Poll

John B. Wells looks like:

A Vulcan
97 (26.4%)
Hank's Japanese half-brother, "Junichero," in King of the Hill eps. 6ABE20-21  
57 (15.5%)
A stoner sufer named "Tracker," who mentored Sean Penn & Keanu Reeves
47 (12.8%)
Frankenstein's Monster
101 (27.4%)
One of those faces on the Sgt. Pepper album (2nd row from the top. Face #5)
66 (17.9%)

Total Members Voted: 245

Author John B. Wells  (Read 802892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #90 on: September 12, 2011, 10:51:09 AM »

     An awful show last night. Wells has a good voice-that's pretty much it with him. Not exactly a deep thinker and doesn't engage in any substantive dialogue.

      Russ Baker is an elitist asshole, he's Bill Maher without a sense of humor. Everybody's an idiot except him. And his book is just a plagiaristic exercise...everything in his book I've seen elsewhere from Web Tarpley to Jim Marrs to Kevin Phillips to Craig Unger.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #91 on: September 12, 2011, 03:55:17 PM »
Wells is Noory on steroids.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #92 on: September 12, 2011, 04:06:31 PM »
I'm with you, Scully. I think Wells is little more than a deep voice that perhaps might work with bedroom music, but sounds to me like croaking. When he's on C2C, he patronizes the audience and guests shamelessly by taking the most "out there" position on every topic. I think he wants a permanent w/e gig on C2C badly.

I don't understand the erratic schedules of weekend C2C hosts. Saturday and Sundays with Punnett and Knapp are my last hope for a C2C with interesting topics and guests since Noory saturates the M-F shows with New Agey crap, economic gloom & doom, and increasingly extreme rightwing politics. Last night's program was a bad choice for the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. A few minutes of googling shows Hulet is a ranting phoney. Baker is credible, but the 10th anniversary is not the time to go off into 9/11 conspiracy land.

BTW, hello to all. I just found this forum. I've listened to C2C since Hale-Bopp days with Art B and am thoroughly fed up with Geo. Noory's smarmy persona, his utter lack of curiosity or ability to challenge, and his hijacking of C2C to use as a platform for his New Age stuff. Years ago, I lost a lot of sleep laying awake until the wee hours listening to Art Bell's incisive questions and wit. With Noory, I'm usually out like a light by the first break.


Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #93 on: September 12, 2011, 04:53:21 PM »
... BTW, hello to all. I just found this forum. I've listened to C2C since Hale-Bopp days with Art B and am thoroughly fed up with Geo. Noory's smarmy persona, his utter lack of curiosity or ability to challenge, and his hijacking of C2C to use as a platform for his New Age stuff. Years ago, I lost a lot of sleep laying awake until the wee hours listening to Art Bell's incisive questions and wit. With Noory, I'm usually out like a light by the first break.

Welcome to Coastgab, VtaGeezer, looks like you've found a place where you'll fit right in.  :)
 
Wells is Noory on steroids.

Perfect!  Nuff said.  ;D

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #94 on: September 12, 2011, 06:08:13 PM »
I think he wants a permanent w/e gig on C2C badly.

Unfortunately, I agree with you.  (Big welcome, BTW)  I remember him quite differently, and a LOT better.  But that was back when they were "auditioning" weekend hosts when Noory was "promoted".  And probably BEFORE he figured out just what PremRad wanted.

I do so love his voice, though.  8)  Hey, give me a break.  I'm past my prime, so I take what I can get.  :P

But last night I couldn't last.  I changed to music.  I had such hopes.  Sigh, dashed again........................

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #95 on: September 12, 2011, 06:28:13 PM »
VtaGeezer, sounds like you're in the right place.

As for John Welles, my main critique is that he doesn't have his thoughts organized very well.  Maybe that "Noory on steroids" quote fits to a certain extent, but I gotta give him credit for having as a guest someone like Russ Baker --  a highly credible, well-known investigative journalist, firmly rooted in the real world.   Glad to hear that people like Baker still exist.  He's not gonna tell you about "giants." 

It's refreshing to hear the guest tell the callers to not rely on everything they read on the internet.    The remarks to the British caller re the alleged Mossad agents high-fiving each other after the twin towers fell was very cogent and appropriate.

I doubt Noory could begin to handle a long-form interview with someone like Baker.

Welles also should've taken charge of the rambling callers -- thanks to Baker for putting the lid on some of them.

All in all, it was a far better program -- and much more entertaining program --  than what you normally get with George.

 

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #96 on: September 12, 2011, 09:03:29 PM »
I approached the show tonight with John B. Welles hosting on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 hoping for the best.
 
First hour guest was a foaming-at-the-mouth type with poor grammar, and he seemed to be exactly what Welles was expecting.  In fact Welles seemed eager to open cans and cans of worms this eve. He was the gung ho anti-authority bad guy I've heard him play before.
 
Main guest Russ Baker in contrast was the voice of reason for the night. Welles seemed to be salivating for conspiracy theories of any and every kind and repeatedly tried to get Baker to speculate on wild-eyed theories, but eventually realized he had the wrong guest on for what he had been expecting. Baker was doggedly determined that such matters need scientific study instead.
 
At least twice Baker told callers with bad cases of orrhea to cease and desist.  Welles grumbled about that. Another caller wanted everyone to go to various Google sites to find out what really happened on 9/11, and Baker said that was how all the crazy rumors get started.
 
There seemed to be a struggle between an intelligent and knowledgeable guest and a drama queen host. Welles reminded me of an articulate, intelligent, and angry version of George, trying to carry out Premiere's agenda if it was the last thing he ever did.
 
IMHO.
I am going to check out this show for sure now based on what you've written. I am so out of touch with Coast to Coast these days that I thought Ian was hosting this show. Thanks for the update. This guy's voice sounds interesting if you put it in the thread title. Thanks.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #97 on: September 12, 2011, 09:04:18 PM »
I will be going to sleep tonight listening to Art's 9/11/01 show. Why settle for imitations and pale reflections when you can get the real thing, painful as it may be?
I think Premiere should just play that show each year.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #98 on: September 12, 2011, 09:28:55 PM »
What?  He is an antiamerican Kook.  I don't need anyone to tell me not to believe everything you read on the internet..sorry you do.  This show was a disgrace.  This guest was another in a line of antiamericanism promoted by Premier.  Of course i could only take a few minutes of this whiney mental midget and the patronizing host.  I guess C2C is designed for you.  Hey i have a cave in montana you can store lots of canned food and gold..it also has an ocean view.  care to make an offer?

Were you drunk when you wrote this flaming post, mbrown?  I hope so.   ???

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #99 on: September 12, 2011, 10:37:51 PM »
I thought that John Welles blew.  He's got a deep sexy voice, like a Caucasian Barry White, but that's the only positive.  Welles is so right-wing, he's like Noory on steroids, crack, angel dust, and meth simultaneously.  I'll give him credit, however, his far, far right wing paranoia complemented Baker's far left-wing paranoia.  I'm pretty damned lefty.  So lefty that I think that Obama's a moderate conservative.  But Baker has gotten me beat so much that he offends even this Kucinich Democrat.  Both Welles and Baker kind of tip-toed around 9/11 "truthism."  On this 10th anniversary, I found it rather tasteless. 

Mind you, I thought that the Truthers might be onto something before the failure of the Iraq War.  I fucking hate the Bush Administration, etc., and I thought that Cheney was evil enough to orchestrate something like 9/11.  Then the Bushies successively let Afghanistan go outta control, instigated and botched the Iraq War, and then allowed fellow Americans to rot and die after Katrina.  I suddenly realized that the Bush Administration could barely organize a luncheon for five, let alone a plot as complex, ingenious and mendacious as 9/11.  (Not that I think well of the Obama organization, but that's a different story).  I therefore find it sickening and, yes, unpatriotic to even intimate that the Bushies orchestrated 9/11.  They were just too incompetent to prevent it. 

I also take issue with Baker's comments about Libya.  Now I think that Obama acted unconstitutionally when he didn't consult Congress about US involvement in Libya.  I *do* think that NATO was correct in helping the Libyan rebels, however.  I've kept in contact with Libyan rebels on Twitter, and the night before NATO attacked, people in Benghazi were being shot by Gaddafi's soldiers.  It was obvious that a massacre was going to occur.  A Twitter friend of mine in Libya who was running a rebel internet radio station was deliberately killed by Gaddafi forces the night before NATO struck.  For Baker to suggest that the US instigated the Libyan uprising is insulting and racist.  Baker seems to infer that the Libyan Arabs are too fucking stupid to protest their own kleptocratic, psychotic government, and can easily fall under the sway of white Christian US imperialists. 

Even if you are against US involvement in Libya (and I can understand why you might be), to suggest that the Libyan rebels started their uprising on a dime pursuant to US command is racist and ignorant.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #100 on: September 12, 2011, 11:30:05 PM »
What?  He is an antiamerican Kook.  I don't need anyone to tell me not to believe everything you read on the internet..sorry you do.  This show was a disgrace.  This guest was another in a line of antiamericanism promoted by Premier.  Of course i could only take a few minutes of this whiney mental midget and the patronizing host.  I guess C2C is designed for you.  Hey i have a cave in montana you can store lots of canned food and gold..it also has an ocean view.  care to make an offer?

Looks like I got under YOUR skin.  Good.  You obviously don't know WTF you're talking about.   Antiamericanism?  When someone uses THAT one, you know you're dealing with an idiot.  First of all, schmuck, define "americanism."  Only the most repressive governments, such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain and the Soviet Union used terminology like that.  So that in itself tells me all I need to know about you.

But then that's what you'd expect from someone who probably gets his news from Fox News or World Net Daily.  Wave your flag, support the troops, don't ask questions.  You might do well listen to a lecture from Noam Chomsky and think about what he says.  Oh, hell, he's the biggest anti-american of them all, damn.

All you can evidently do is put a label on someone and that's criticism?  Glad my post pissed you off.  I got plenty more where that came from.  In the meantime, get your shit together -- quit sounding like a  lunatic and try to make a point that makes sense.  Otherwise  GTF outta here. 


Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #101 on: September 13, 2011, 01:01:02 AM »
No I wasn't.  Were you drunk when you wrote this?

No, but you've raised a good question.  Is it still considered "flaming" when one flames a flamer?  ::)

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #102 on: September 13, 2011, 04:00:03 AM »
For many mouth breathers Chomsky is evil incarnate. What confuses me about that position, on this forum, is the very popular idea that the government is too big, too inept, too liberal, and too irresponsible with social spending. Yet our involvement and orchestration in third world countries where exploitation of said governments for their resources is quite the right thing to do. So Chomsky is anti-American even though he too finds the government less than effective. The difference is Chomsky doesn't step away from the idea that many of us are only concerned with our individual needs and fuck the rest attitude.

I have the mindset that no matter where one is born, a good meal and a roof overhead is something we should all support. Even if it means our rubber trees and bananas cost a few pennies more. Some here want to blur a world view with communism... I don't know why.




Sent from my iPad

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #103 on: September 13, 2011, 06:14:40 AM »
Baker seems to infer that the Libyan Arabs are too fucking stupid to protest their own kleptocratic, psychotic government, and can easily fall under the sway of white Christian US imperialists. 

Even if you are against US involvement in Libya (and I can understand why you might be), to suggest that the Libyan rebels started their uprising on a dime pursuant to US command is racist and ignorant.
Hey fabucat. I disagree. It's not racist at all. People (black, yellow, white, purple) are motivated by money, and the rebels/opposition leaders are definitely obtaining funding and support. The hope and promise of future riches and control of a wealthy nation is why they will fawn at white people from the USA, not because they are color struck.


Ghaddafi is a looney, and I enjoyed some of his speeches over the years, but I have to say that it is highly suspicious that right after he demanded a settlement from an oil company, and right after his sons started flexing their way into leadership, the West turned on him.


The same thing happened to the shah of Iran, of whom I am not a big fan, but even I can admit that the USA did him dirty.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #104 on: September 13, 2011, 07:16:20 AM »
Noory's pointless self-serving stories are more tolerable than whatever the fuck I listened to Wells preach about.

Of course, this is like choosing between having your fingers slammed in the house door or car door.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #105 on: September 13, 2011, 08:56:29 AM »
John B. lost me completely when he interviewed Steve Quayle last time. Perhaps Premiere is thinking that his voice lends gravitas, but his hosting is very much like Noory's: "Keep talking, I'm sleeping here," vs. tent revivalism, whether it be Christian eschatology or the 'high points' of favored NWO conspiracy theories. Like George, his interviewing is shallow and his side-trip stories immaterial. 

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #106 on: September 13, 2011, 12:36:17 PM »
Haven't listened to the Welles guy, and based on all this, I won't. 
 
I have to say, no one is ever going to bring the complete package of suckitude the way Goerge Nooy does.  Did George finally drive Art to bail for good?  Is PremRat thinking about replacing George with Welles?  Would they do that in an attempt to lure Art back for some shows here and there?  Would getting rid of Noory be enough for Art to want to come back?  What about the cryptic messages from Art on his Facebook page?  Would Tommy and the rest of the bloated staff be leaving with George?  Ian would likely still be around, maybe he'd start showing respect for the program and have good shows again?
 
If George Noory just one day disappeared from the radio and TV, would there be an internet uproar about John B Welles Sucks? 
 
After a series of M-F hosts following Wells, at some point would the program become just another conservative talk show, with Ian Art and George Knapp rotating on the weekend doing non-political shows they liked? 
 
 

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #107 on: September 13, 2011, 01:41:02 PM »
I don't need lectures from idiots like you or chomsky.

"You're doin' a heckuva job, brownie...."   And the lectures?  Likewise from you, jerk.

M Knight

  • Guest
Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #108 on: September 13, 2011, 01:46:27 PM »
George Noory has reached a finely tuned level of suckage unseen in the history of broadcasting.  That, in itself, can be used to increase an audience in the same way that a particularly odd circus act draws crowds of curious onlookers. 

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #109 on: September 13, 2011, 02:09:32 PM »

No, but you've raised a good question.  Is it still considered "flaming" when one flames a flamer?  ::)

Scully,

Thought a bit about putting this on the thread rather than in a personal message, because my beef with "mbrown" needs to be done, but at the same time, I want to make something clear, not just to you, but everyone.

Call me a flamer, call me what you want, but when someone like "mbrown" -- who doesn't know me or anything about me -- gets in my face with some kind of hateful, irrational BS -- I'm not going to take it without a response.  Yeah, in a perfect world, I probably shouldn't have reacted, should've just laughed it off, but you know something?  I picked up on pure hatred from this individual -- and it's not right.  Whoever this individual is,  he was trying his hardest to be a bully and in real life and online, I don't take any crap from bullies.

I don't mind disagreement and I couldn't care less if someone doesn't like my opinions -- that's what makes the world go 'round -- nor is it my policy to "flame" anyone who I don't know personally or someone who isn't in the public sphere -- but a vicious personal attack as was done by this "mbrown" character needs to be answered.   I've got nothing more to say on this subject.

Thank you.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #110 on: September 13, 2011, 03:48:16 PM »
At one point in the wild-eyed interview, Baker commented on the decision to shoot Bin-Laden rather than acquire an important intel asset regarding the truth about 911, even if waterboarding was needed to extract the information.

Fair enough. But then he made the claim that the Navy Seals who died when their Chinook helicopter was shot down later were the same ones who participated in the OBL take-down action.He implied that they were silenced.
Early news reports had it that they were not the same Seals in the helicopter crash.
I question Baker's claim to knowing this - how could he know, except by reading and believing internet scuttlebutt?

 Welles didn't say a word to contradict the disinfo. In that way he's not ready to host C2C.


Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #111 on: September 13, 2011, 04:16:54 PM »
I can't listen to Welles more than 15 or 20 minutes or so -- the voice just grates on me.  He's better than George, but that's not saying much . . .

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #112 on: September 13, 2011, 06:37:26 PM »
At one point in the wild-eyed interview, Baker commented on the decision to shoot Bin-Laden rather than acquire an important intel asset regarding the truth about 911, even if waterboarding was needed to extract the information.

Fair enough. But then he made the claim that the Navy Seals who died when their Chinook helicopter was shot down later were the same ones who participated in the OBL take-down action.He implied that they were silenced.
Early news reports had it that they were not the same Seals in the helicopter crash.
I question Baker's claim to knowing this - how could he know, except by reading and believing internet scuttlebutt?

 Welles didn't say a word to contradict the disinfo. In that way he's not ready to host C2C.

I heard both comments by Baker and I wondered myself how he knew that the Seals on the helicopter that was shot down were on the bin Laden hit team.  That is, unless he has a source -- a good source.     Like the kind Seymour Hersh has.  In fact, Hersh would be a helluva guest on Coast, but don't hold your breath for that one.

The real information about who died  in itself is being held very close the vest, for obvious reasons. 

The idea of killing bin Laden without first asking him some questions didn't make much sense to me though.  That is, unless the gov felt that they had enough info and intel already from the other 9.11 planners, financiers and operatives, etc. that have been in custody and simply killing him would provide the best political outcome.   Which is the name of the game, of course.

But hell, killing this guy bin Laden was anticlimactic.  He'd already won, and won big when you consider all the blood and treasure that's been expended by this country since that day.  We've been trying to kill hornets with baseball bats -- but it looks good on TV.  Fact is, this whole "war on terror" has been smoke and mirrors from the very beginning.  And the joke's on us, as always, because those in power have always known they can get people to go along with their antics, no matter how absurd or insane. (check out what Hermann Goering had to say about THAT)

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #113 on: September 13, 2011, 06:58:35 PM »
I heard both comments by Baker and I wondered myself how he knew that the Seals on the helicopter that was shot down were on the bin Laden hit team.  That is, unless he has a source -- a good source.     Like the kind Seymour Hersh has.  In fact, Hersh would be a helluva guest on Coast, but don't hold your breath for that one.

The real information about who died  in itself is being held very close the vest, for obvious reasons. 

The idea of killing bin Laden without first asking him some questions didn't make much sense to me though.  That is, unless the gov felt that they had enough info and intel already from the other 9.11 planners, financiers and operatives, etc. that have been in custody and simply killing him would provide the best political outcome.   Which is the name of the game, of course.

But hell, killing this guy bin Laden was anticlimactic.  He'd already won, and won big when you consider all the blood and treasure that's been expended by this country since that day.  We've been trying to kill hornets with baseball bats -- but it looks good on TV.  Fact is, this whole "war on terror" has been smoke and mirrors from the very beginning.  And the joke's on us, as always, because those in power have always known they can get people to go along with their antics, no matter how absurd or insane. (check out what Hermann Goering had to say about THAT)
I agree. Sey Hersch is pretty good, but I'm sick of his "IRAN WILL BE BOMBED TOMORROW!" It makes me nervous, but at this point, he's just the guy who cries wolf. Otherwise, yea I agree.


Great post.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #114 on: September 13, 2011, 08:30:39 PM »
Scully,

Thought a bit about putting this on the thread rather than in a personal message, because my beef with "mbrown" needs to be done, but at the same time, I want to make something clear, not just to you, but everyone.

Call me a flamer, call me what you want, but when someone like "mbrown" -- who doesn't know me or anything about me -- gets in my face with some kind of hateful, irrational BS -- I'm not going to take it without a response.  Yeah, in a perfect world, I probably shouldn't have reacted, should've just laughed it off, but you know something?  I picked up on pure hatred from this individual -- and it's not right.  Whoever this individual is,  he was trying his hardest to be a bully and in real life and online, I don't take any crap from bullies.

I don't mind disagreement and I couldn't care less if someone doesn't like my opinions -- that's what makes the world go 'round -- nor is it my policy to "flame" anyone who I don't know personally or someone who isn't in the public sphere -- but a vicious personal attack as was done by this "mbrown" character needs to be answered.   I've got nothing more to say on this subject.

Thank you.

 
Jesus H. Christ!! Did I ever not explain myself well! 
 
Rico, in no way, shape, or fashion was I calling you a "flamer"!!!
 
I was saying that I may have been flaming the flamer (mbrown) when I asked him if he was drunk when he flamed you.
 
Wish you had pm'd me, but then there may have been others who also misunderstood my intentions.  Wouldn't be the first time.  :(

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #115 on: September 13, 2011, 09:19:02 PM »
Speaking of flaming... I was at work last week. I was setting some boundaries with an out of control, borderline personality disorder, heroin addict. He was trying to push my buttons. He asked: What's it like to be a punk ass bitch? I said: oh it has its good days and its bad days.


Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #116 on: September 13, 2011, 11:14:42 PM »
I heard both comments by Baker and I wondered myself how he knew that the Seals on the helicopter that was shot down were on the bin Laden hit team.  That is, unless he has a source -- a good source.     Like the kind Seymour Hersh has.  In fact, Hersh would be a helluva guest on Coast, but don't hold your breath for that one.

The real information about who died  in itself is being held very close the vest, for obvious reasons. 

The idea of killing bin Laden without first asking him some questions didn't make much sense to me though.  That is, unless the gov felt that they had enough info and intel already from the other 9.11 planners, financiers and operatives, etc. that have been in custody and simply killing him would provide the best political outcome.   Which is the name of the game, of course.

But hell, killing this guy bin Laden was anticlimactic.  He'd already won, and won big when you consider all the blood and treasure that's been expended by this country since that day.  We've been trying to kill hornets with baseball bats -- but it looks good on TV.  Fact is, this whole "war on terror" has been smoke and mirrors from the very beginning.  And the joke's on us, as always, because those in power have always known they can get people to go along with their antics, no matter how absurd or insane. (check out what Hermann Goering had to say about THAT)

It was first reported that they were the same Seals that got Bin Laden, later it was clarified they were in the same Seal 6 unit but not the same guys. 
 
One reason they just killed bin Laden on the spot was so the remaining al-Qaeda's wouldn't take hostages and demend he be released.
 
Yes, bin Laden was a great general (great with the same meaning as applied to, say, Napolean, etc).  He took asymetrical warfare to a whole other level, a real game changer.  But if his intent was to start a war between the Moslems and the West, he failed.
 
I have to say I enjoy hearing about the drones firing rockets into cars and 'safe houses'.  I remember seeing footage of people getting out of there cars and taxis in Cairo, Amman, Damascus, Gaza, etc and cheering on 9/11, so even the middle class moslems in these places hate us.  Fuck 'em.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2011, 01:01:58 AM »

...Fair enough. But then he made the claim that the Navy Seals who died when their Chinook helicopter was shot down later were the same ones who participated in the OBL take-down action.He implied that they were silenced.
Early news reports had it that they were not the same Seals in the helicopter crash.

I question Baker's claim to knowing this - how could he know, except by reading and believing internet scuttlebutt?

 Welles didn't say a word to contradict the disinfo. In that way he's not ready to host C2C.

I got so into critiquing Welles, I forgot about some of the meat of the subject. 
 
I remember thinking "whhhaaaaattt?" when Baker stated authoritatively that the Seals who died were the ones who took down bin Laden. I had heard that initially, too, but then heard (as Paper Boy says in his post) that they were Seals from the same unit, but not the same individuals.
 
When Welles swallowed Baker's story whole with nary a peep, I wrongly assumed that I had missed something. When two guys from different political perspectives seem to agree on a critical point, it sounds impressive to me.
 
Baker should have been called on to back up a statement of such obvious implication. Welles is just not up to an interview of that depth. 

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #118 on: September 14, 2011, 02:23:42 AM »
I decided what I thought of Wells when I heard him say on the previous show he hosted that he wasn't interested in talking to atheists during the show.

However, after reading this thread I decided to give the 9/11 show a shot. I enjoy pain.

I'm through with this before the first break. I can't believe that anyone thought turning this show into a "truther" show would be a good idea or at all appropriate.

I was finished with Wells when I started, I'm twice as finished now.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #119 on: September 14, 2011, 04:35:49 AM »
A few other retarded notes:

1.) Wells quoted Mortal Kombat (the movie) at one point

2.) "The truth is like alcohol. Most people can handle it. The weak ones - they get sick."

WOW.

Now I'm finished with Wells, I promise ;)