I don't make it appoint to compare forums, that's not what this post is about. I am however, merely pointing out the fact that as I tried to correct someone from the beginning, for some reason he would not except he was wrong, no one wants to admit defeat, I understand that, truthfully, I do.
For example, when DVP and I were having a discussion about a storefront entrance where Mr. Brewer refers to seeing Oswald in the Lobby of the store, I was trying to picture the store, now whether DVP was leading me on, or simply dragging out the image in my head, after a few posts he then posted the entire overview of the storefront, the same storefront I was trying to picture, nonetheless, prior to the photo I tried putting up a good argument. In the end, DVP prevailed with providing the photo and proving me wrong. I admitted I was wrong, because I didn't have a clear picture of how the storefront looked, and I was corrected, does this mean everything I've ever said should be discredited?
NO!
Then, I come across the thread below at another forum, and well, perhaps, it's best you just read it yourself.
Folks, I will be the first to tell you, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I will admit it. I will even be apologetic. But, lest's face it, what are we all really in this for? Isn't it the truth? Thank you for taking the time to understand and read me as well as this. I really am not a jerk, self centered, egotistical knob. If anyone ever really got to know me, I'm just an everyday run of the mill down to earth lovin guy who wants the truth, that's what I've been fighting for for years. I believe the post speaks volume. If I seemed a bit sarcastic towards my lasts posts, I have no one else to blame but me for being pushed in that direction.
Peace!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=22717
Nobody should ever have a grudge against them for being correct against the majority Scott. ;-)
Afternoon, Mr. Kaiser
First, so there is no misunderstanding here, your right to stand your ground is a given. Now, without making light of your right to do so (certainly not my intent, but communication online is void of eye contact and facial expressions, etc., so to be clear the following comments have nothing to do with disagreeing with the position you have taken on who went where and who met with this person or that person).
However, in fairness to the legacy of President John F. Kennedy's position on the ill-advised war in Vietnam given by those knee-jerk, blood thirsty hawks over at the Pentagon, it's a matter of public record (whether through his public speeches, EO's, etc.,) that the president was trying to avoid the slippery-slope those no good warmongers pushed him toward.
In fact, the final straw for those warmongering hawks IMHO was the president's smart move of reversal in Vietnam; but where they could forgive him for their own debacle at the Bay of Pigs; and, his calm, cool and collected handling of the Cuban Missiles crisis, those entrenched hawks embedded deeply within the machinery of the Military Industrial Complex just couldn't allow the young whippersnapper in their little minds show them the right way to engage humanity any further.
President John F. Kennedy was a man of peace, someone who simply wanted to adopt the old sensible doctrine of 'Walk Softly, But Carry A BIG Stick", but those no good for nothing warmongers just had to have their damn war didn't they?! f#$$$$@ clowns.
That said, Mr. Kaiser, I want you to know your right to hold your own position on who went where and who met this person or that person or not isn't my issue here with you. Carry on sir. Enjoy your day. Cheers!
The audacity of those %$#%@ clowns over on E Street and over at the Pentagon (Mr. Kennedy wasn't even at fault for their self made debacle at the BOP, but yet these lying treasonous cowards could never cowboy up and take some responsibility for their own inept actions).
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Alan Ford Wrote:Afternoon, Mr. Kaiser
First, so there is no misunderstanding here, your right to stand your ground is a given. Now, without making light of your right to do so (certainly not my intent, but communication online is void of eye contact and facial expressions, etc., so to be clear the following comments have nothing to do with disagreeing with the position you have taken on who went where and who met with this person or that person).
However, in fairness to the legacy of President John F. Kennedy's position on the ill-advised war in Vietnam given by those knee-jerk, blood thirsty hawks over at the Pentagon, it's a matter of public record (whether through his public speeches, EO's, etc.,) that the president was trying to avoid the slippery-slope those no good warmongers pushed him toward.
In fact, the final straw for those warmongering hawks IMHO was the president's smart move of reversal in Vietnam; but where they could forgive him for their own debacle at the Bay of Pigs; and, his calm, cool and collected handling of the Cuban Missiles crisis, those entrenched hawks embedded deeply within the machinery of the Military Industrial Complex just couldn't allow the young whippersnapper in their little minds show them the right way to engage humanity any further.
President John F. Kennedy was a man of peace, someone who simply wanted to adopt the old sensible doctrine of 'Walk Softly, But Carry A BIG Stick", but those no good for nothing warmongers just had to have their damn war didn't they?! f#$$$$@ clowns.
That said, Mr. Kaiser, I want you to know your right to hold your own position on who went where and who met this person or that person or not isn't my issue here with you. Carry on sir. Enjoy your day. Cheers!
The audacity of those %$#%@ clowns over on E Street and over at the Pentagon (Mr. Kennedy wasn't even at fault for their self made debacle at the BOP, but yet these lying treasonous cowards could never cowboy up and take some responsibility for their own inept actions).
See Jim? Now, I agree with this gentlemen. And, we didn't even need to drag this out. If you could only see my face now, grinning from ear to ear.
Scott, do you ever use google or another search engine before you react with attitude?
Quote:https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=gal...dia+saigon :
The War Council: McGeorge Bundy, the NSC, and Vietnam
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0674021983
Andrew Preston - 2006 - ‎History
Undeterred, while returning to India Galbraith cabled Kennedy from Saigon with an extremely negative assessment.
The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1851099611
Spencer C. Tucker - 2011 - ‎History
Kennedy requested Galbraith, in Washington at the time, to return to India via Saigon and report his findings. Indicting Diem's regime, Galbraith opposed ...
An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917 - 1963
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0759528284
Robert Dallek - 2003 - ‎Biography & Autobiography
... that as Saigon's military failings increased pressure for more "advisers" and ... when Galbraith returned to Washington in early April to testify on India before ...
A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0618219277
Arthur Meier Schlesinger - 2002 - ‎Biography & Autobiography
J. K. Galbraith, who was back in Washington for a few days, and Averell ... about next steps, asked Galbraith to stop by in Saigon on his way back to India.
The Suicide of an Elite: American Internationalists and ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0804717362
Patrick Lloyd Hatcher - 1990 - ‎History
One of the most vocal among them, John Kenneth Galbraith, had visited Saigon at Kennedy's request. Upon his return, Galbraith told Ball "in unambiguous terms ...
I know why you are so angry, I explained it four years ago to you on the Education Forum. Back then you did the right thing.... you asked John Simkin to remove
your posting access. You are still grieving over the sudden loss of your father, Scott, you wear your grief on your sleeve. I know I am explaining the obvious to you, but no forum poster, not Jim DiEugenio, nor I, (remember accusing me of being GW Bush's medicare administrator, Thomas B. Scully ?) or anyone else who posts on JFK research forums and disagrees with you, appreciates having to inform you and the elephant in the room, your grief, that you are mistaken.....
Pleae back off, pleae consider pursuing grief counseling. What you are doing instead is avoidance, and you know it is not working for you, and is an annoyance to other posters on every forum you "visit". If you cannot control your continued posting, could you please restrain yourself from starting new threads with click bait titles? The tactic has the word "bait" in the description because it is a substitute for a description of the content impressing you enough to initiate a new thread, instead of posting a comment about it in an existing, on topic thread. Your titles are a cry for attention, especially this one, which ironically is less click baiting than your last few.....
"Has it?"
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Has it been pretty quiet here without me? Was I missed?
Please do not reply, and I won't click on a thread authored by you, again.
Now, Tom! Do yourself a favor, ask everyone of these author's where they got their information to back their story? SMH....
Tom, I also have some ocean front property in Arizona I'm putting up in my book, it's for sale, for you, I'll give you a great deal. For $20,000.
I just noticed the book called "The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War:" How cool is that? And, it's going for $348.00 bucks! That's it! I'm charging a million if you want to read mine!
I'm sorry, please allow me to make this public announcement before it gets blown out of widespread proportions. The author of The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: is correct and I may be wrong, the author says, "[B]Galbraith began warning Kennedy of potential conflict in Vietnam, writing that president Ngo Diem...." Kennedy NEVER - EVER sent Galbraith to Vietnam for a report do you know how to read TOM? And, another one bites the dust![/B]