Dan Christensen wrote:
> On May 18, 1:29 pm, chris <christiane.stock...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 18 mei, 06:38, Dan Christensen <dch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 17, 3:52 pm, PL <pl.nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> [snipping ****tions of PL's posting already debunked here, or too lame
>>> to bother with]
>>>>>>>>>> Your activities as a lying pro-castro lobbyist are well
do***ented in
>>>>>>>>>> SCC.
>>>>>>>>> Oh, really?
>>>>>>>> Not my words: you bragged about contacting various people in
sup****t of
>>>>>>>> the Cuban regime with an aim to influence their public
statements..
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> How amusing. Can you give us even one example of what you are
talking
>>>>>>> about here?
>>>>>> Contacting certain medical doctors (US and SA based) on Cuba.
>>>>> Just confirming sources
>>>> not what I heard and certainly not confirmed by your actions.
>>> My actions were to confirm that you were deliberately spreading lies
>>> about these people.
>> (cut)
>>
>> Mr. Christensen, in each of the cases above according to my research
>> it was you that ended up being branded as the one that was spreading
>> lies.
>
> And which "lies" might those be? Please be specific.
>
>
>> Nowhere ever any of these experts has changed his of her public
>> statements - the result you were lobbying for - no?
>
> My "lobbying???" Get real!
Chris has a point.
>> If I am mistaken here then please post the messages where they new
>> public statements were re****ted.
You see: nothing
> The US medical expert about which PL was spreading lies
Nope.
I only quoted his public statements with a link to them at an
international medical forum www.promedmail.org
> has asked to
> remain anonymous.
after being outraged by you abusing his name for your lies on your lying
website, Mr. Serial Liar.
his public statements are still in www.promedmail.org
The statements you hope he would retract, in fact all he did was make
you retract your lying webspage even asking for removel of the site.
> Can't blame him really.
Nope.
Certainty not after you lied to him, abused his confidence, abused his
name and violated his privacy.
He truly was pissed at you.
> South African Dr. Michael
> Thiede,
actually German working in South Africa, but then you never were good
with facts were you?
> about which PL was spreading similar lies,
another lie: I quoted a public statement from him from on a website of
Stanford universtity in the US (a forum)
> wrote to me saying,
(snip)
not his words, Dan. Your lies.
Post where these words you claim are his are or ever wore in the public
record.
again all your lies are exposed.
>> All I saw from you is stuff where you claim other people said this or
>> that without any proof whatsover.
>> In one case a text was posted (that you did not ever even try to
>> dispute as not being genuine and which must therefore have been known
>> to you in my opinion) where the party you quoted said in terms that
>> could not be misunderstood that what you had posted was a
>> misrepresentation to say the least.
>
> Again, as I think PL himself will confirm, the US medical expert in
> question has asked to remain anonymous.
after his name and confidence were abused by you.
His public record still stands in www.promedmail.org
> It is difficult to be more
> specific without revealing his identity.
You did reveal something very specific: you admitted his comments were
genuine.
thanks for exposing your own lies again.
>> I have personally seen that you are in most cases unable to come up
>> with any proof when challanged remember the golfing claims you made)
>> or say blatant lies (on the nature of the Club Med in Varadero).
>
> I have provided direct quotes from PL about his lobbying exploits
Nope.
As Chris has shown: misquotes.
> --
> his lobbying at family functions, over squash games,
Nope.
You claimed golf games.
All I said that I spoke with people about Cuba in a social setting.
I never claimed to have lobbied anyone anywhere in the sense you try to
imply. I actually denied it and referred to private conversations in
normal social settings.
> and of some
> "Belgian ministers" at Club Med in Cuba.
I have even never claimed to have spoken to anyone at Club Med Varadero
I never even have claimed to have stayed at Club Med in Varadero.
Post the quotes Dan.
we all will again see what a desperate liar you are.
All exposed lies.
You also insinuated that these trips which on their part were only
family vacations were CIA junkets to singles resorts.
> It speaks volumes that you
> can so easily dismiss this as mockery!
It is plain that Chris and others see through your "over the top" lies
Dan.
You just don't know when to stop embelli****ng your lies.
Here again you are caught lying your block off.
>> So sorry: not enough for anyone and by any standard.
>
> I disagree.
you would, wouldn't you? you pompous liar.
>> As far as Genocide Watch is concerned, there again we see a lot of
>> unsubstantiated claims on your part and a body of hard evidence on the
>> part of those that exposed your inconsistencies.
>
> So, I take it you have been unwilling to contact GW yourself. That or
> you didn't like their answer.
Get a life.
You made the claims and again you show you can't prove any of it.
> The entire controversy here revolves around just who was the source
(snip)
and your lies were exposed over and over again as you couldn't even stop
lying.
Dan Christensen's exposed lie about Genocide Watch.
Dan falsely claimed the organization had copied (mindlessly) a number from
a
book by Rummel. Another case of false claims of "private information".
Upon verification it became clear that Rummel quoted a figure of 73,000
deaths attributable to the Castro regime. Genocide Watch showed a figure
of
75,000 which comrade Dan promptly attributed to "sloppiness" in copying.
Dan Christensen fails to understand that his private lies can't refute
the
public record.
He tried this one on a couple of times and always failed.
Do you deny Dan Christensen that you got the numbers wrong in your lie
and
that the "exclusive" source you falsely claimed was used by Genocide Watch
(another "private" message) actually gave a LOWER figure than Genocide
Watch?
I have clearly shown that your claim that Mr. Rummel is the one and only
source Genocide Watch uses is false by proving that Mr. Rummel (whose
credibility you attack without proof) gives a different figure than
Genocide
Watch (73,000 versus 75,0000). Genocide Watch correctly lists Castro as a
genocidal dictator because of his responsibility for the death of
thousands
of people.
When confronted with your lie you turned insult in to injury by claiming
the
"made an error in copying", didn't you?
As always: the links that expose Dan Christensen's lies:
Dan's lie:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/ff0ab4c53757e8a0?dmode=source&hl=en
My exposure of his lie:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/a44230458e76b3c7?dmode=source&hl=en
Dan's pathetic claim Genocide Watch made a mistake:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/8eeb4ad61f1463d4?dmode=source&hl=en
PL
|
