Greg Burnham Wrote:His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

Charles Drago Wrote:

Greg Burnham Wrote:His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

The hugest stretch is to imagine that he did.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:I think JFK was talking about exactly what it sounds like he was talking about. Secret societies. People have to remember just how intelligent he was and how well read. He was aware of groups that he did not join. And how powerful they were.
That is my opinion, of course. That the "subtext" was actually the very core.

He was in this speech attempting to expose some of his killers before they acted.

Dawn

Charles Drago Wrote:Poppycock!

(With apologies to Barbara Bush.)

James, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

It's a process.

We conflate what we've come to know over 50-plus years of investigation with what was known even to the likes of JFK 50 years ago at our own peril.

Again, recall with Robert Kennedy later said: "I thought I knew how the world worked, and I didn't." [paraphrase]

Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles,

I kindly take exception to the aggressive tone in many of your posts. I have already stated my belief, namely, that in this speech JFK's description of "this unspeakable something" is far too broad for "the something" he is describing to be limited to political, religious, or idealogical philosophies and their proponents.

I further believe that overly aggressive refutation of logically deduced or inferred conclusions (be they ultimately accurate or not) is evidence of a defensiveness born from a lack of confidence in one's own position, rather than evidence of the weakness in another's.

Me thinks thou protests too loudly, indeed.

Charles Drago Wrote:

Greg Burnham Wrote:Charles,

I kindly take exception to the aggressive tone in many of your posts. I have already stated my belief, namely, that in this speech JFK's description of "this unspeakable something" is far too broad for "the something" he is describing to be limited to political, religious, or idealogical philosophies and their proponents.

I further believe that overly aggressive refutation of logically deduced or inferred conclusions (be they ultimately accurate or not) is evidence of a defensiveness born from a lack of confidence in one's own position, rather than evidence of the weakness in another's.

Me thinks thou protests too loudly, indeed.

Greg,

I find your amateur psychoanalysis to be devoid of insight into both the discipline you're aping and the "patient" to whom you would attend.

Further, I find your from-the-mount pronouncements describing my responses as "aggressive" or "overly aggressive" simply mind-boggling in terms of the ignorance and hubris from which they emerge.

Who are you trying to impress?

I might mention in passing that I remain singularly unimpressed by your work in its totality -- my subjective judgement to be sure. In particular, there is nothing "logical" about your interpretation of the JFK speech in question. Your interpretation rightly has been rejected by the majority of respondents on this thread, and if I were to engage in the cheap analytics which seem to be your forte, I might note that your response here emerges from an endangered and petty ego.

Let's put it this way: You're as on-target about my work as you are about the meaning of JFK's words.

Finally: If you don't like the tone of my posts, don't read them.

Which is a kind way of saying, "mind your own business."

Charles

P.S. You didn't need the second comma in your post's title.

C.

Magda Hassan Wrote:I don't think we need the grammar police here. And it would be good if there was more good will and collegiality shown here. Greg is not a hostile intruder but a dedicated and generous researcher.