Deep Politics Forum

The name of the game:

Make everyone look nuts by association.

You'll find it on "conspiracy" forums everywhere.

Charles,

I have not been "debating" LNers at the EF or anywhere else. I don't do that. Unless I can feel confident they are a newbie and therefore simply misguided, in which case I'm happy to discuss anything with them. However, I don't attack them either. The evidence speaks for itself, as you well know.

On the thread in question, I merely stated the obvious- that Jim Fetzer brings more attention to that forum- or any other- than any poster I'm aware of. Considering how that thread has deteriorated even further, I probably shouldn't have claimed it was a good thing.

At this point, Jim Fetzer is a pretty sad figure. I've tried to advise him many times to just post information, without all the gratuitous attacks directed at those who disagree with him. I still maintain that he'd be viewed much differently if he simply did that, but he obviously can't or won't change. My argument there-and here-has always been that Fetzer is merely one of many difficult personalities who are prominent in the research community. Most seem to feel he is in a class by himself, and so offensive that he must be silenced. I just don't feel that way.

Ridicule all you want- I won't apologize for trying to be civil with everyone- including you.

Don:

I do not think anyone finds objectionable the fact that you don't ban him.

If I am reading it right, I think what some find objectionable is the fact that you actually seem to praise him at times.

Don Jeffries Wrote:I have not been "debating" LNers at the EF or anywhere else.

Bullshit. When you provide a public forum for de facto (and, in some cases, de jure) accessories after the fact to JFK's murder, you not only facilitate debate with them; you also support the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and the truth, and thus prolong the uncertainty upon which the security of JFK's killers depends.

Don Jeffries Wrote:However, I don't attack them either.

Of course you don't. Because you don't have the brains to understand that we're at war or the balls to join the fight on the side of truth and justice.

Don Jeffries Wrote:The evidence speaks for itself, as you well know.

BULLSHIT! If no one speaks for truth and justice, then truth and justice have no voice and never will be known and effected. Your silence is reprehensible.

Don Jeffries Wrote:My argument there-and here-has always been that Fetzer is merely one of many difficult personalities who are prominent in the research community.

WAKE UP! Jim Fetzer isn't "merely" anything in the research community. He is a prominent figure whose highly visible descent into madness, whether precipitated by physical and/or mental decline, a sinister agenda, or all of these factors, provides immense aid and comfort to the enemy.

Don Jeffries Wrote:Ridicule all you want- I won't apologize for trying to be civil with everyone- including you.

Stick your civility where you've shoved your head. But first you must uncross your legs.

CD :WAKE UP! Jim Fetzer isn't "merely" anything in the research community. He is a prominent figure whose highly visible descent into madness, whether precipitated by physical and/or mental decline, a sinister agenda, or all of these factors, provides immense aid and comfort to the enemy.

This is one explanation.

Does anyone agree with this as an explanation?

I do.

Although there's a slim chance that Fetzer is playing at madness to set up an even more dramatic move closer to 11/22.

I don't think it hurts the official story if the MSM can point to "all those crazy conspiracy people".

Didn't Nixon have a term called "ratf*****g"?

James Fetzer is bound to get interviewed in the run up to the anniversary.

I'm sure it will go well.

For some.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:CD :WAKE UP! Jim Fetzer isn't "merely" anything in the research community. He is a prominent figure whose highly visible descent into madness, whether precipitated by physical and/or mental decline, a sinister agenda, or all of these factors, provides immense aid and comfort to the enemy.

This is one explanation.

Does anyone agree with this as an explanation?

I agree with a caveat: Upon being recently briefed with brand new--extremely reliable--information (source to remain anonymous) and coupled with my own personal knowledge of Jim, I now
tend to believe he is not suffering from any physical or mental decline besides that associated with relatively normal signs of aging. There is no loss of memory, irrationality, atypical patterns
of reasoning, or any other symptom normally associated with such decline. That is--none are evident OUTSIDE of his research activities. However, there appears to be a bifurcation, for lack of
a better word, between his private and public personas, where the former is paradigmatic of the "original" Jim Fetzer and the latter is manifest with inexplicable atypical behaviors. Of particular
difficulty is the task of one, such as myself, arranging to experience the prototypical Jim for an extended period of time and then immediately thereafter switching to "research mode" in order to
note unexpected changes in memory, rationality, and affective presentation. However, to the degree available to me for such observation, I would have to say that the anomaly appears to be
restricted to the research activities and only interfere with "private" matters if and when they overlap.

Fatigue is a strange beast. It alone can account for many of the symptoms we see. When that part of the mind has been on overdrive for so long, about so much, for so little in return, it can and
will tend to hasten to the end of the fight--even when it is taking shortcuts onto dead end streets. Some of his recent "projects" such as, the "Oswald Innocence Project" might be likened to a man
who is dying of thirst in the desert seeing what constitutes nothing more than a mirage and being told by his newly found nomadic fellow travelers that it is water.

Perhaps we are witnessing a very untimely critical mass for Jim...a meltdown called: BURNOUT

Don Jeffries Wrote:I have not been "debating" LNers at the EF or anywhere else. I don't do that. Unless I can feel confident they are a newbie and therefore simply misguided, in which case I'm happy to discuss anything with them. However, I don't attack them either. The evidence speaks for itself, as you well know.

Don Jeffries is a stalwart advocate of the prima facie case for conspiracy.

The truth is not to be defended but observed -- the holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

I can't count the times Don had my back over at the EF.

Quote:The truth is not to be defended but observed -- the bullet holes in JFK's clothes too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

The case for conspiracy in 25 words.