You could not be more wrong Graham. The individual in question was making a joke. He admitted it went too far and he regretted it. No way was he attempting to harm in any way those who chose to see it otherwise. He was making a point with humour. Albeit a poor decision given that humour is in short supply around here.

Even Mag realized after the fact that the crime hadn't been as he suspected and stated so here on this board.

You didn't like the fact that more often than not that individual was dead right in debates with you and you seem to be unable to let it go but he meant no harm to anyone.

He was, and is, a class act.

You could not be more wrong Graham. The individual in question was making a joke. He admitted it went too far and he regretted it. No way was he attempting to harm in any way those who chose to see it otherwise. He was making a point with humour. Albeit a poor decision given that humour is in short supply around here.

Even Mag realized after the fact that the crime hadn't been as he suspected and stated so here on this board.

You didn't like the fact that more often than not that individual was dead right in debates with you and you seem to be unable to let it go but he meant no harm to anyone.

He was, and is, a class act.

In a final attempt to be fully explanatory and clear, my apology here doesn't mean I don't continue to stand behind the content that was posted and then deleted in my blog (I do stand behind it, then and now).

It doesn't mean that I have acquiesced to anyone in terms of my views about 9/11.

Furthermore, my apology was to the community, not to the person who wrote the 'satire' and then, after admitting it was a satire, continued to insist that it was serious and could be backed up, even after it was shown that he got his ideas from other postings at other sites.

My apology to the community was because I had suggested that someone else had deleted my blog. Now that I have made an error that demonstrated to me that I could have done it myself, I feel honor-bound to state that.

Nor is the apology an effort to make nice so I'll be welcomed back again and can post here again. Michael simply 'enabled' my membership so I could make the statements myself.

As for the possibility that there can be one big happy family, my intent and commitment is to be activist, to actually do something rather than just talk about it endlessly back and forth.

There has been and continues to be treachery, treason, destruction, theft, and corruption afoot in high places in this nation, and I will continue to raise my small little voice in opposition. But, as Arlo taught us, if you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud, so we have started a small choir. [We are currently talking about how we can buy a microphone and an amplifier.]

let alone what a phoenix actually was and proven so. It was not a location like the common person thought.

Obama has a really good chance of winning if all those newly registered voters actually vote and if their votes are honestly counted.

I wouldn't forget what Carville said about what you call the candidate who relies upon first time voters? "You call him loser".

Carville works for Hillary.So do all clintonites.

I don't listen to him or to any of the talking heads. They are there to entertain viewers, IMO.

And not much else.

no he was NOT making a joke

he only said that to get out of major legal trouble with Dr. Griffin when he meekly gave in

Dr. Griffin is a class act.

Who was smeared big time.

mag did not know all the board doings, and mag did not say offender was making a joke, mag was talking about a technical deletion of a post NOT obsolving (and you can go back and read it)

blame on the offender who lied.