> >This is precisely why the John Birch Society has deliberately lead
> >it’s audience astray.  The sort of thing you would need to prove a
> >real conspiracy would never even remotely be seen in public.
>
>          Again, the JBS has
dealt with intent and very substantively, too.
>

> >The memos and meetings that we would need to prove a real conspiracy
are
> >far beyond even top secret.
>
>          Not really……..one
need only go as far as “Foreign Affairs”
> magazine.
>
> >This stuff might not even be shredded, for Pete’s sake. We’re talking

> >actual timetables, names, dates, expense accounts, etc. Yet the JBS has
> >not a shred of any of this; they’ve been leading you down the path that
> >leads to nowhere, the path of fear, fabricated fact and innuendo,
rather
> >than the path to the truth.
>
>          Not so! Intent is
also key to the commission of crime. For
> example, if I get caught attempting to rob a bank, do I have to have

> documentation on my person? Of course not. I don’t even need to flash a
> weapon. I can be arrested on suspicion, alone! This is what I’ve been
> driving at.
>
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: International Criminal Court

> >I’m proud of you, John.  FINALLY SUBSTANCE!!
> >
> >Without getting into legal semantics (the definition is something
like
> >70 pages or so if I remember right, complete with legal precedents,
> >etc.), a conspiracy has to have two things: an explicitly illegal

or
> >unlawful goal, and actions that lead toward the goal. The actions
do
> >not even have to be illegal themselves, but the end goal is ALWAYS
> >illegal or unlawful. A good example is a bomb; all of the
components
> >can be legally obtained (powder, pipe, wire, timer, etc.), but put

it
> >together and you are hereby considered to be legal toast. A
> >destructive device is known to be illegal and it is unreasonable
that
> >you could have not known this. In other words, you knew what you
were
> >doing, and you knew it was illegal. Period. You cannot make

> >exceptions to this, because there aren’t any. That’s what a real
> >conspiracy looks like.
>
>          Again, it’s not even
a “conspiracy” any longer, since it’s
wide
> out in the open. Now, then…………the “illegal” aspect would
be

> subversion of our Constitution. Just for some background……..most
of the
> things that Franklin Roosevelt did (for example) were
unconstitutional.
> Like what? Like setting up a phony “retirement” program (called
“Social

> Security”). Like calling for a banker’s holiday. Like making gold
illegal
> to own – whether coins, or jewelry. Like setting up the WPA –
> works-progress alliance. None of these things were (or ever should
be)
> within the purview of the federal government. FDR, arguably, has

done the
> most damage to the Constitution of any President in American
history. Billy
> Clinton gives FDR a great run-for-the-money, though, with his
plethora of
> Executive Orders.
>

Stop changing your story, John.  You claimed it was a conspiracy
before, now you’re stuck with it.  Now, John, prove the conspiracy.
Where’s the evidence you need, as I stated.  Produce the evidence or
admit error, John.  There’s no way around your attempts to change your
story or your argument.

> >In the case of a global dictatorship, which is what the Birchers
> >describe, you have to prove an explicitly stated goal or end that
is
> >unequivocally outside the bounds of international law.
>
>          I’m not really
concerned with international law. What I/we
> (Birchers) are concerned with is the erosion of the Constitution.

No plot, John, no erosion, either.  Now Produce evidence of a global
conspiracy or admit error.  And stop going off on these ridiculous
rants of yours.  Evidence, John.  Nothing more, nothing less.

>

> >In the case of a global takeover, this would be easy in some
respects,
> >since no one at that level of diplomacy even sniffles without a
memo or a
> >meeting. This stuff also explains why there is always a paper trail
for
> >investigators to follow, such as the Iran-Contra scandal of the

Reagan
> >era, or the Watergate scandal of the Nixon era.
>
>          Ever notice how
nobody at the top ever gets prosecuted?!?
Don’t
> you find that awfully curious?!?

Another tangent, John, I’m not biting any more.  Produce evidence or

admit error.

>
> >What do you need to prove this? I need the actual plan of the
takeover;
> >the time of the coup, the date, the timetable of the imposition of
> >international martial law, the timetable of military force
objectives, who

> >is the new leader, when he/she will announce the takeover, the
timetable
> >to confiscate all weapons, the plan to move military forces to put
down
> >all resistance, who are the people who will carry out said plan,
when did
> >the meeting/meetings take place, when was the final plan adopted,

who
> >voted for it, what date, the minutes of the meeting where this took
place,
> >the names of witnesses, etc., etc., etc.
>
>          What you’ve
apparently not noticed is all of these things
are
> being done incrementally. Why? So few will notice. It’s takeover by

> stealth, since they (the 3,500 “insiders”) know that a full
assault
would
> hurt them the most. The old “cooking-the-frog” adage is
applicable.
Don’t
> toss a live frog into a boiling pot. He’ll leap right back out.

Crank up
> the temp s-l-o-w-l-y, he’ll adjust to the change along the way.
Before he
> knows it, he’s cooked!
>

Produce evidence, not speculation, John.  Times, dates, etc.

> >In effect, John, what you need is the very thing that a prosecutor
would
> >need to prove a case for this: the blood, the guts, the culture
dish, and
> >the DNA test.
>
>          Nixon was the first
to overtly attempt a coup. Former

General
> William T. Still wrote a book on the topic, which I have, but cannot
find
> for the moment. Both Still and his father served in the Nixon White
House.
> This book provides chapter and verse of a Nixon-conceived takeover.
>

Proiduce evidence, John not another tangent to go off on.

> >This is precisely why the John Birch Society has deliberately lead
> >it’s audience astray.  The sort of thing you would need to prove a
> >real conspiracy would never even remotely be seen in public.
>
>          Again, the JBS has
dealt with intent and very

substantively, too.

Flat out lie.  Now produce evidence, not any more tangents.  Period.

>
> >The memos and meetings that we would need to prove a real
conspiracy are

> >far beyond even top secret.
>
>          Not really……..one
need only go as far as “Foreign
Affairs”
> magazine.

Produce evidence as I stated in my last post, not more goat trails.

>
> >This stuff might not even be shredded, for Pete’s sake. We’re
talking
> >actual timetables, names, dates, expense accounts, etc. Yet the JBS
has
> >not a shred of any of this; they’ve been leading you down the path
that

> >leads to nowhere, the path of fear, fabricated fact and innuendo,
rather
> >than the path to the truth.
>
>          Not so! Intent is
also key to the commission of crime. For
> example, if I get caught attempting to rob a bank, do I have to have
> documentation on my person? Of course not. I don’t even need to

flash a
> weapon. I can be arrested on suspicion, alone! This is what I’ve
been
> driving at.
>

No you cannot.  And stop trying to change the subject.  Produce the

evidence for a global takeover or admit error.  Your choice, dear.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

>
> John
>

—————————————————————–

As for JAQ changing his story, nothing
could be further from the truth: even from the very beginning he suggested that
the conspiracy was really not a conspiracy since it is now out in the open.
It’s the sort of nonsense you get when you don’t have the gumption
to care anymore: you start getting sloppy and stupid, as my answer clearly
demonstrated.  My own sloppiness aside, however, JAQ has plenty of
explaining to do here.

JAQ has rather stumbled his way into something of a pile of
stink.  He is now changing the subject again, and I’m *not* letting him get
away with it.  This is why I’m deliberately being short and to the point
here.  No more beating around the bush, this is John Birch stupidity being
exposed for exactly what it is in full public view; I made a very specific
request for a specific document or set of documents that answer specific
questions regarding the existence of a real conspiracy.  The John Birch
Society is getting it’s butt kicked here, and JAQ knew it.  It’s simple Mr.
Bircher, name the names, name the dates, name the places or admit error.

Simple.  No more beating around the bush, no more goat rails, no more cow
patties, no more changing the subject.  You can either answer the question,
or you cannot.  JAQ never did, of course, proving conclusively that he
didn’t have a shred of evidence for his ridiculous plot.  When this email
was sent, there were truckloads of simultaneous conversations going on at the
same time, probably over a dozen.  But note as well that on *no* occasion
here or elsewhere did he acknowledge the transparent error, instead choosing the
path of continuing to argue a point he knew he could not make.  And when
that didn’t work, JAQ decided to end the entire debate arbitrarily by forwarding
me all of the emails that were sent to him from the prior batch.  It is
probably here in this conversation that JAQ decided to end all of the
conversations in progress at the time.  He couldn’t defend his position and
he knew it.  Rather than admit error, he simply ended everything at once.

Yet again, no
acknowledgement of error, just shove everything back and quit.  Forget
about decency, forget about honor, forget about being true to yourself, forget
about intellectual honesty, forget about finding the truth.  Let your pride
take over and never forget to look away when you look in the mirror: it might
just make you think again.  Standard John Birch fare, actually.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: International Criminal Court

> >Stop changing your story, John.
>
>          I haven’t changed a
thing, sir! The basic premise is still the
> same…….one (or more) secret societies have conspired to shape world
> events for more than the last 100 years, which is provable.
>
> >You claimed it was a conspiracy before, now you’re stuck with it. Now,

> >John, prove the conspiracy. Where’s the evidence you need, as I
> >stated.  Produce the evidence or admit error, John. There’s no way
around
> >your attempts to change your story or your argument.
>
>          I want you to refute
“Hope Of The Wicked” with solid evidence,

> rather than a arrogant dismissal. Now, Nixon’s coup, according to William
> T. Still, happened in October, 1973. His book is called “New World
Order –
> Ancient Plan of the Secret Societies”. BTW, Nixon’s plan failed when
he
> couldn’t get enough army protection.
>
>           Not so! Intent
is also key to the commission of crime. For

>  > example, if I get caught attempting to rob a bank, do I have to
have
>  > documentation on my person? Of course not. I don’t even need to
> flash a
>  > weapon. I can be arrested on suspicion, alone! This is what I’ve
> been

>  > driving at.
>  >
>
>  > No you cannot.
>
>          The Hell I can’t!
I can be arrested and detained for questioning

> on suspicion, alone. Now, I cannot be charged without substantive evidence.
> Do you see the difference?
>
>  > And stop trying to change the subject.
>
>          I am not trying to
change the subject, but provide elucidation.
>
>

—————————————————————–

This next response from me is really embarrassing.  No explanation,
no point, no nothing.  Further proof of human fallibility I guess.
What I was trying to convey was that Bill Still’s credibility was precisely
zero, but somehow that got lost in the mess.  The article in question gives
documented proof that Still’s veracity is seriously lacking.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: International Criminal Court

> >Stop changing your story, John.
>
>          I haven’t changed a
thing, sir! The basic premise is still
the
> same…….one (or more) secret societies have conspired to shape
world

> events for more than the last 100 years, which is provable.
>
> >You claimed it was a conspiracy before, now you’re stuck with it.
Now,
> >John, prove the conspiracy. Where’s the evidence you need, as I
> >stated.  Produce the evidence or admit error, John. There’s no way

around
> >your attempts to change your story or your argument.
>
Flat out lie!!  You claimed it was a conspiracy before, now you say it
is not!! STOP CHANGING YOUR STORY!!!

>          I want you to refute
“Hope Of The Wicked” with solid

evidence,
> rather than a arrogant dismissal. Now, Nixon’s coup, according to
William
> T. Still, happened in October, 1973. His book is called “New World
Order –
> Ancient Plan of the Secret Societies”. BTW, Nixon’s plan failed when

he
> couldn’t get enough army protection.
>

Try the following.  Still deliberately falsified his information.
This wipes your entire argument right off the map.

http://www.floodlight.org/theory/bofe2.html

Complete with irrefutable documentation.  HE LIED ABOUT IT AND SO DID
YOUR JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, PAL.  READ IT AND WEEP!!  Read both parts.

>           Not so! Intent
is also key to the commission of crime. For
>  > example, if I get caught attempting to rob a bank, do I have to

have
>  > documentation on my person? Of course not. I don’t even need to
> flash a
>  > weapon. I can be arrested on suspicion, alone! This is what I’ve
> been
>  > driving at.

>  >
>
>  > No you cannot.
>
>          The Hell I can’t!
I can be arrested and detained for
questioning
> on suspicion, alone. Now, I cannot be charged without substantive

evidence.
> Do you see the difference?
>
>  > And stop trying to change the subject.
>
>          I am not trying to
change the subject, but provide
elucidation.
>

>

—————————————————————–

And, yes, more embarrassment from sloppiness on my part.  I made an
argument about Bill Still that may have made sense, but did not explain it at all.  I made
myself look pretty bad by not expounding the above argument.  Face it, I made a good argument look bad because I chose not
the path of explanation, but the path of vagueness and smoke and mirrors.
Frankly, I didn’t want to be bothered any more with the debate, and my answer
showed it.  Sometimes we humans can
be pretty irrational at times: thankfully we can learn from our mistakes.  JAQ forwarded me my last response from this conversation.  He then sends
me a final response.  The conversation ends below.  This is another
conversation that ends abruptly at the very end of our correspondence.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: International Criminal Court

> > > >Stop changing your story, John.
> > >

> > >          I haven’t
changed a thing, sir! The basic premise is still
> >the
> > > same…….one (or more) secret societies have conspired to shape
> >world
> > > events for more than the last 100 years, which is provable.

> > >
> > > >You claimed it was a conspiracy before, now you’re stuck with
it.
> >Now,
> > > >John, prove the conspiracy. Where’s the evidence you need, as
I
> > > >stated.  Produce the evidence or admit error, John.
There’s no way

> >around
> > > >your attempts to change your story or your argument.
> > >
> >Flat out lie!!  You claimed it was a conspiracy before, now you
say it
> >is not!! STOP CHANGING YOUR STORY!!!

> >
> > >          I want you
to refute “Hope Of The Wicked” with solid
> >evidence,
> > > rather than a arrogant dismissal. Now, Nixon’s coup, according to

> >William
> > > T. Still, happened in October, 1973. His book is called “New
World
> >Order –
> > > Ancient Plan of the Secret Societies”. BTW, Nixon’s plan
failed when

> >he
> > > couldn’t get enough army protection.
> > >
> >
> >Try the following. Still deliberately falsified his information.
> >This wipes your entire argument right off the map.

>
>          Horsefeathers!
You must prove falsified information!
>
>
>
>

—————————————————————–

Here is another unsolicited conversation.  It appears below that there has
been prior correspondence.  I was unable to find the original email that
preceded it.  Either the prior email was deleted by mistake or JAQ started
the conversation this way.  My memory remembers stating a “lack of
evidence” during our debate, but somehow I couldn’t find the prior
email.  Either way, the
following conversation lasts for only 3 emails back and forth.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>[If you have a problem with Geoff Metcalf’s prose, take that up with the
>man. Don’t whine to me about any “lack of evidence”…….]
>

>

>

>
Winds of change
>

>

>
� 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>[If you have a problem with Geoff Metcalf’s prose, take that up with the
>man. Don’t whine to me about any “lack of evidence”…….]

>

>

>

>
Winds of change
>

>

>
� 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

It was you who cited it as evidence, John.  And why don’t you admit
error when necessary, rather than saying “Don’t whine to me about any
‘lack of evidence.'”  Either defend it or admit error, but don’t blame
me for refuting the argument!!

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >It was you who cited it as evidence, John. And why don’t you admit
> >error when necessary, rather than saying “Don’t whine to me about
any

> >’lack of evidence.'” Either defend it or admit error, but don’t
blame
> >me for refuting the argument!!
>
>          If you disagree with
the content, your argument ought to be with
> the author and that’s simply common sense!
>
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >It was you who cited it as evidence, John. And why don’t you admit
> >error when necessary, rather than saying “Don’t whine to me about
any

> >’lack of evidence.'” Either defend it or admit error, but don’t
blame
> >me for refuting the argument!!
>
>          If you disagree with
the content, your argument ought to be
with
> the author and that’s simply common sense!

>
>
> John

No, YOU cited it as evidence, now YOU have to defend the argument:
THAT’S the way a debate works, John.  THAT’S common sense, John.
Again, be tough enough to admit error, John.  You cited evidence that
you later found you cannot defend from it’s content.  Admit it and

move on.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Again, another example of JAQ not acknowledging the most transparent of
errors.  He could not defend in the slightest the argument that he gave me,
so now he deliberately covers his butt by twisting the accepted common
convention that if you put forth the argument, you are now responsible to defend
it.  By twisting the logic so terribly here on such an obvious point, JAQ
has destroyed any hope of credibility on his part.  This kind of twisted
reasoning is exactly why neither my heart nor my head were in this debate at
this point: let’s face it, it is difficult to reason with someone who is being
so completely unreasonable.

Directly below is yet another attempt to change the subject by
JAQ.  This one was never
answered.  At this point the debate was nuclear, so all emails were
responded to.  I assume I either deleted it prematurely, or missed
responding to it.  This email was sent at the same time the prior
conversation was taking place, obviously using the same argument from JAQ.
Here is the title:

If you have a problem with this writer’s conclusions, by all
means – take it up with *HIM*!!

To view the entire article, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15649

Wednesday, June 2, 1999

Nationalism meets globalism head on
By Jon E. Dougherty

Below is another conversation that splits off from another argument that was
dealt with earlier.  Here is the continuance on another tangent.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>>Thank you for proving an irrefutable point!! Someone who is going to
>>take over the world and plunder it is INCAPABLE of thinking in long
>>time frames.

>         Say huh?!?

>>The fact that you claim centuries destroys your own claim.

>         In what way?!?

>>This is not only common sense, basic criminology destroys the argument.
>>Imagine a future Hitler saying “Gee, folks, let’s wait until twenty
years
>>past my lifetime before taking over the world.”

>         Hitler wanted a unified
Europe, correct? He’d love today’s
>European Union!

>>Mad men are incapable of letting someone else take over at a later

>>date. That’s why we call them mad men. Real impressive, John.

>         Okay, read the following.
It’s long, but informative and sources
>are intact:

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>>Thank you for proving an irrefutable point!! Someone who is going to
>>take over the world and plunder it is INCAPABLE of thinking in long
>>time frames.

>         Say huh?!?

>>The fact that you claim centuries destroys your own claim.

>         In what way?!?

>>This is not only common sense, basic criminology destroys the argument.
>>Imagine a future Hitler saying “Gee, folks, let’s wait until twenty
years
>>past my lifetime before taking over the world.”

>         Hitler wanted a unified
Europe, correct? He’d love today’s
>European Union!

>>Mad men are incapable of letting someone else take over at a later
>>date. That’s why we call them mad men. Real impressive, John.

>         Okay, read the following.
It’s long, but informative and sources
>are intact:

Stop changing the subject again.  We’re not talking about the
bilderburgers, we’re talking about megalomaniacs who want to take over

the world.  By definition, someone of this caliber is incapable of
waiting, John.  They want POWER, and they want it NOW.  There are no
other types than power hungry maniacs who want to take over the world.
Period.  Refute the argument: Are megalomaniacs capable of waiting for
someone else to take power?  Absolutely not!!

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> > >Mad men are incapable of letting someone else take over at a
later
> > >date. That’s why we call them mad men. Real impressive, John.

>
>          That is your opinion
– which bears little resemblance to reality.
>
> >Stop changing the subject again. We’re not talking about the
> >bilderburgers, we’re talking about megalomaniacs who want to take over
> >the world.
>
>          One and the
same………….take note that Bilderbergers, CFR

> members and Trilateralist members have many common members. For example,
> George Herbert Walker Bush is a member of all three organizations.
>
> >By definition, someone of this caliber is incapable of waiting, John.
>
>          Not so!!! Show me
where this nonsense comes from!
>
> >  They want POWER, and they want it NOW.

>
>          Sez who?!?
>
> >There are no other types than power hungry maniacs who want to take
over
> >the world.
>
>          Pure conjecture!
>
> >Period. Refute the argument: Are megalomaniacs capable of waiting for

> >someone else to take power? Absolutely not!!
>
>          Yes, they ARE!!!
Where do you get such bizarre ideas?

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> > >Mad men are incapable of letting someone else take over at a

later
> > >date. That’s why we call them mad men. Real impressive, John.
>
>          That is your opinion
– which bears little resemblance to
reality.

Megalomania– A highly exaggerated or delusional concept of one’s own
importance.  From the dictionary, John.  We’re talking identifiable

mental illness here.  Someone with this level of mental illness MUST
be in charge.  A Hitler could never be a number two.  By definition.

>
> >Stop changing the subject again. We’re not talking about the
> >bilderburgers, we’re talking about megalomaniacs who want to take

over
> >the world.
>
>          One and the
same………….take note that Bilderbergers,
CFR
> members and Trilateralist members have many common members. For
example,
> George Herbert Walker Bush is a member of all three organizations.

>
> >By definition, someone of this caliber is incapable of waiting,
John.
>
>          Not so!!! Show me
where this nonsense comes from!
>
> >  They want POWER, and they want it NOW.
>
>          Sez who?!?

>
> >There are no other types than power hungry maniacs who want to take
over
> >the world.
>
>          Pure conjecture!
>
> >Period. Refute the argument: Are megalomaniacs capable of waiting

for
> >someone else to take power? Absolutely not!!
>
>          Yes, they ARE!!!
Where do you get such bizarre ideas?

Straight out of the dictionary.  Forget this stuff any way.  Show

proof of a plot with UN documentation.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Yet again, JAQ is getting his John Birch butt kicked.
Any true megalomaniac is simply incapable of taking orders from someone
else.  That’s why we call them megalomaniacs: they are literally, by
definition, deluded about themselves and their importance.  For JAQ to ask
the questions of where I get these ideas and who I got them from is just over
the top.  Any someone deluded about himself isn’t going to wait until after
his death.  Lord have mercy, folks, if he figured that he had to wait, he
wouldn’t have an exaggerated sense of his importance now would he?!!

Sheesh!!

JAQ then forwarded me the same email back.  I assumed the conversation
ended there, but apparently not.  The conversation ends below with another
ridiculous statement by JAQ.  This was another conversation that ended
abruptly at the very end.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Megalomania– A highly exaggerated or delusional concept of one’s
own
> >importance. From the dictionary, John. We’re talking identifiable
> >mental illness here.
>
>          Actually, we are
talking about a SPIRITUAL battle, since this is a
> “good versus evil” plot. YOU injected mental illness into the
picture.

>
> >Someone with this level of mental illness MUST be in charge.
>
>          Not
really…………..
>

—————————————————————–

While the above conversation was happening, JAQ sent two more unsolicited emails.  They were sent before I
decided to respond to all emails, if I remember right.  The first has a
title, the second does not:

>Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>THE INTELLIGENT STUDENT’S GUIDE TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER What is the
New World Order?
>How does it affect YOU?
>By Erica Carle

>Subject: UN Brainwashing…..

>Check out  http://www.fotun.org/index.htm
>
>Go through the pages………….I bet the names
and organizations won’t surprise you. Remember, before global government……….you
need global education.

This next conversation is unsolicited as well and
only lasts for four emails.  JAQ ends the conversation by forwarding it
back to me at the end.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_metcalf/19990510_xcgme_devil_deta.shtml
>
>

Devil in the details

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>

> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_metcalf/19990510_xcgme_devil_deta.shtml
>
> MONDAY
> MAY 10,1999
>
>
Devil in the details

Where’s the plot, John.  More opinion and conclusion without premise.

Defend it, John, where’s the evidence.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Where’s the plot, John.
>
>          For the last
<expletive-deleted> time…..it shows INTENT, if
> nothing else!
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Where’s the plot, John.
>
>          For the last
<expletive-deleted> time…..it shows INTENT,
if

> nothing else!
>

How many times do I have to tell you, John.  Opinion is not evidence,
neither is it fact, John.  It is called an INTERPRETATION.  Big
Difference.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Here is another unsolicated email from JAQ.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> http://king.igs.net/~wacoppin/quotes.htm
>
>
Still Don’t Believe NWO Domination and Control?
>
>
Revelations From Great And Powerful Men

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> http://king.igs.net/~wacoppin/quotes.htm
>
>
Still Don’t Believe NWO Domination and

Control?
>
>
Revelations From Great And Powerful Men
>

Real impressive, John, now where’s the evidence.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Real impressive, John, now where’s the evidence.
>
>          Chapter and verse is
before your very blind eyes, boy! These are
> actual quotes and easily verified, since the sources are listed, as well!

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Real impressive, John, now where’s the evidence.
>
>          Chapter and verse is
before your very blind eyes, boy!
These are
> actual quotes and easily verified, since the sources are listed, as
well!

Quotes from opinion sources are not facts, John.  Especially in the
case of conspiracy theories which are notorious for fabricated quotes.
My bank of England articles have a couple of quotes the birchers like
to give that are fabricated.  What you need is internal UN
documentation that says they intend to take over the world on a
certain date, with a specific, written and verifiable plan, etc.,

etc., just like I outlined in my earlier post.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Here we go again.  If some nut decides to repeat a lie,
it must therefore be true.  And sure enough, if someone in high places says
it’s true, it must therefore also be true.  Well if that’s true, then why
doesn’t the John Birch Society believe others who say there is no plot?

The answer they give for this is that they have evidence.

Right.  All of the evidence that this debate has been scrutinizing;
the same evidence that JAQ has been getting his butt kicked with.  Real
impressive.

Below is the last email for this conversation.  JAQ forwarded me the
above email and then decided to respond one last time.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>  > >Real impressive, John, now where’s the evidence.
>  >
>  >          Chapter
and verse is before your very blind eyes, boy!

>  > These are actual quotes and easily verified, since the sources
are
> listed,  as well!
>
>  > Quotes from opinion sources are not facts, John.
>
>          Then, testimony from
eyewitnesses would be considered non-factual,

> too, by your definition. This is insane!
>
>

—————————————————————–

Wrong.  This is a good example of putting words in
someone else’s mouth to make your point.  Testimony from first-hand eyewitnesses that
have *verifiable evidence* of a deliberate conspiracy to takeover the
planet by the United Nations would be considered factual indeed.  *But there aren’t any!!  And that’s the point of this entire debate!!*

All the John Birch Society has to do is produce one eyewitness with verifiable
evidence and the conspiracy would be exposed.  They cannot, of course, so
the point is wholly moot.

Many of the quotes that are given are fabricated quotes that
Birchers and other conspiracy theorists love to vomit when asked.  I will
deal with the issue of fabricated quotes in part three of this debate.
There I will show conclusively that neither JAQ, the John Birch Society, nor author Ted Flynn ever
bothered to check the veracity of a certain quote because conspiracy theorists
*never* check sources.  They simply continue to repeat
the same quotes without the slightest homework required to find out if it is accurate or not.

Below is another unsolicited conversation from JAQ.  The
conversation ends when JAQ forwards me my prior email.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>
AMERICA ABROAD:

>
        

The Birth of the Global Nation
>

By: Strobe Talbot – TIME MAGAZINE

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>
>
>
AMERICA ABROAD:
>
The Birth of the Global Nation

>
By: Strobe Talbot – TIME

Where’s the plot, John.  Opinion is not evidence.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>>Where’s the plot, John. Opinion is not evidence.

>        It’s not opinion so much as he’s
mapping out his
>”vision”……again, INTENT!!!

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>>Where’s the plot, John. Opinion is not evidence.

>         It’s not opinion so much as
he’s mapping out his
>”vision”……again, INTENT!!!

Assumed malicious intent does not malicious intent make.  Prove an
illegal conspiracy with internal UN documentation.  Refer to my
earlier post for guidance as to what to look for.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Below is another unsolicited conversation from JAQ.   The
conversation ends abruptly after JAQ sends his last response.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> America’s Last Stand For Sovereignty

> America’s Last Stand For Sovereignty
> By Berit Kjos

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> America’s Last Stand For Sovereignty
> By Berit Kjos

No plot here, either, John.  Nothing but opinion.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >No plot here, either, John.  Nothing but opinion.
>
>          Jesus-have-MERCY,

boy!!! You are one stupid ignoramous!!!!
> How-in-Hell can one footnote “opinion”?!? Did you not notice the
piece is
> generously footnoted for PROOF?!?
>
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

—————————————————————–

What I should have made clear was that the evidence that is
footnoted in the piece was either grossly out of context or overtly fabricated,
or taken from *another* piece that cited evidence that was either grossly out of context or overtly
fabricated.  I will deal with this issue in part three of this debate.
*All* evidence for a global conspiracy has either been fabricated outright or incompetently
cited out of context.  Period.  I will give an example at the end that
shows what I mean by this.  The example will come from a citation in one of
the books cited by JAQ earlier: Hope of the Wicked by Ted Flynn.

Flynn’s tome is essentially a rehash of John Birch doctrine with little if any
new material.  The conversation ends below.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >No plot here, either, John.  Nothing but opinion.

>
>
Jesus-have-MERCY,  boy!!! You are one stupid ignoramous!!!!
> How-in-Hell can one footnote “opinion”?!? Did you not notice the
piece is
> generously footnoted for PROOF?!?
>

It’s an opinion piece with footnotes.  Do the footnotes prove a
conspiracy by internal UN documentation?  No. They send you on another
goose chase for other public documents.  You need internal UN
documentation that has a specific plan for the takeover of the world.
Fork it over, baby, or admit error.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

No admission of error, of course.  More standard Birch
doctrine: evade and evangelize.

The above conversation was happening while JAQ was getting his
Birch butt kicked when I asked him for the times, dates, etc.  The above
opinion piece was yet another attempt to go off on another tangent away from the
evidence that I specifically told him to fork over.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >It’s an opinion piece with footnotes.
>
>          It’s documented
FACT!!! As such, it’s admissible in all courts in
> all 50 states!
>

> >Do the footnotes prove a conspiracy by internal UN documentation?
>
>          Yes, they most
certainly do!
>
>

—————————————————————–

Either JAQ is being sloppy or he is overtly lying here, and
almost certainly the latter.  Below are the footnotes to the piece in
question.  As far as I can tell, only one is even remotely UN material:

“Global
Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance,” cited below.  But even
this is most certainly *not* an internal UN document; it is clearly public
material.  Strictly internal documents are strictly that: *internal*
for Pete’s sake!!  The only way to get an internal document like this is to
somehow smuggle it out.  Just the fact that the document is public
conclusively shows that it is *not* internal by definition.

But let’s get something straight here.  JAQ knew
*exactly* what I meant by internal document, yet he is deliberately evading the issue at hand.
He knew full well what I meant, but since he couldn’t come up with any UN
documents within the footnotes to the piece in question, he decided to evade the
issue instead of acknowledging the obvious error.  Here again, his John
Birch theory is being blown off the map and he knows it.  Here are the footnotes
in question:

>
Footnotes
>
> 1 “World Heritage”, UNESCO wall map and
brochure, no date.
>
> 2 Ibid.
>
> 3 Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (Houghton-Mifflin, 1992),
274.
>
> 4 Ibid., 355.
>
> 5 Chris Tollefson, “UNESCO Group Focuses on Park
Ecosystem, ” Star Tribune
> (Casper WY), September 9, 1995.
>
> 6 “Yellowstone National Park, ” The World
Heritage website onInternet.
>
> 7 To protect the families involved in the controversy over
this piece of
> land, I prefer to maintain their anonymity. Anyone
interested in contacting
> them can call me for more information.
>
> 8 Read about environmental education in Chapter 5 of Brave
New Schools.
>
> 9 See ” Food Summit Speeds UN Agenda ‘ in Media
Bypass, January 1997.
>
> 10 Jonathan Schell. “Our Fragile Earth..”
Discover (October 1989); 44.
>
> 11 Tollefson.
>
> 12 Tom DeWeese, “Yellowstone Update, ” The
DeWeese Report, September 1996.
>
> 13 The Biodiversity Treaty has not yet been ratified by
the U.S. Senate.
> Tell your representatives not to yield to White House
pressures to ratify
>
> 14 Henry Lamb, ‘Meet Maurice Strong, ” Eco-Logic (Box
191, Powel Rock, TN
> 38342),
November/December 1995.
>
> 15 Cliff Kincaid, “Reform farce at the UN starring
Annan, ” The Washington
> Times,       1-31-97.
>
> 16 Lamb.
>
> 17 lbid.
>
> 18 our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global
Governance
> (Oxford
University Press, 1995), 214, 216.
>
> 19 Ibid., 110, 111.
>
> 20 Ibid., 112.
>
> 21 Ibid., 240 241.
>
> 22 Toward A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United
Nations, Report of
> the     Government of Canada, 1995,
56.
>
> 23 Gore, 356.
>
> 24 The World Heritage Newsletter No. 12. 1996. Available
on the World
> Heritage website

Below is yet another attempt at multiple conversations initiated by JAQ.
I decided to deal with them as one conversation rather than three.  Note
that when this email was sent there were already over a dozen simultaneous conversations
taking place at this time.  The conversation ends when JAQ forwards my
response back to me.  Note also the subject line change.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Try these:

><http://members.theglobe.com/kcwills/default.html>
><http://www.50megs.com/midori/index.html>
><http://www.eagle-net.org/AremEnt>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: Try these:

> <http://members.theglobe.com/kcwills/default.html>
> <http://www.50megs.com/midori/index.html>
> <http://www.eagle-net.org/AremEnt>
>

Opinion does not a plot make, John, where’s the evidence.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: Try these:

> >
> > > <http://members.theglobe.com/kcwills/default.html>

> > > <http://www.50megs.com/midori/index.html>
> > > <http://www.eagle-net.org/AremEnt>
> > >
>> >Opinion does not a plot make, John, where’s the evidence.
>

>          It shows intent!!!!
>
>
> >Gerry Rough
> >http://www.floodlight.org
> >

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: Try These:

> >Opinion does not a plot make, John, where’s the evidence.
>
>          It shows intent!!!!
>

Produce evidence or admit error, John.  Opinion are not evidence, and
stop trying to change the subject.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: Try These:

> >Produce evidence or admit error, John. Opinion are not evidence, and
> >stop trying to change the subject.
>

>          I am NOT trying to
change ANY subject. And yes, to show intent is
> VALID in any court of law, all 50 states!
>
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: Try These:

> >Produce evidence or admit error, John. Opinion are not evidence,
and
> >stop trying to change the subject.
>
>          I am NOT trying to
change ANY subject. And yes, to show
intent is
> VALID in any court of law, all 50 states!

>

Not the way you are using it.  You have to show that they are doing
something that they know to be illegal.  One world government is not
illegal if it is democratically elected.  As I stated clearly before,

you have to show internal UN documentation of imminent global
takeover, not the external opinions of someone who doesn’t like the
idea.

Big difference.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Here we go again.  JAQ knows what an internal UN document
is, especially a document that outlines the takeover of the planet.
Instead, more evasive nonsense when he knows his John Birch theory cannot stand
scrutiny.

Below is another conversation initiated by JAQ.  Note that the subject
line changes back to the usual subject.  JAQ forwarded my final response
back to me, then sent me his final response.  This is another conversation
that ends abruptly at the very end.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
>
> Thursday January 10, 1963
>
> Current Communist Goals
>
>

> EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF
> REPRESENTATIVES
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
>
> Thursday January 10, 1963
>
> Current Communist Goals
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

More opinion, John, where’s the evidence.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >More opinion, John, where’s the evidence.
>
>          IT IS NOT OPINION!!!!
If it were so frivolous, it wouldn’t be in
> the Congressional Record!

>
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >More opinion, John, where’s the evidence.
>
>          IT IS NOT OPINION!!!!
If it were so frivolous, it wouldn’t
be in
> the Congressional Record!
>
>
> >Gerry Rough

> >http://www.floodlight.org

Does it spell out the time and date of the takeover John?  No.  Where
are the answers to the questions I gave you in an earlier post?  Not
one is answered here.  More opinion and conclusion without premise.

And besides, John, that’s what most of the congressional record is,
just opinion.  Sheesh!

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Does it spell out the time and date for the takeover John?  No.
>
>          You have been denying
that a takeover by stealth means is not
> possible. We are arguing apples and oranges, here……….
>
>

—————————————————————–

*Stealth or not, there is a plan.  In writing.
With names.  With Dates.  Fork it over or admit error.
Simple.  Which part doesn’t the John Birch Society understand*!!

Below is another conversation initiated by JAQ.  This is also the same
title that was sent to me on the very first day that opened this debate.

This conversation only lasts for two emails.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit: Thoughts on the New
>World Order
>
>
by Steven Yates

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit: Thoughts on the New

>World Order
>
>
by Steven Yates

Real impressive, John. More opinion by someone who thinks like you.
Big deal.  Where’s the evidence, John.

Gerry Rough

http://www.floodlight.org

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

—————————————————————–

JAQ forwarded me my final response to end this next conversation.  This
next conversation mentions an article written by me about the Bank of
England.  It was written on the same day that another email was sent that
mentions the Bank of England.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>          The PROOF is being
offered to you below in tangible form!
>
>
> <http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley/gunnwotp.htm>
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

>          The PROOF is being
offered to you below in tangible form!

>
>
> <http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley/gunnwotp.htm>
>

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

Right, John.  More fabricated evidence.  Standard conspiracy theory

nonsense.  Pretty much like the Bank of England stuff you’re about to
get your clock cleaned with.  Produce the evidence that I mentioned
and stop trying to change the subject.  Produce the UN documents or
admit error.

Gerry Rough

http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Below is another conversation initiated by JAQ.  Note that the subject
line has changed again.  It lasts for only two emails before coming to an
abrupt end when JAQ forwarded my response back to me.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Black’s Law Dictionary

> I am not changing the subject. However, I’m supporting my own contentions

> I am not changing the subject. However, I’m supporting my own contentions
> with the following:
>
> CONSPIRE: an agreement by two or more persons for the purpose of
committing
> an illegal act, or for the purpose of committing a lawful act by illegal

> means. Each person must know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to
> join in the plans for that purpose. Many jurisdictions require an overt act
> accompany the planning for a conspiracy to exist.
>
> INTENT: there are two type of intent in criminal law. “General
intent” is

> the intent to commit a crime. Proof of general intent is required in all
> criminal prosecutions, but does not involve demonstrating that the
> defendant intended precise harm which he caused. “Specific
intent” is the
> intent to commit the precise act that the law prohibits. In document form,
> intent is the meaning gathered from the words therein.

>
>          I have shown specific
intent by providing documentation of
> plans/ideas/visions of the power elite to subvert the Constitution. YOU
> LOSE!!!!
>
>

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: Black’s Law Dictionary

> I am not changing the subject. However, I’m supporting my own
contentions
> with the following:
>
> CONSPIRE: an agreement by two or more persons for the purpose of
committing

> an illegal act, or for the purpose of committing a lawful act by
illegal
> means. Each person must know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree
to
> join in the plans for that purpose. Many jurisdictions require an
overt act
> accompany the planning for a conspiracy to exist.

>
> INTENT: there are two type of intent in criminal law. “General
intent” is
> the intent to commit a crime. Proof of general intent is required in
all
> criminal prosecutions, but does not involve demonstrating that the

> defendant intended precise harm which he caused. “Specific
intent”
is the
> intent to commit the precise act that the law prohibits. In document
form,
> intent is the meaning gathered from the words therein.
>
>          I have shown specific
intent by providing documentation of

> plans/ideas/visions of the power elite to subvert the Constitution.
YOU
> LOSE!!!!
>

Nnnnope. You’ve given a bunch of opinions that this is what they
supposedly believe.  But you have NO UN documentation that says they

intend to take over the world on a date certain, with a specific plan
in writing, etc.  You have to show intent to install a dictatorship,
which is what Birchers keep saying.  Show intent to install a global
dictatorship by UN forces.  Show me by verifiable UN documentation,
not the opinions of a nut who says so.  Big difference, dude.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Yet another classic example of how easy it is to completely obliterate another
Birch stupidity.  I was making virtually no effort to win the debate at
all, but JAQ is getting his butt kicked here.  It’s pretty simple folks:
show the verifiable documentation of the agreement by which the UN plans to take
over the world.  Hells bells, that’s all you have to do to win the
argument!  Cough up the agreement to take over the world!  Is it that
difficult to comprehend?  Apparently so, since the JBS has been around for
forty years and never answered the question.

This next conversation is a split off from the previous conversation.
It was initiated by me to clarify what is needed to prove a real
conspiracy.  It lasts for only two emails before coming to an abrupt
end.  JAQ forwarded my final response back to me, then sent me his final
response.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: Black’s Law Dictionary

> I am not changing the subject. However, I’m supporting my own
contentions
> with the following:
>
> CONSPIRE: an agreement by two or more persons for the purpose of
committing
> an illegal act, or for the purpose of committing a lawful act by

illegal
> means. Each person must know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree
to
> join in the plans for that purpose. Many jurisdictions require an
overt act
> accompany the planning for a conspiracy to exist.
>
> INTENT: there are two type of intent in criminal law. “General

intent” is
> the intent to commit a crime. Proof of general intent is required in
all
> criminal prosecutions, but does not involve demonstrating that the
> defendant intended precise harm which he caused. “Specific
intent”
is the

> intent to commit the precise act that the law prohibits. In document
form,
> intent is the meaning gathered from the words therein.
>
>          I have shown specific
intent by providing documentation of
> plans/ideas/visions of the power elite to subvert the Constitution.
YOU

> LOSE!!!!
>
>

NO, you need to prove that someone specifically intends to take over
the world by force.  Remember:  “Specific intent” is
the
intent to commit the precise act that the law prohibits.”  In
this

case, the takeover of the US (and world) government by force, an act
specifically prohibited by law.  You cannot show this intent by
quoting an opinion piece.  You have to show the specific plan that
they intend to carry out their plans according to:  the official UN
document outlining the specific plan to take over the world.  It must

have time, date, leadership structure, names, everything (and more)
that I mentioned earlier.  This is exactly why I mentioned the
evidence you would need.  All of it was specifically designed to prove
specific intent.

Compare the two:

—————————————————————–

I should have been much more clear about this response.
It would have been better if my response was something like:

“Compare the definition you just gave me about “specific
intent” with what I gave you days ago regarding actual proof of a real conspiracy.
Your own definition states exactly what I was asking for:”

—————————————————————–

“Specific intent” is the intent to commit the precise act that the law

prohibits.

“What do you need to prove this?  I need the actual plan of the
takeover; the time of the coup, the date, the timetable of the
imposition of international martial law, the timetable of military
force objectives, who is the new leader, when he/she will announce the
takeover, the timetable to confiscate all weapons, the plan to move
military forces to put down all resistance, who are the people who

will carry out said plan, when did the meeting/meetings take place,
when was the final plan adopted, who voted for it, what date, the
minutes of the meeting where this took place, the names of witnesses,
etc., etc., etc.  In effect, John, what you need is the very thing
that a prosecutor would need to prove a case for this: the blood, the
guts, the culture dish, and the DNA test.”

Name the specific UN document that outlines the takeover of the world.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: Black’s Law Dictionary

> >NO, you need to prove that someone specifically intends to take over
> >the world by force.

>
>          Nobody said that the
takeover will occur by FORCE!!!  It will
> occur by STEALTH, instead! I’ve already shown intent in this regard.
>
> >Remember: “”Specific intent” is the  intent to
commit the precise act that

> >the law prohibits.”
>
>          Duly noted and
shown………
>
> >In this case, the takeover of the US (and world) government by force,
an
> >act specifically prohibited by law.
>
>          Where do you get this
idea that force is involved?

>

—————————————————————–

Again, even if you assume that the takeover is by stealth, well, where’s the
agreement!?  Sheesh folks, it’s been forty years for Pete’s sake.  All
the JBS has to do is hand over the document.  That’s it!!  If I was in
the mood to make an effort, JAQ would have looked far worse.

Below is the last email sent by JAQ before events happen that effectively end
the debate.  I never responded to this email, even though by now I had
intended to respond to everything that was sent to me.  It was probably
deleted accidentally since I don’t remember receiving it.  Here is the
title:

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Globalization: Theory v. Reality

> “The Coming Collapse of American Economic Power”

> by Eamonn Fingleton

Below is another conversation that is a split off from an earlier
exchange.  This conversation sets into motion the events that effectively
end the debate.  There are still a few more conversations left to read, but
all of them begin to focus on this next exchange.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> > > >The UN has always been a democratic organization.
> > >
> > >          It’s
charter was written by Alger Hiss, convicted of lying
> >before

> > > Congress about his spy activities for the USSR.
> > >
> >
> >Produce evidence, not another story to follow, John.
> >
> > > >The title said parliament.

> > >
> > >
And………..?!?
> >
> >Produce evidence, John.
> >
> > >

> > > >That is democratic (or republican government, if you prefer).
> > >
> > >          No!!! A
true republic has a rock-solid Constitution at its
> >core.
> > > If you don’t buy this, visit <http://www.Constitution.org>

a site
> >that is
> > > wholly neutral and has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the JBS.
> >
> >Stop trying to change the subject.  I want evidence, John, and I
want

> >it now. Period.  No more sideshows. Period.
>
>          Go to the website,
you big dummy!

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> > > >The UN has always been a democratic organization.
> > >
> > >          It’s
charter was written by Alger Hiss, convicted of
lying

> >before
> > > Congress about his spy activities for the USSR.
> > >
> >
> >Produce evidence, not another story to follow, John.
> >

> > > >The title said parliament.
> > >
> > >
And………..?!?
> >
> >Produce evidence, John.

> >
> > >
> > > >That is democratic (or republican government, if you prefer).
> > >
> > >          No!!! A
true republic has a rock-solid Constitution at

its
> >core.
> > > If you don’t buy this, visit <http://www.Constitution.org>
a
site
> >that is

> > > wholly neutral and has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the JBS.
> >
> >Stop trying to change the subject.  I want evidence, John, and I
want
> >it now. Period.  No more sideshows. Period.

>
>          Go to the website,
you big dummy!

Been there, done that, dude.  He knows nothing of what he speaks.
Even cleaned his clock in debate four or five years ago.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

And so the event that ends the debate takes shape here.  In reality I
never once met Jon Roland (the author of constitution.org
mentioned above) in debate.  Yup folks, I got sloppy and lied about
it.  The rub is that by this time I had gotten so sick of JAQs open denial
of reality that I lost reality myself, choosing the path of my own
destruction.  There are times in life when you do things you later regret;
clearly, this was one of them for me.  It was a foolish mistake indeed; one that I will forever regret.

What I should have said was something like, “Others before me had been
there, done that,” but instead I chose to leave it as is and figured JAQ
would never check anyway.  But the damage was done and the events that end
the debate you can probably guess from here.  Later I will answer the
obvious question as to why I decided to publish this debate anyway.

JAQ forwarded me the above response as part of the last batch of emails that he
had no intention to answer.  At that point I thought it was over.  I
then received a bunch of emails in response to my prior emails back to
him.  Those were the last real emails of the actual debate.  The
remaining emails that were exchanged were essentially a post script, with author
Ted Flynn entering the picture, as well as Jon Roland.  The rest of the
debate was a thing of the past.

The next conversation is an email from Ted Flynn, author of Hope of
the Wicked
.  I will deal with this book in part three of this debate.
The return address directly below was different than usual, and ended up
confusing both Ted Flynn and myself (all emails were deleted by me for privacy
reasons for this debate).  JAQ confused me with a feature I was unaware of
with his email program.  With JAQ using this email feature, it becomes quite
obvious both directly below and later on that Ted Flynn was just as
confused as I was when he replied to JAQ.  Maxkol below is Ted Flynn.

—————————————————————–

From: MaxKol (by way of JAQ)

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: ted flynn

> Subject: Hope Of The Wicked
>
> Mr. Quayle,
> Hope of the Wicked is 1,200 footnotes of where people wish to bring the
> world in their own words.  There are over 2,200 quotes in the entire
book.

> See chapter 1 alone.  It is not a conspiracy but an ideology of
> thinking—without God in the picture ruling in the hearts of men.
> all the Best,
> Ted Flynn
>

—————————————————————–

I thought that I was sending the following
email to JAQ and it ended up going to Ted Flynn’s address.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: MaxKol (by way of JAQ)

Subject: ted flynn

> Subject: Hope Of The Wicked
>

> Mr. Quayle,
> Hope of the Wicked is 1,200 footnotes of where people wish to bring
the
> world in their own words.  There are over 2,200 quotes in the entire
book.
> See chapter 1 alone.  It is not a conspiracy but an ideology of

> thinking—without God in the picture ruling in the hearts of men.
> all the Best,
> Ted Flynn
>

Well now isn’t this just interesting as all get out, John.  You’ve
provided me with an opportunity to expose the fraudulent research of a

conspiracy theory author, while at the same time exposing it to an
entire chapter of the John Birch Society.  It’s a dream come true that
heretofore was only imagined in the hearts of saints past.  It sort of
makes me feel like the cosmos has smiled upon me at last; there is a
twinkle in my eye, John, and I haven’t had one of those since my last
girlfriend (there’s someone else that has my current attention, but
I’m still working on her before I decide to turn on the charm and ask

her for a date).  But enough about my love life; back to the cosmos
thing.

Perhaps you forget, John, I’ve been here before with conspiracy
theories and with conspiracy theory authors.  Mr. Flynn and myself are
going to have that little chat that you want, and we’re going to have
it in public, provided the following:

1) contact Mr. Flynn and get him to agree to an email debate with me

2) if he agrees to debate me, he needs to agree to let me have his
email address so that we can debate person to person

3) you will receive copies of each email sent from both of us (he
agrees to this as well) and you will agree to forward all emails in
the debate to all of the members of your local John Birch Society
chapter who have email access, except for those who decide not to see

the debate in print

4) you agree to email another chapter member and have them confirm to
me by email that they and other chapter members are receiving the
emails of the debate from you

5) I  agree to buy Mr. Flynn’s book, “Hope of the Wicked,” and
expose

the following examples of his research, none of which will be
adequately answered during the ensuing debate:

3 obvious examples of either sloppy or grossly incompetent research

3 examples of overtly fabricated material from the pen of Mr. Flynn
himself

This isn’t going to take more that two or three hours to do on my
part, John.  I’ve done this stuff before, and it is not at all as

difficult as you might think.  So, you have a choice, John.  You can
wince again, or you can see a real live debate between two
heavyweights, and watch your ridiculous belief system about government
plots be exposed as pit o’ hell foolishness that cannot stand the test
of serious scrutiny.

Gerry Rough

http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Here again, I thought that this next email was going to JAQ, but instead it
ended up going to Ted Flynn.  This email was sent in response to the batch
of 13 unanswered emails that JAQ forwarded to me at the end.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: MaxKol (by way of JAQ)

Subject: ted flynn

Last night while I was fuming over your return of my posts and writing
the debate prerequisites, I considered your punishment after Mr. Flynn
gets his proverbial clock cleaned.  I considered the usual: the stocks
in a public place for twelve hours, the guillotine, your head on a
silver platter, hanging, etc. etc., but none of these get me what I
wanted in the first place.  What I’ve always wanted was to get you to

see the error first hand, then run from it like the plague once you’ve
realized what has happened.  So, I came up with a more workable
solution aside from any legal considerations.

You would agree beforehand to at least consider leaving the John Birch
Society and urging others within your chapter to do the same.  It’s a
slap on the wrist for taking time out from my schedule to do this for

you, but the effects will be much longer lasting and far reaching than
either of us knows.

Consider my request

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

MaxKol below is again Ted Flynn.  This is Ted Flynn’s response to an email that
was never intended to go to him.  Even worse, he probably never intended
this to reach me either, as he addresses JAQ rather than me.  Ted Flynn was
apparently just as confused as I was while all of this was happening.

—————————————————————–

From: MaxKol

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: ted flynn

Mr. Quayle,
Your friend has to much time on his hands.
MaxKol

——————–

Deleted for brevity.

——————–

—————————————————————–

This next response from me is sent to both JAQ and Ted
Flynn.  Only now was everyone occupying the same universe.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough
To: MaxKol, JAQ
Subject: Re: ted flynn

> Mr. Quayle,
> Your friend has to much time on his hands.
> MaxKol

 

John wanted a debate between us to prove something about this
NWO
stuff.  So, if both of you agree to the terms of the
debate, I will
agree to the terms stated below.  Do we three have an
agreement?

 

Gerry Rough

 

—————————————————————–
—————————————————————–

This next email is a copy of an exchange between Jon Roland and JAQ.  It
is obvious that JAQ was checking whether my statement was true or not.

—————————————————————–

From: Jon Roland

To:  JAQ

Cc: Gerry Rough

Cc: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: Is This True, Jon?!?

> Is what true? This guy Gerry Rough seems to be saying that he bested me in
debate,
> but he could be talking about someone else. In any case, I have had no
previous
> contact with him, at least not under that name, and I have never failed to

> effectively defend my position in any debate, even if not everyone came
over to my
> side of the issue.
>
> –Jon

—————————————————————–

This next email was sent to JAQ purely out of frustration and anger if I
remember correctly.  When JAQ pulled the stunt with his email program, I had no idea who had gotten what email from whom.  I assumed he
had gotten another email from Ted Flynn and sent the following.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

I thought you were backing out, so I challenged Mr. Flynn to a debate
to prove my point since you won’t listen any other way.  If you would
like us to debate before your local chapter, I would gladly accept a
debate from him as stated, unless you would like to revise the
agreement.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

This next email is a copy and paste to JAQ from the earlier email that was never
meant to go to Ted Flynn, but ended up there anyway.

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

I just realized that my emails were being sent to Mr. Flynn.  You
should never goof with return addresses.  The worst part is that you
might goof up returning them to their original state, then having all
of your correspondents get all of their emails bounced back to them
for an email address that does not exist on the server.  Been there,
done that.

Here’s what I wrote to you:

Last night while I was fuming over your return of my posts and writing
the debate prerequisites, I considered your punishment after Mr. Flynn
gets his proverbial clock cleaned.  I considered the usual: the stocks
in a public place for twelve hours, the guillotine, your head on a
silver platter, hanging, etc. etc., but none of these get me what I

wanted in the first place.  What I’ve always wanted was to get you to
see the error first hand, then run from it like the plague once you’ve
realized what has happened.  So, I came up with a more workable
solution aside from any legal considerations.

You would agree beforehand to at least consider leaving the John Birch
Society and urging others within your chapter to do the same.  It’s a

slap on the wrist for taking time out from my schedule to do this for
you, but the effects will be much longer lasting and far reaching than
either of us knows.

Consider my request

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

—————————————————————–

Both of the next two emails were sent at the same time the final email from
JAQ was sent.  All three arrived at the same time.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: ted flynn

> > >
> > > Mr. Quayle,
> > > Your friend has to much time on his hands.
> > > MaxKol

> >
> >John wanted a debate between us to prove something about this NWO
> >stuff.  So, if both of you agree to the terms of the debate, I
will
> >agree to the terms stated below.  Do we three have an agreement?
>
>          Mr. Rough, you can’t
get out of your own way!

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >Last night while I was fuming over your return of my posts and
writing
> >the debate prerequisites, I considered your punishment after Mr. Flynn
> >gets his proverbial clock cleaned. I considered the usual: the stocks
> >in a public place for twelve hours, the guillotine, your head on a
silver

> >platter, hanging, etc. etc., but none of these get me what I wanted in
the
> >first place.  What I’ve always wanted was to get you to see the
error
> >first hand, then run from it like the plague once you’ve realized what
has
> >happened. So, I came up with a more workable solution aside from any
legal
> >considerations.

>
>          BUZZ OFF!!!

—————————————————————–

This is the last email sent from JAQ.  Considering the circumstances,
at least part of JAQs blistering condemnation was well deserved.

—————————————————————–

From: JAQ

To: Gerry Rough

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >  I thought you were backing out, so I challenged Mr. Flynn to a
debate
> >to prove my point since you won’t listen any other way.
>
>          Mr. Rough, it is with
deep remorse that I lower myself to calling
> you a liar. That’s not my modus operandi. However, you said to me that you

> “cleaned the clock” of Jon Roland (webmaster of
> <http://www.constitution.org>).
I’ve known Mr. Roland for four years and
> know him to be of solid character, unmistakable integrity and a genuine
> Constitutional scholar. He doesn’t even know who you are!
>
>          He says:

>
> Is what true? This guy Gerry Rough seems to be saying that he bested me in
> debate, but he could be talking about someone else. In any case, I have had
> no previous  contact with him, at least not under that name, and I
have
> never failed to effectively defend my position in any debate, even if not
> everyone came over to my side of the issue.

>
> –Jon
>
>          Your entire spiel is
empty and wholly worthless. According to you,
> everyone else is crazy and you are the lone sane voice of truth. Talk about
> meglomaniacism! you have done nothing when asked to refute something. You
> prefer to laugh it off as “make-believe”. You told me that you
out-debated

> a Phd…….I’m so sure!
>
>          You have zero
credibility and of course, deserve none. You might
> be worthy of debate that fateful day that you come back down to earth.
> Until then, no way.
>
> Good Day, Sir,

>
>

—————————————————————–

This is my final response to the email just sent by JAQ.  Notice
the cc

—————————————————————–

From: Gerry Rough

To: JAQ

Cc: MaxKol, Jon Roland

Cc: MaxKol, Jon Roland

Subject: Re: McCarthy *WAS* Right, After All!!!

> >  I thought you were backing out, so I challenged Mr. Flynn to a
debate
> >to prove my point since you won’t listen any other way.
>
>          Mr. Rough, it is with
deep remorse that I lower myself to

calling
> you a liar. That’s not my modus operandi. However, you said to me
that you
> “cleaned the clock” of Jon Roland (webmaster of
> <http://www.constitution.org>).
I’ve known Mr. Roland for four years

and
> know him to be of solid character, unmistakable integrity and a
genuine
> Constitutional scholar. He doesn’t even know who you are!
>
>          He says:
>
> Is what true? This guy Gerry Rough seems to be saying that he bested

me in
> debate, but he could be talking about someone else. In any case, I
have had
> no previous  contact with him, at least not under that name, and I
have
> never failed to effectively defend my position in any debate, even

if not
> everyone came over to my side of the issue.
>

First of all John, I realized my error after I first wrote that but
chose not to delete and rewrite since it did not matter anyway.  I
should have done so, but in haste of combat was not careful about my
wording.  Four or five years ago when I first started I did in fact

see him in many debates where he did indeed get his clock cleaned but
refused to admit error even when it was obvious to everyone else.  I
was thinking of someone else when I specifically wrote the sentence.
Even better, I just got home from work where I did indeed plan to
retract my prior statement, even if we did not continue the debate,
but indeed you beat me to it.  You were indeed correct in calling me a
liar given the information you had at the time.  I apologize for my

obviously foolish judgment.

> –Jon
>
>          Your entire spiel is
empty and wholly worthless. According
to you,
> everyone else is crazy and you are the lone sane voice of truth.
Talk about

> meglomaniacism! you have done nothing when asked to refute
something. You
> prefer to laugh it off as “make-believe”. You told me that you
out-debated
> a Phd…….I’m so sure!

I did indeed, dear.  If he still has a website at MIT you can ask him.

He bowed out after my second email back to him.  This was at least two
or three years ago.

No, John, it is YOU who have refused to acknowledge error.  You have
thus far changed your story a couple of times, even changed the rules
of the debate once or twice and never acknowledged your own
foolishness when you knew you were in obvious error.  You stated in

one of your last messages that you were quoting a UN document when in
fact you were citing an opinion piece from a magazine article.  I
would think that a journalist would know the difference.  You
certainly did, but conveniently switched definitions.  Hardly
intellectual honesty on your part.  And there are other little tidbits

of dishonesty on your part as well, only a couple of which I will
respond to.

Even from the very beginning of this mess, I specifically asked you
not to keep sending me multiple messages, but you deliberately
persisted in doing so.  After a few days of multiple messages, I
decided to be more accommodating and took the time to refute your
arguments, despite my better judgment.  The good news is that I’ve

since dropped the summer class I was taking (by coincidence, by the
way) and had the time to continue, but that is beside the point.  It
is your tactical use of the classic straw man argument to simply
overwhelm your opponent with multiple arguments that is truly
dishonest.  Rather than win an honest debate with thoughtful inquiry,
you choose the route of numerical superiority.

At the beginning, as well, I gave you the opportunity to pick a page
and reference source, but you decided to hand the debate over to me.
When I seized the opportunity to give you my Sutton article, you
barely acknowledged its existence and immediately changed the subject.
Your immediate dismissal of relevant information on the very
credibility of John Birch Society authors as well as others who claim
the conspiracy theory mantle is about as seriously dishonest as it
gets.  And that is precisely why you and everyone else refuses to even

inquire as to the validity of my research: you know full well that if
I can successfully call into question the credibility of authors who
claim conspiracy theories are true, then there is something seriously
wrong with what you’ve been taught or at minimum the impetus is upon
conspiracy theorists to make further inquiry, since it is impossible
to do this kind of research for every single article and argument out
there.  No one from the John Birch Society or anyone else has ever
questioned my research.  Ever.  The silence has been deafening.

Among
other well knowns, G. Edward Griffin knows where I am, his secretary
emailed me twice, she seemed nice enough, Bill Still contacted me once
and ended up giving me a one word answer –Hmmmm.– I can only assume
he meant that I was biased because I don’t like Bible prophecy any
longer, but I will never know, Des Griffin never challenged me either,
but was polite, as I was, Sutton was handed his head.  There you have
it; precisely zero on any serious discussion, and even worse when it

comes to admission of error.

After Sutton’s mention, from there it was Multiple Independently
targeted Reentry Strawman arguments — better known more commonly as
MIRS arguments.  From the very beginning you have chosen to not even
acknowledge my research and instead we have relied exclusively on your
arguments, few if any of which have had anything at all to do with
proving a real conspiracy.  Your own email of a definition from

Black’s Law Dictionary proves you’ve done nothing to prove your point,
but instead you’ve given nothing but generalization, opinion, innuendo
about people you don’t like, and changing subjects, despite my
repeated requests for a specific document from the UN outlining the
conspiracy you claim is there.  A conspiracy is an agreement to do
something illegal.  Someone had to sign the damn thing, that’s what UN
diplomats do.  Cough it up, simple.  And make sure it has the UN logo

on it too.

>          You have zero
credibility and of course, deserve none. You
might
> be worthy of debate that fateful day that you come back down to
earth.
> Until then, no way.
>

It was a foolish error not to rewrite about Jon Roland.  I apologized
for it because I’m tough enough to do so, even though it was not a
deliberate attempt to deceive.  But somehow from where I sit, it takes
a lot of nerve for you to call me a liar from your perch.

As to Mr. Flynn and yourself, I will only be too happy to debate him
as stated earlier with those conditions if you still wish to do so.  I

would like you to seriously consider my request as to your membership
in the JBS as well.

Gerry Rough
http://www.floodlight.org

 

Postscript

And so the great debate ends.  John Quayle
and the John Birch Society had been put to the test and found not just wanting
but grossly incompetent.  The only “evidence” that was put forth
for the global plot was either opinion that was passed on as fact, fabricated quotes from an author
who refused to do any homework (I will explain this in more detail in part three of this
debate), innuendo and cultural myth, or outright lying either by omission or about politicians and commentators he apparently didn’t
like.
John Quayle simply could not bring himself to acknowledge even the most
transparent of errors and destroyed his own credibility in the process.
But it wasn’t John Quayle that was on the witness stand, it was the entire New
World Order theory put forth by the John Birch Society.  With virtually no
effort at all on my part, the theory collapsed of it’s own weight as nothing
more than groundless nonsense by those who refuse to check their sources for
accuracy and context.

For 16 days from 5/27/01 through 6/12/01 the
debate went on: 16 days that saw an entire theory of history exposed for exactly
the utter foolishness that it is.  In terms of sheer numbers, JAQ sent 68 emails that I
responded to, plus 18 unanswered emails, almost all of which were at the
beginning.  13 additional unanswered emails were forwarded to me at the
end.  For my part I responded a total of 57 times.

Unfortunately my own record was tainted as well
because of a debate I soon had no motivation to seriously engage.  The
difference between Gerry Rough and John Quayle was that I had the courage to
admit all of my errors publicly.  John refused to do so.  In the end I
sent a letter to three people I’ve never even met before and took full
responsibility for a serious lapse in judgment.  Because it was the right
thing to do.  And that is precisely the difference between myself and the
John Birch Society.  My admission of error puts me in a league neither John
Quayle nor the John
Birch Society could ever hope to join.  Along these same lines of thought, I recently wrote in response to an
article written by William Grigg in The New American, the official
journal of the John Birch Society: “…forget about Grigg and other
Birchers who get paid to tell a lie.  He doesn’t want the truth because he
is afraid to face himself, his peers and the scorn he would get if he ever
bothered to question his beliefs in a plot that is not there.  It’s just a
whole lot easier to continue down the path of your own destruction than it is to
face the truth.”  It would seem that William Grigg and John Quayle
have, unfortunately, much in common: a trait all too common in hardcore
conspiracy theory circles.

In part three of this debate I will document
proof that Ted Flynn’s incompetent homework led him to his conclusion of a great
global plot.  He simply didn’t do the homework that any reader assumes he
would have done, and neither did John Quayle who cited him as a credible resource.  It will essentially be the debate that *should* have happened
with John Quayle.  In reality the debate that actually took place started
off the way it should have, but when John Quayle decided that he could not
defend the Sutton article he then decided to change the subject and deny the
obvious error.  That is the place where the debate diverged from inquiry
and discovery and began a downward spiral into the intellectual abyss.  Click on the link below and go
to the conspiracy theory index and click on part three of this debate.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)