+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Where the heck is Albert Doyle? (/thread-15588.html)
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - Mark A. O'Blazney - 17-08-2017
LR Trotter Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:You want me to do an in depth analysis of an essay that maybe 50 people have read, and to my knowledge has not been published anywhere?
Just for you?
Are you serious?
If directed at me, absolutely not. And, I never indicated as such. You brought up what you labeled a pet theory, and I sought simple clarification for your reasoning for said labeling. If you wish to avoid doing so, that is fine, and if not for your posted questions here, I would not have continued this discussion. Unless otherwise prompted, specific said discussion is complete, IMO.
I've even tried changing your type font to helvetica, Mr. T. Still can't understand a word you've said. Here and other places. Please clarify your annunciations.
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - LR Trotter - 17-08-2017
Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:LR Trotter Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:You want me to do an in depth analysis of an essay that maybe 50 people have read, and to my knowledge has not been published anywhere?
Just for you?
Are you serious?
If directed at me, absolutely not. And, I never indicated as such. You brought up what you labeled a pet theory, and I sought simple clarification for your reasoning for said labeling. If you wish to avoid doing so, that is fine, and if not for your posted questions here, I would not have continued this discussion. Unless otherwise prompted, specific said discussion is complete, IMO.
I've even tried changing your type font to helvetica, Mr. T. Still can't understand a word you've said. Here and other places. Please clarify your annunciations.
If in fact, Mark A O'Blazney's comment is directed at me, I would suggest that if Jim DiEugenio needs his help, he should direct his conversation to Mr DiEugenio. Mr O'Blazney has indicated that he only understands what he wants to hear, and it continues to be very likely that I will not make such statements.
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - LR Trotter - 17-08-2017
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:You know Richard, I am really taken aback by this.
One, I have no idea what happened to Albert Doyle.
Two, I had nothing to do with why he does not post here anymore.
Three, if he is on suspension, I was not aware of it.
Four, these people here are my sycophants? Are you serious? Ask Dawn Meredith what she thinks of my Mary Meyer analysis.
If you want to dump on Sean Murphy some more or attack ROKC go over to Duncan's forum. I mean that is where Albert used to attack me from. Duncan also likes to do that kind of stuff behind my back. Try offering your pet theory about the TSBD employee conspiracy over there. See how far you get.
Exactly Jim. I was thinking the same thing as I read that post. Doyle has not been banished. He is on moderation. As result he is not posting nearly as much as he had in the past.
If Mr Doyle is on moderation, just how long does said moderation term last? Can he "freely" post? Which forum rule has been violated? While on moderation, can he respond to any posted criticism without additional administration retribution?
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - Tom Scully - 18-08-2017
Richard Gilbride Wrote:I haven't seen any posts from Albert Doyle for a couple of months. What is the official explanation for this? I want to hear from the moderators. Please provide specific details and reasons.
I've been a member of this forum about 6 months and it's been plain to me all along that this is Jim DiEugenio's turf. His sycophants abound here, and that is not always a healthy situation. With loyalty comes a loss of intellectual independence- a loss of the critical thinking skills so necessary for constructive debate. A loyalist becomes no better than a bully when his leader makes mistakes in judgment. And then this here Athenian democracy degenerates into a high-school clique- whose bigshots metamorphose into a modern-day Warren Commission. Bigshots who in reality are just a pack of nobodies, making monumental decisions that will affect the future of all 7 nonresearchers who read these forums, for about 20 seconds anyways.
It's also plain to me that Jim DiEugenio does not like Albert Doyle. My opinion is that this has plenty to do with Doyle's apparent suspension. It sure looks to me that the moderators here, acting as Jim's underlings, gave Doyle the boot to keep Jim happy. This is particularly distressing as DiEugenio has drifted closer to the Murphyite propagandists, and this circumstance has increased his friction with Doyle...
Richard Gilbride Wrote:Dawn Meredith,
You have inadvertently proven one of my points ("With loyalty comes a loss of intellectual independence") by jumping in to Jim DiEugenio's defense, apparently before your morning coffee kicked in. Because I did not complain about Doyle's banishment, but rather about his suspension.
And my choice of "His sycophants abound here" was probably unfair- longtime friends is better phrasing. But the end result is the same. What we have here is a high-school clique all over again. And like it or not you are one of Deep Politics' modern-day Warren Commission......
........
Peter, is that you? I thought we are all supposed to post under our real names here. An exception to that rule was
carved out for Doyle,.... et tu, too? Nevertheless, maybe you are on to something, you hyper observant, uncomfortably frank, son of a gun! To your credit (if you are not Peter Janney posting as Richard) you have called Jim Di out.
I can't speak for anyone else, but you've called it as you see it and I for one can use your opinion as an excuse to cut down
on my own sickeningly obvious "man worship" of Jim DiEugenio. Indeed there is a more praiseworthy being to give me an
excuse to get up every morning and lavish praise on, of course I am talking about our beloved president Trump.
An reliable example of a sycophant, compared to your analysis of the dynamic on this forum.:
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20259-the-future-of-the-jfk-forum/
John Simkin Posted June 9, 2013
.........However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary's Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully...........
Quote:Tom Scully Posted August 21, 2012
..........
I don't see that I've influenced John Simkin to post that Nina Burleigh's book was a "CIA limited hangout" or Doug Horne to "deduce" that a Professor Emeritus at California State, East Bay (formerly Cal. State Hayward) was operating in 1964 as, or was a 25 years long cover for a CIA assassin because Leo Damore left word that he was, and Peter Janney published it as fact.On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2011 at 9:35 AM, John Simkin said:
......
One of the important aspects of this book is that it will show that Nina Burleigh's book on the subject, "A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer" (1998) was a CIA limited hangout.
Actual examples of trolls trolling:
Tom Scully Wrote:Scott Kaiser Wrote:Quote:You are not going to come out and admit in plain language you've been impersonating your deceased father and the mentally ill WC witness Ralph Yates, posting under both of their names, but the overwhelming evidence demonstrates
that you have been impersonating Albert and Ralph, Mr. "Hendrix expert."
Look more closely at the evidence I have presented. On this forum, Doyle is called out by Drew for posting elsewhere as Ralph Yates. Albert is shown to be participating in a discussion with Yates, http://jfk.education/yates/
.........
Brian Doyle - The Education Forum
educationforum.ipbhost.com › Home › Brian Doyle
https://twitter.com/realDonaldDicta/status/898134244769267712
I have had the feeling, don't really know why....that there is entirely too much cliquishness here and so
I have pulled back from posting lately. What do you propose should be done to remedy the atmosphere here?
https://books.google.com/books?id=_uUuAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=peter+janney+mary's+mosaic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiklaCs99_VAhXGOCYKHVYCDmoQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=o'blazney&f=false
Quote:......Well it just goes to show
Things are not what they seem
Please, sister......
Something to think about.:
Quote:https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15970-Dealey-Plaza-September-18-2016&p=113040#post113040
......
The problem is that the entity takes advantage. You post under your real name, as do I. The entity posts under his deceased father's name on this forum,
and, since earlier this month under his own name on the other forum.
Last edited by Tom Scully; 09-27-2016 at 02:01 AM.
09-26-2016, 08:31 PM
#20 Jim DiEugenio
Excuse me, but may I kindly remind us all that this was supposed to be about Mr. Doyle's observations and, I hope, his pictures of Dealey Plaza.
It would be nice if he would post some of those photos since I think it is an endlessly interesting venue to point out certain things.
My favorite picture is from the trestle which overlooks the entire location.
How any Secret Service man, or policeman could have looked at that and then approved the final motorcade route is simply astounding.
But from the latest info in Palamara's book, the alteration was not made until the night before.
Another of my favorites is from behind the fence at the end of it, over the storm drain. Absolutely perfect shot from the front--which is why Gary Mack avoided it in his ITTC.
Last edited by Jim DiEugenio; 09-27-2016 at 07:06 PM.
..........Dawn Meredith 10-25-2016, 02:34 PM
Jim During my first visit to DP Erick actually went down the storm drain. It made me furious as I was so emotional being there and -though it was not his intent- him doing this seemed to make light of the assassination.
Yes I want to see pics too.
Tom, I GET the point. I am just tired of seeing it made every time he posts.
Some advice, Richard....Peter, or for that matter, Doyle....think first, post later.....hope that advice helps.
Quote:The "Albert Doyle" Operation: Evidence and Conclusions - Deep ...
https://deeppoliticsforum.com › Forum › JFK Assassination
Dec 4, 2012 - 10 posts - ‎4 authors
[PHIL DRAGOO's intellect and poetic sensibilities are well known to the vast ... I have reviewed my initial commentary of Albert Doyle a work in ...
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - Dawn Meredith - 18-08-2017
LR Trotter Wrote:I have suggested that it is time to take him off moderation. Yes he can post on any matter he desires.Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:You know Richard, I am really taken aback by this.
One, I have no idea what happened to Albert Doyle.
Two, I had nothing to do with why he does not post here anymore.
Three, if he is on suspension, I was not aware of it.
Four, these people here are my sycophants? Are you serious? Ask Dawn Meredith what she thinks of my Mary Meyer analysis.
If you want to dump on Sean Murphy some more or attack ROKC go over to Duncan's forum. I mean that is where Albert used to attack me from. Duncan also likes to do that kind of stuff behind my back. Try offering your pet theory about the TSBD employee conspiracy over there. See how far you get.
Exactly Jim. I was thinking the same thing as I read that post. Doyle has not been banished. He is on moderation. As result he is not posting nearly as much as he had in the past.
If Mr Doyle is on moderation, just how long does said moderation term last? Can he "freely" post? Which forum rule has been violated? While on moderation, can he respond to any posted criticism without additional administration retribution?
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - Richard Gilbride - 21-08-2017
Jim,
My apologies if you have been offended by my harsh language, but nothing concerning you has been written in spite, and this is no time to worry about being polite. I would be just as ferocious with Larry Hancock, but have been denied that opportunity by that Bolshevik Murphyite, James Gordon. There is a cancer on the body politic of the research community- Murphyism- and it has metastasized right into its brain. And at this critical juncture an intervention is called for, in order to prevent widespread and lasting insanity.
My Depository research has made much progress since 2009's The Elevator Escape Theory that I sent you, and it does not seem to me that you have familiarized yourself with my 2015 essay Inside Job. It behooves you to study pp. 26-36, Eternal Return: The Lunchroom Encounter Re-examined, at http://www.jfkinsidejob.com; there you will find a tightly-knit argument against the hypothesis that the lunchroom incident was a hoax. And that argument is even more tightly-wrapped today in 2017, and I have recently laid out its bullet-points in the current thread you started.
Early in that thread you made a bogus appeal to authority, Hancock et al., to help justify your endorsement of Bart Kamp's essay. And you were eerily reminiscent of Arlen Specter, when he explained that "These are honorable men. They wouldn't lie to you." What special qualifications do Hancock et al. have to recommend for us what to believe as regards the lunchroom incident? The sum total of their qualifications on that is next to nothing.
Doyle called you out as regards Kamp's pimping of the PrayerMan theory, and shortly thereafter got suspended. Because you had insisted that Kamp was just trying to show us "whether or not [Oswald] was on the 1st floor eating his lunch as the motorcade went by". But with Kamp you get a two-fer - believe the gobbledygook about PrayerMan, you have a better chance of falling for the gobbedygook about the lunchroom hoax. That strategy had been successful in 1963, suspecting that Oswald killed Tippit so he must have killed JFK. And you are kidding yourself if you think that you had nothing to do with Doyle's suspension. That episode of friction was simply the straw that broke the camel's back, and one of the thug moderators here stepped in to silence him and save you the embarrassment of being shown to have so obviously been deceiving yourself.
You have been off the beam with your reads on Baker (like a quarterback reads) and that is not going to correct itself overnight. I cited two examples in the lunchroom thread. I've also seen you ballyhoo his interview in First Day Evidence a couple of times, and reproduce that here:
"The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing that seemed out of the ordinary, so I started back to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened, I was limited in what I could legally do."
This interview with Sheriff Jim Bowles, apparently during the mid-70's, gives us nothing damning about the actual sequence of events. Baker may have interjected the statement about the freight elevators as an afterthought, realizing that he'd forgotten to include it and that Bowles was familiar with the story anyways. Or he may have simply remembered it haphazardly due to the elapsed years, or recounted it haphazardly since he'd done it enough times. I am not required to know the correct answer as to why Baker jumbled the sequence of events- only to be reasonable about it. This interview is just another nothing-burger.
Item by item, unable to see the forest for the trees, the Murphyites leap right off the cliff, jumping to the conclusion that the item should be interpreted as indicative of a hoax- that the lunchroom event was totally make-believe. Without considering that there was a more mundane explanation for every step of the way, for this was a dirty murder investigated by a dirty police department, where there was bound to be tons of ambiguity. And the hoaxers have to drastically contort evidence in order to make it fit into their scenario.
Right off the top of my head- they have no justification for contending that Truly & Baker lingered in the front lobby; they completely invert Carolyn Arnold's story, contending that she lied to Earl Golz; they have to discombobulate Holmes' testimony, or invent some fiction to discredit him; the mini-conspiracy required to sustain the hoax is stupidly large.
This fruitless, plastic tree of a hypothesis will not yield anything better than Ira Trantham's 1978 HSCA statement, which tells us:
"By this time they were joined by Jerry Hill and he and Hill went inside. Hill continued upstairs and an officer W.H. Denham (#7140 DPD) approached him with a prisoner. Advised this suspect had been observed "acting suspiciously" on the third floor without a reasonable explanation for being up there."
But when you doublecheck this against Trantham's report in the 1964 Decker Exhibit (XIX p. 517) and film footage of Larry Florer's arrest, you may safely conclude that Trantham's 1978 memory was a completely mangled mess.
All the voluminous searches through the Mary Ferrell Archives have not produced anything that better correlates to the hoax hypothesis. And the chances are next to nil that anything similar will turn up in the documents yet-to-be-released. This was a clunker of a hypothesis, and it's time for its proponents to admit defeat. By the way, that Dictabelt containing Truly's deletion is about Jack Dougherty, since it was right in the middle of a characterization of Dougherty that the solitary deletion occurred.
I am Sean Murphy's harshest critic, but where is the respect shown by those who treat him like Quetzalcoatl? Doesn't that more resemble the respect shown by trained seals? Where is my disrespect in providing him with scholarly feedback? Is that not, in this business, the highest form of respect? It is because it's grown way out of control, to cult status- which is unhealthy in itself, in the extreme- that I must tear into him with restrained ferocity. Murphyism has a very close parallel with the pandemonium created by The Sorceror's Apprentice in the 1940 Disney classic Fantasia.
******************************************************
This part of the battle has been won. For we can now state, with a very high degree of certainty, that during the shooting Oswald was in the 2nd-floor lunchroom. This is perhaps the most critical puzzle piece to that House of Mystery we know as the Texas School Book Depository. What a remarkable achievement if the research community could all get on the same page about this and unite around that one simple fact.
The losers in this long struggle- to ascertain Oswald's whereabouts, while the assassination was in progress- should take consolation in the knowledge that their role in opposition has helped hew this selfsame cornerstone that we lay into the foundation of the conspiracy community. And they need to let go of their belief systems, which have been a process arrived at over time, and that process of letting go also takes time.
Those beliefs only add to the haystack of misinformation which surrounds this JFK case, and they will not survive passage into the future- not to 2025, nor 2020, nor even much beyond the coming winter of 2018.
Not on my watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3LFML_pxlY
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - Jim DiEugenio - 21-08-2017
This is one of the problems i have with this field. For many people, this is not a research endeavor. Its a quasi religious Crusade, comparable to the misguided Children's Crusade of the middle ages.
Doyle PM'd me on this subject a couple of days ago. He also tried to dump a guilt trip on me, that somehow I was in some way responsible for his being placed on moderation.
No sale to him. No sale to you.
Bart's article was a good piece of mostly new research about the lunchroom encounter. An event that had become something of a shibboleth with JFK books and research. I began to question this event when I discovered Baker's first day affidavit. It was mentioned at length by Weisberg in Whitewash 2, and so I found it online at the Dallas Archives. I wrote four pages about it in Reclaiming Parkland. (See pages 216-220) I stand by what I wrote.
But Bart brought in many new sources of information about the event. That article has one of the highest ratings ever recorded at Kennedysandking.com. Something like 19 five stars. Which is the opposite of an appeal to authority. Its approval from the public. There is not anything in that article as edited that refers to PM. And for you to say that somehow if you like the article its like the WC saying "well, if Oswald killed JFK he killed Tippit", because you have to buy PM also ,that is such a loopy stretch that it shows how obsessed you and Doyle have become with Sean Murphy's ideas.
I have not posted on the lunch room encounter thread here in ages. And I don't ever plan on doing so. I have not posted on the PM matter over at EF in ages. And I don't plan on doing so. And I have stated why. Because the arguments have become so polarized and so angry that I don't see any point in taking part. It would be like arguing whether the Zapruder film has been altered with Lifton and Groden. What would be the point? None that I can see.
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - LR Trotter - 23-08-2017
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:This is one of the problems i have with this field. For many people, this is not a research endeavor. Its a quasi religious Crusade, comparable to the misguided Children's Crusade of the middle ages.
Doyle PM'd me on this subject a couple of days ago. He also tried to dump a guilt trip on me, that somehow I was in some way responsible for his being placed on moderation.
No sale to him. No sale to you.
Bart's article was a good piece of mostly new research about the lunchroom encounter. An event that had become something of a shibboleth with JFK books and research. I began to question this event when I discovered Baker's first day affidavit. It was mentioned at length by Weisberg in Whitewash 2, and so I found it online at the Dallas Archives. I wrote four pages about it in Reclaiming Parkland. (See pages 216-220) I stand by what I wrote.
But Bart brought in many new sources of information about the event. That article has one of the highest ratings ever recorded at Kennedysandking.com. Something like 19 five stars. Which is the opposite of an appeal to authority. Its approval from the public. There is not anything in that article as edited that refers to PM. And for you to say that somehow if you like the article its like the WC saying "well, if Oswald killed JFK he killed Tippit", because you have to buy PM also ,that is such a loopy stretch that it shows how obsessed you and Doyle have become with Sean Murphy's ideas.
I have not posted on the lunch room encounter thread here in ages. And I don't ever plan on doing so. I have not posted on the PM matter over at EF in ages. And I don't plan on doing so. And I have stated why. Because the arguments have become so polarized and so angry that I don't see any point in taking part. It would be like arguing whether the Zapruder film has been altered with Lifton and Groden. What would be the point? None that I can see.
I am somewhat confused by, at least part of, this post. Plainly stated, the statement, "There is not anything in that article as edited that refers to PM", if as indicated, a reference to the BartKamp article, ANATOMY OF THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM ENCOUNTER, said statement appears to me to be incorrect.
Previously, in the DPF Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter thread, there was an ongoing discussion, and Albert Doyle posted some information found in the article, regarding a picture/still of the TSBD doorway, and the picture had the numbers 1,2 & 3, above the heads of three images, and a reference was made to number 1 as being PM/LHO. And, after reading the posts, as well as the recent post by RichardGilbride, I looked for myself, and found said picture on page 29 of the article, with the notation referencing PM/LHO on page 28.
​So, to me it appears as though the article does include a reference to the PM theory, indicating LHO as PM, at least as edited when I read/viewed said reference, which causes me to conclude, as concluded also by Mr Gilbride, that Mr Doyle was correct about said reference. And, I believe confirmation can be found on the Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter thread page 5, post #44, that appears to be part a series of posts in a discussion.
As I acknowledge that the Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter thread was created to support dispute of the encounter occurrence, although, and especially since, I do not agree with said dispute, I do seek accurate understanding of statements as expressed, that pertain to the events of 11/22/'63 in and/or near the TSBD Building/DealeyPlaza, in Dallas, TX.
Mostly though, I am hopeful that said discussion did not enhance any reasoning for the administrative moderation placed on Mr Doyle's posting on DPF.
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - Richard Gilbride - 24-08-2017
Larry is on the same wavelength as me, and my post contains a repetition of some of his information, as I composed it while he was composing his.
On April 17 Jim DiEugenio wrote in post #29 of the Second Floor Lunchroom thread:
"Bart's essay is not about whether or not Oswald is out front in the portal. It is about whether or not he was on the first floor eating his lunch as the motorcade went by the building. I don't know how anyone can misconstrue that point. Bart makes a good case he was."
On p. 29 of Kamp's essay, Bart shows the Wiegman frame and puts a number 1 above PrayerMan. And on the previous page he states:
"In case you were wondering who is below No. 1 that is PrayerMan who is Lee Oswald."
What Jim DiEugenio inexplicably fails to realize is- once Kamp identifies PrayerMan as being Oswald, his Lunchroom essay then becomes a PrayerMan essay. This has already been proven on April 18 by Albert Doyle in post #44 of the Lunchroom thread. And the moderator Lauren Johnson failed in his responsibilities, claiming that Kamp & DiEugenio weren't "arguing that LHO is on the front porch"- but they were doing exactly that.
What DiEugenio & Johnson inexplicably fail to comprehend is a basic fact- once you prove that Kamp is using his essay to claim that Oswald is PrayerMan, then the essay can't be used to impartially study the question of whether Oswald was on the 1st floor, or 2nd floor, during the shooting. Once Kamp places Oswald as PrayerMan he is committing to Oswald's position on the Depository landing. And Doyle tried to explain this to Johnson but got put on unexplained moderation. And the result was that DiEugenio's wrong information was protected, but Doyle's correct information was punished.
Rule #13 of the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT in the Code of Etiquette states that "All members, including DPF moderators and founders, shall receive identical treatment from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed rules of engagement."
In the very first paragraph of this thread I asked for specific details and reasons, i.e. the official explanation for Doyle's suspension. No answer has been provided, and it doesn't need to be provided at this point in time. Because DPF members are not accorded identical treatment, and the dice here are weighed in favor of Jim DiEugenio. That behavior must refine itself, if we are to continue the tradition here of vigorous but impartial discussion of the assassination.
*****************************************
I own copies of the relatively rare Whitewash and Whitewash II. Nowhere in the relevant pp. 36-38 of the former, nor the Baker's Dozen
chapter of the latter, is there even a remote suggestion that a lunchroom hoax occurred. Author Harold Weisberg railed about the traditional problem with Baker- the timing of his movements as compared to that of the alleged sniper, Oswald.
A Groden-Lifton comparison is not appropriate to my complaint with Kamp. Because we are not at loggerheads like them- Kamp did not even address my cogent arguments negating the very idea that a hoax occurred.
Imagine you found new evidence about fairies & elves- ignoring the accounts of witnesses who saw the neighborhood photographer snapping pictures of children in costume, who must have made double-exposures. You don't want to hear about that, because fairies & elves gets more hits at your website.
No one has put more time, energy and effort into the lunchroom evidence than myself. And you could get together with Kamp, Murphy and the whole ROKC team and you will not be able to put together an argument which refutes mine- one that is cogent, rational and honors the evidence. The hoax hypothesis has been eviscerated, and I shall soon be slurping on its entrails.
And the reader should understand that you & the whole ROKC gang & several unnamed JFK heavyweights have lost​ the wider debate going on here- the lunchroom incident happened, and PrayerMan isn't Oswald. There's no shortage of duncecaps to pass out in this caper.
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - LR Trotter - 24-08-2017
I don't know about the same wavelength, more than likely a case of me sneaking into the caboose for a ride along on the same train of thought.