Seamus Coogan Wrote:I think your making reference to my foray into the Diana nexus, I hear you. The problem with it all was that I actually had listened to your advice. For my sanity I just had to clear the air. Maybe it was an over indulgence on my behalf. I accept it was, in my latest piece while I take the mickey out of the pregnancy angle. I start utilising my interweb interviews with you, CD and Magda about the false paradigms offered by Gregory. i do think that had I not discussed the case with yourself I may well have been in danger of creating a false paradigm myself. Thus what I have also done is add an additional piece to my article focussing on Gregory. Further your comments Ed Jewett has also mentioned some very weird stuff to myself in the same vein.
Back to the topic however.
One thing about all this is I have no doubt I have been manipulated at one time or another. I have no doubt I may be being manipulated as I type. I think we are all aware of it. Well maybe not? I think the difference with most members of this forum is that we are humble enough to admit so. What I find frightening about so much of the stuff from Cahalan and others, is that they seem to believe themselves to be immune from any form of manipulation. This then opens itself into believing disinformation. It's here where I really struggle with the whole quality versus quantity debate. It allows false paradigms to be entered into and debated. The classic being the Fetzer-Mack stand off or the Gregory-Al Fayed debates.
WHAT??? I think you need to read Jan's post again, twice, before you respond. You missed his point.
What "false paradims offered by Gregory"? To whom are you referring. Last names can be very useful.
Finally, puttitng aside all the faults in Hankey's work, and indeed there are many, I will ask the question of you that I asked Jim D twice, (at Ed Forum) with no response:
Do you (and Jim, if you know?) believe John Jr. was murdered or died due to his own negligence and/or accident?
Thank you
Dawn
Dawn, Seamus - there are several narratives at play here.
I was deliberately referencing them all.
I was invoking JFK research, black ops research, Diana research - all in the deep political sense.
So, all those interpretations have their elements of truth and limits to that truth.
When people have deep pockets and expensive lawyers, ambiguity can be our friend.
Dawn - I'll expand in private.
Lauren Johnson Wrote:He's finally starting to test the seemingly infinite patience of EF. They were threatening him, again, with moderation. Tom Scully writes:
Quote:Robert Morrow, I unapproved another of your posts, here on this thread. You know why. You've been counseled again and again. I am going to push for a vote to put you back on moderation. The moderating team has been much more than patient with you, but you cannot seem to restrain yourself, in any way. What kind of forum would this place become if everyone did what you are doing, posting over and over, undocumented salacious garbage brimming with unsupported accusations of murder, rape, and illegitimate children.
And Morrow's reply:
Quote:Actually, Tom Scully, I don't know why; nobody has contacted me. When I post information I always document it with sources. I am certain credible to speak with some authority on the Clintons because I have literally every book written on them. You may not like my sources and you may not like my analyses, but that does not mean they are not legitimate.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....18942&st=0
BONER just told Tom Skully that he shouldn't be a moderator because of his bias toward him.Then offered up himself to be the new mod
.C'mon EF,do the world a favor and just boot the prick!!!!
Keith Millea Wrote:BONER just told Tom Skully that he shouldn't be a moderator because of his bias toward him.Then offered up himself to be the new mod.C'mon EF,do the world a favor and just boot the prick!!!!
Keith - I'm delighted you've found an occasional home here at DPF.
However, personally I wouldn't be advocating "booting the prick".
Such a course would give "Bob the Boner" rather too much pleasure...
Too funny, make Bob the moderator. What a mess that place is, however there are many really good JFK posters
who I wish would come over here.
Thanks Jan, I get it, the public and private post.
Still waiting to see if Seamus replies to my question. If no one is forthcoming from either
I shall have my answer.
Back to legal matters....I need another vacation, this time at home
Dawn
Quote:However, personally I wouldn't be advocating "booting the prick".
Thanks Jan,
And good catch!!!!!!Hehehehe....:wavey:
Charles could have a field day with Morrow. If you put the agent provocateur template on what he's doing he offers just enough credible proven scandal to then make it look like his incredible claim (like Bush signing a death warrant on Perot) looks true. He dwells so deeply in the sexual that he assumes a position that is no different in form from the fabric of right-wing propaganda. He gives himself away with this. While pretending bold candor the underlying unconscious message is they had it coming. This is classic of psy-ops.
Indeed, Albert.
Although talking about Morrow's "positions" may prove problematic.
Charles Drago Wrote:Indeed, Albert.
Although talking about Morrow's "positions" may prove problematic.
Originally Posted by Keith Millea
BONER just told Tom Skully that he shouldn't be a moderator because of his bias toward him.Then offered up himself to be the new mod.C'mon EF,do the world a favor and just boot the prick!!!!
Keith - I'm delighted you've found an occasional home here at DPF.
However, personally I wouldn't be advocating "booting the prick".
Such a course would give "Bob the Boner" rather too much pleasure...
__________________________
CD and Jan in a tie for the laugh of the day. Thanks guys.
Dawn
Dawn mate, Jan's right there's a lot more going on. Which Jan will explain to you. In the mean time heres a link
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...94391.html
There is also a thread here where Jan, CD and I have had some interesting exchanges on the matter. What annoys me is that I forget to book mark it lol.
This is where I hate posting digitally. The tone can be seriously misread. I am a little annoyed for sure lol. But please the following comments are not done in the tone of a man wanting to saw Dawns knee caps off. They are by a fellow coming down with the flu.
Dawn why should Jim, I or anybody have to have an opinion on JFK Jr's death? Why should I have to write anything about it lol. If you asked us kindly to do a piece countering Hankey or doing a straight article I'm sure Jim would consider it. But well, the job ultimately would get chucked around CTKA and eventually Muggins me would get the job. I'm pretty thorough in what I do and whether anyone agrees with me or not, it does take a hell of a lot out of you. Hence, I am inclined to be a tad lazy when it comes to JFK Jr. Thus I would get as much as I could from Lisa and expand on her writings. I would also examine the sources she finds credible. I'd then cap it off having a snoop around the forums and see who says what.
As I have already said in my first post, Lisa believes there are some very suspicious circumstances in it. As a result I concur with the problems. Now to my knowledge, Jim feels pretty much the same way as I do and would reference Lisa. I honestly don't think he's ignoring your questions in this regard. But taking time to reply to questions like yours actually requires more time. Being a lawyer, you well know the more ambiguous one is on any matter like this the longer the explanation lol. Jim's main pre-occupation was sticking up for me one minute and discussing Ross bloody Perot soon after lol. I do think it's a good question you could email him and then have him talk on BOR in his Q & A.
But I suspect his opinion won't be to far away from mine.
I hope this was helpful. But Dawn you would be more than welcome to write a piece on JFK Jr for Jim, if you ever had the time.