Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:For your information, John, the Powell McHenry she referred to in her letter was the top P&G attorney, but the Cincinnati Enquirer never gave her permission to write her investigative story exposing P&G as the criminals they most certainly are. Remember, she had every reason to consider me a crank and to protect her cushy job covering P&G, but she was willing to put her job and reputation on the line to report the crimes of Procter & Gamble. Anyway, the bottom line is that neither P&G nor the FBI was able to scare Bob the Baptist like they do the rest of the world.

Maybe you're right, we have no real way of knowing as nothing in the evidence you've provided disputes or substantiates your claim. Of course, it would all fit with you being a paranoid conspiracy theorist as well.

What 'crimes' of P&G?

So far you just appear to be another god-bothering crank finding satanists under the bed. I'll not be surprised if you play records backwards.

But don't tell me, you flog Amway.

I remembered Bob posted about Ouzo last summer and at the time I assumed it was just promotional background fluff for his game. Having just re-read it and considered that he may actually be serious given his other posts here, I think the strong possibility that he's suffering from mental health issues needs to be considered. Still, he may just be doing it all for a laugh after all but he's certainly persistent if he is.

John wrote:

bobevenson wrote:For your information, John, the Powell McHenry she referred to in her letter was the top P&G attorney, but the Cincinnati Enquirer never gave her permission to write her investigative story exposing P&G as the criminals they most certainly are. Remember, she had every reason to consider me a crank and to protect her cushy job covering P&G, but she was willing to put her job and reputation on the line to report the crimes of Procter & Gamble. Anyway, the bottom line is that neither P&G nor the FBI was able to scare Bob the Baptist like they do the rest of the world.

Maybe you're right, we have no real way of knowing as nothing in the evidence you've provided disputes or substantiates your claim. Of course, it would all fit with you being a paranoid conspiracy theorist as well.

John, she said, "I remain convinced that this is a worthwhile case worthy of media attention." Do you think she was also part of a paranoid conspiracy theory? Wake up and smell the coffee, John, you're not that stupid!

John wrote:I remembered Bob posted about Ouzo last summer and at the time I assumed it was just promotional background fluff for his game. Having just re-read it and considered that he may actually be serious given his other posts here, I think the strong possibility that he's suffering from mental health issues needs to be considered. Still, he may just be doing it all for a laugh after all but he's certainly persistent if he is.

If the FBI knocked on your door, you'd drop dead of a heart attack. If P&G looked at you the wrong way, you'd also drop dead. You don't have the slightest idea of why I'm bulletproof.

bobevenson wrote:John, she said, "I remain convinced that this is a worthwhile case worthy of media attention." Do you think she was also part of a paranoid conspiracy theory? Wake up and smell the coffee, John, you're not that stupid!

So it's not possible that she did look into it and came to the conclusion there was nothing substantial to it or that you couldn't back up your claims? How would we know what she eventually thought about your story or the reasons nothing ever came of it?

And even if you did have some newsworthy story about P&G how do we know it had anything to do with their logo or Satanism? And if it was to do with their logo and Satanism then why does your document contain the disclaimer "The above statement is not an attack on Proctor & Gamble or its logo, and does not imply that Proctor & Gamble is connected with Satanism or supports it in any way."? You wrote that they weren't able to scare you so why the disclaimer?

Can you at least see how this might appear to someone who doesn't have all the information and why it may be difficult to accept your story on face value?

bobevenson wrote:If the FBI knocked on your door, you'd drop dead of a heart attack. If P&G looked at you the wrong way, you'd also drop dead. You don't have the slightest idea of why I'm bulletproof.

I certainly would as I live in the UK.

I know why you are bullet-proof, you're Superman!

What I don't have the slightest idea about is what you are talking about? As you've not yet said anything of substance. The best I've got is that you are one of the cranks who have been promoting satanism with respect to P&G and appear proud of it?

What 'crimes' of P&G?

bobevenson wrote:

John wrote:I remembered Bob posted about Ouzo last summer and at the time I assumed it was just promotional background fluff for his game. Having just re-read it and considered that he may actually be serious given his other posts here, I think the strong possibility that he's suffering from mental health issues needs to be considered. Still, he may just be doing it all for a laugh after all but he's certainly persistent if he is.

If the FBI knocked on your door, you'd drop dead of a heart attack. If P&G looked at you the wrong way, you'd also drop dead. You don't have the slightest idea of why I'm bulletproof.

My reaction to the FBI or P&G investigating me is irrelevant to the veracity of your story.

John wrote:

bobevenson wrote:John, she said, "I remain convinced that this is a worthwhile case worthy of media attention." Do you think she was also part of a paranoid conspiracy theory? Wake up and smell the coffee, John, you're not that stupid!

So it's not possible that she did look into it and came to the conclusion there was nothing substantial to it or that you couldn't back up your claims? How would we know what she eventually thought about your story or the reasons nothing ever came of it?

And even if you did have some newsworthy story about P&G how do we know it had anything to do with their logo or Satanism? And if it was to do with their logo and Satanism then why does your document contain the disclaimer "The above statement is not an attack on Proctor & Gamble or its logo, and does not imply that Proctor & Gamble is connected with Satanism or supports it in any way."? You wrote that they weren't able to scare you so why the disclaimer?

Can you at least see how this might appear to someone who doesn't have all the information and why it may be difficult to accept your story on face value?

My disclaimer is the absolute truth, but P&G sued many people for just linking the company to Satanism in some way. There is absolutely no way P&G would even think of suing me under any conditions whatsoever. There is nobody except me that can distribute something like "That Infamous Logo" with total impunity, my friend.

Arising_uk wrote:What 'crimes' of P&G?

Entering into an illegal conspiracy with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

bobevenson wrote:Entering into an illegal conspiracy with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sue them then?

But once again a post you participate in returns to your megalomania.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Entering into an illegal conspiracy with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sue them then?

But once again a post you participate in returns to your megalomania.

No, I'll taunt them into suing me, and then I'll get their Tide division, O my brothers in tribulation!

bobevenson wrote:No, I'll taunt them into suing me, and then I'll get their Tide division, O my brothers in tribulation!

Why would the FBI sue you?

Do people normally believe you? Is it just us that don't?