Hi everyone,
I have been a reader of this forum for many years, although this is my first time participating. I just noticed that Deep Politics Forum was no longer hosting the former
JFK Research site. After digging around, it is my understanding that Shelby Dellarosa, the wife of the site's late creator has communicated to DPF that the contents be taken offline. If that is her wish, then I agree that it should be complied with.
However, I noticed that the old domain was on sale by domain brokers and decided to acquire it (it cost a pretty penny). I plan to rebuild the website without using materials written by Rich, since we are not allowed to use them.
I would like to see if there are people who would like to work on the contents of the new site. The plan is to start with basics and slowly flesh it out with more thorough, well-researched content. Everyone's welcome to contribute. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thank you
So if I understand correctly, Mr. Dellarosa's materials
are no longer publicly available. Is this correct?
Why has his widow made this particular decision?
It seemed Greg Burnham tried to involve her in some shit fight of his own. I think she didn't want any part of it. So she withdrew. It is all here on the forum somewhere. IMHO.
As to the domain name I assume Shelby let it lapse or perhaps forgot to renew. Don't know about that really.
Randy, I tried to email you, but I'm not sure it worked. I'd love to help. Email me at
defiorejfk@gmail.com Tony DeFiore
Randy Sullivan Wrote:Hi everyone,
I have been a reader of this forum for many years, although this is my first time participating. I just noticed that Deep Politics Forum was no longer hosting the former JFK Research site. After digging around, it is my understanding that Shelby Dellarosa, the wife of the site's late creator has communicated to DPF that the contents be taken offline. If that is her wish, then I agree that it should be complied with.
However, I noticed that the old domain was on sale by domain brokers and decided to acquire it (it cost a pretty penny). I plan to rebuild the website without using materials written by Rich, since we are not allowed to use them.
I would like to see if there are people who would like to work on the contents of the new site. The plan is to start with basics and slowly flesh it out with more thorough, well-researched content. Everyone's welcome to contribute. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thank you
Thanks, Tony. I've sent you a message.
Quote:It seemed Greg Burnham tried to involve her in some shit fight of his own.
This sort of thing seems to be one of the many hallmarks of JFK research.
Especially of the "so called" variety.
Darrell Curtis Wrote:Quote:It seemed Greg Burnham tried to involve her in some shit fight of his own.
This sort of thing seems to be one of the many hallmarks of JFK research.
Especially of the "so called" variety.
What the hell do you mean by that. This comment above, together with your thread on 'have we come to any consensus after 50 years' makes me begin to question your motives or state of mind here.
Define 'so-called' as it applies to this Forum!!!:mad:
Or Rich's!!!
I know the back story, which you don't; there were precise reasons for what happened which I care not to go into. Yes, sometimes there are differences of opinions, toes stepped on, bruised egos, and infighting. Most often it has nothing to do with the research per se - sometimes it does. As in any group or groups or humans, people will be people with their foibles. By definition REAL researchers are independent thinkers, and they sometimes do not agree with others methods or personality - or theory, if it doesn't match their own to a T. This matter, nor this Forum, however, was/is not of the 'so-called' variety. It is not perfect, nor made up of perfect persons. Human, human, all too human....
Are you, perhaps, a so-called professional doubt caster, and disruptive of serious investigative work and deep political reportage?! Are you just an amateur at divide and conquer or working on going pro with Sunstein? In your ten posts, you're fast racking up a high score on the injecting skepticism and doubt quotient. Is this your intent? If you are unhappy here...the door is on your mouse.
It's known as agnosticism. While I do in fact believe in conspiracy as regards JFK's murder,
I have doubts about what is "truth".
I've noticed few have tolerance for those who don't just swallow everything hook
line and sinker.
I'll log out and will not return. too bad you're such a narrow minded asshole Lemkin.
Goodbye.
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Darrell Curtis Wrote:Quote:It seemed Greg Burnham tried to involve her in some shit fight of his own.
This sort of thing seems to be one of the many hallmarks of JFK research.
Especially of the "so called" variety.
What the hell do you mean by that. This comment above, together with your thread on 'have we come to any consensus after 50 years' makes me begin to question your motives or state of mind here.
Define 'so-called' as it applies to this Forum!!!:mad: Or Rich's!!!
I know the back story, which you don't; there were precise reasons for what happened which I care not to go into. Yes, sometimes there are differences of opinions, toes stepped on, bruised egos, and infighting. Most often it has nothing to do with the research per se - sometimes it does. As in any group or groups or humans, people will be people with their foibles. By definition REAL researchers are independent thinkers, and they sometimes do not agree with others methods or personality - or theory, if it doesn't match their own to a T. This matter, nor this Forum, however, was/is not of the 'so-called' variety. It is not perfect, nor made up of perfect persons. Human, human, all too human....
Are you, perhaps, a so-called professional doubt caster, and disruptive of serious investigative work and deep political reportage?! Are you just an amateur at divide and conquer or working on going pro with Sunstein? In your ten posts, you're fast racking up a high score on the injecting skepticism and doubt quotient. Is this your intent? If you are unhappy here...the door is on your mouse.