For reasons best known to himself, the person who goes under the name of James Linton and the pseudonyms of Infensus Mentis and Crimes of Zion, thought it a good idea to publish his name and address on a public forum. From the information publicly disclosed by Linton, someone known as Brendon O'Connell was able to deduce Linton's home telephone number and his house number. A 5 year-old could have deduced what O'Connell deduced.
The O'Connell entity then posted Linton's full address and landline telephone number on the NOLAJBS forum, and Linton's personal details were viewable prior to an administrator subsequently editing the details, and replacing some of the digits with asteriks.
The details that the Linton and O'Connell entities made available for public viewing were subsequently republished on this website. Although Linton made no complaint when the O'Connell entity published Linton's personal details, Linton took great exception to me republishing these details.
Linton states that he doesn't have a landline. If this is correct, then O'Connell would not have been able to call Linton since it is not possible to make a telephone call to someone who does not have a landline. In view of this, it is somewhat bizarre that Linton expresses disappointment at O'Connell for failing to telephone him as promised.
What is wrong with this picture? Linton's contradictory statements make no sense at all. Having originally stated that he has no landline, Linton now expands his statement, to inform us that he has no landline telephone. If Linton's revised statement is true, then how does he explain his disappointment at not receiving a telephone call from the O'Connell entity? It simply isn't possible to receive telephone calls if one does not have a telephone. Linton's story does not gel, and something is clearly amiss here.
Has Linton told another 'technical lie' vis a vis his non-existent landline that he uses to connect to the Internet? Has he told a third 'techincal lie' regarding his non-existent landline telephone via which Brendon O'Connell entity was supposed to call him? The answer is no, James Linton has not 'techincally' lied at all - Linton has lied outright.
Think about what you have just read. If Linton didn't lie when he said that he doesn't have a landline, then common logic decrees that he must have been telling the truth, and if he was telling the truth when he stated that he doesn't have a landline, then James Linton evidently has no landline installed at 135 Fifth Avenue. Round and round we go. Linton's opening statement on the issue of his non-existent landline was "I don't even have a landline." Those were his exact words. This is precisely what he stated on the NOLAJBS forum on 14th February. He made no mention of the word telephone.
Having established that Linton does not have a landline, we learn that he doesn't have a landline telephone either. This statement makes sense as there would be no point in having a landline telephone if there was no landline to connect it to.
To summate, there is no landline present at 135 Fifth Avenue. James Linton does not own a landline telephone. It is therefore impossible for telephone calls to be made to or from 135 Fifth Avenue. Yet despite not having a landline, and despite not having a landline telephone, Linton is able to talk to his friend and associate, Nina, on the phone.
How can Linton have telephone conversations with his friend in America when he doesn't have a telephone or a landline? How is this impossibility made possible? Linton explains:
Up here in Britain, a landline is something that a telephone is connected to so that one may communicate with people in the external world from the comfort of one's home. The Oxford dictionary defines a landline as being: a conventional telecommunications connection by cable laid across land. I searched two websites that specialise in Strine for verification of Linton's claim of a landline being "a telephone which is not mobile", but found none. In the end, it's all academic. From the statement above, we see that Linton does have a landline after all. He tells us that he could not post messages on Wake Up From Your Slumber without one. And since Linton has defined a landline as "a telephone which is not mobile", it stands to reason that there is a non-portable telephone to be found inside 135 Fifth Avenue, Mount Lawley, Perth. Round and round we go.
James Linton lives in the western Australian city of Perth, and Nina is based in New York/San Fransisco. Linton and Nina evidently have a large disposable income since it is very expensive indeed to make inter-continental telephone calls via mobile phones. By Linton's own testimony, he could only have spoken to his beloved Nina via his mobile phone since he has already stated on several occasions that he does not have a landline telephone at home. It makes no economic sense for Linton to have a landline and not use it to make telephone calls. Linton's explanation of this landline issue is incredulous.
Neither I or my research partner, Michael Stewart, have ever been satisfied with the totally contradictory explanations that Linton has tendered regarding his non-existent landline and his non-existent landline telephone. In early July, Michael challenged Linton to connect a telephone to the landline that connects 135 Fifth Avenue to the outside world so that Michael could call Linton to verify that he was resident at this address.
Linton responded to Michael's request by publishing the number of his MOBILE phone on Wake Up From Your Slumber on 2nd July. Michael did not request that Linton publish the number of his mobile phone. Michael specifically asked Linton to connect a telephone to his landline. Linton clearly did not want to do that, and continued to be evasive.
Linton claims that we was "naive" to make public his home address. I think not. James Linton can be called many things, but he could never be considered as being wet behind the ears. Linton's problem is his arrogance, his mouth, and his memory. To be a competent liar, one would need to have a very good memory, and therein lies Linton's major vulnerability. James Linton has told so many lies that he has great difficulty in remembering them. I don't have any problems remembering Linton's lies though - I've been cataloguing his deception for months. See here, here, here, here, and here for details.
Michael repeated his request that Linton connect a telephone to the residential landline accredited to 135 Fifth Avenue, stating clearly the reasons for making this request. Linton continued to be evasive, reiterating that Michael call him on the mobile phone number had earlier published on Wake Up From Your Slumber.
The whole point of the exercise was to obtain verification that Linton is actually resident at the address he claims to live at - 135 Fifth Avenue, Mount Lawley, Perth. Contacting Linton via the mobile phone number supplied by Linton would have defeated the purpose of the exercise since any male with an Australian accent could have taken Michael's call had he made one. Moreover, it doesn't follow that the person Michael would have spoken with would actually have been in Australia at the time of the call. With a mobile phone, the recipient of Michael's call could have been located almost anywhere in the world. This would not certainly not have been the case with a residential landline telephone. Given Linton's reluctance to accept calls via his landline, Michael and I call into question Linton's motives. We consider his avoidance tactics to be highly suspect.
It is at this juncture that the plot really thickens. Although claiming to be a 'supporter' of Michael and myself, having closely liaised with us both for several months beforehand, and having never expressed any reserverations whatsoever regarding the veracity of the evidence that Michael and I have amassed and published on Linton's lies and deceptions, Suzette Anne Bates a.k.a. Suzette the Whippette, Defender of Goyim 'suddenly' decided to establish contact with Linton just as Michael was beginning to expose the lies Linton has told about his landline connection. My research partner and I considered the timing of Bates' intervention to be suspicious in the extreme.
I contacted Bates to express my displeasure at her actions. Michael and I strongly suspected that we had a traitor in our midst, and we subsequently severed all ties with Bates a week later. Our suspicions were confirmed when Bates tried to set me up with this pack of demonstrable lies. Bates subsequently published this statement from James Linton then began attacking Michael and myself.
Five days after she had been banished, Peter Sault a.k.a Poseidon - webmaster of the disinformation website TakeOurWorldBack.Com - officially confirmed Suzette Anne Bates to be a member of the team that he, James Linton and Nina operate. One needn't be a genius to figure-out why Bates contacted Linton when she did. Timing is everything. It has made no difference though. Linton is now thoroughly exposed, Bates has blown her cover, and Poseidon is destined for a watery grave in Sault water with no land-line anywhere in sight.
