+- 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: The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack (/thread-9031.html)
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Jan Klimkowski - 07-03-2012
Here's some Italian for you all:
Quote:[Tessio has just realized that he is going to be killed]
Tessio: [resignedly] Tell Mike it wasn't personal, just business.
Tom Hagen: He understands that.
Tessio: Tom, can you get me off the hook? For old time's sake?
Tom Hagen: [matter-of-fact] Can't do it, Sally.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Greg Burnham - 08-03-2012
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Here's some Italian for you all:
Quote:[Tessio has just realized that he is going to be killed]
Tessio: [resignedly] Tell Mike it wasn't personal, just business.
Tom Hagen: He understands that.
Tessio: Tom, can you get me off the hook? For old time's sake?
Tom Hagen: [matter-of-fact] Can't do it, Sally.
Lascia la pistola. Prendete i cannoli.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Charles Drago - 08-03-2012
Tom Hagen: It would be like trying to kill the President; there's no way we can get to him.
Michael Corleone: Tom, you know you surprise me. If anything in this life is certain - if history has taught us anything - it's that you can kill anybody.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Phil Dragoo - 08-03-2012
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3684[/ATTACH]
And a man in my position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Charles Drago - 08-03-2012
Senator Pat Geary: Would you expand on your response? I'm interested to know, was there always a buffer involved?
Willie Cicci: A what?
Geary: A buffer. Someone in between you and your possible superiors who passed on to you the actual order to kill someone.
Cicci: Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers!
Buffer ... Facilitator ...
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Dawn Meredith - 11-03-2012
Charles Drago Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:In case anyone has any questions about the republication of emails from this discussion thread,
I have just checked with Gordon Duff, the senior editor of Veterans Today, who has informed me
gordon duff 2:46 PM
anything on the internet is in public domain
no expectation of privacy
once written, it is published for resuse
James H. Fetzer 2:46 PM
Great! I appreciate that. Excellent. Thanks.
gordon duff 2:46 PM
and criticism.
Consider this a free tutorial on internet privacy and the lack of a right to privacy, complements of Gordon.
An expanded version has now been published on Veterans Today, "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer
vs. Gary Mack", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/ including more photos and videos.
Non sequitur.
Consider that my free, if subtle, plea for you to get help.
I echo CD's remarks. And Jan's. And Albert's. Is this madness or something worse?
Dawn
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Greg Burnham - 11-03-2012
I find the entire idea of sharing private emails (especially on a Public Forum) despicable. That one is so desperate
to prove their point that they would contrive a false justification for an otherwise unethical, if not immoral act, is
at best, evidence of a cerebral hiccup or worse.
There is NEVER a justification for disclosing presumedly confidential private conversations without first gaining the
express permission to do so from the participants in the exchange.
The argument that "Such disclosure isn't illegal" -- even if true -- does not satisfy the requirements of gentlemanly
behavior. Nor does it satisfy moral or ethical obligations. Launching an ad hominem assault is not illegal either,
yet it is ill-advised just the same.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Dawn Meredith - 11-03-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:I find the entire idea of sharing private emails (especially on a Public Forum) despicable. That one is so desperate
to prove their point that they would contrive a false justification for an otherwise unethical, if not immoral act, is
at best, evidence of a cerebral hiccup or worse.
There is NEVER a justification for disclosing presumedly confidential private conversations without first gaining the
express permission to do so from the participants in the exchange.
The argument that "Such disclosure isn't illegal" -- even if true -- does not satisfy the requirements of gentlemanly
behavior. Nor does it satisfy moral or ethical obligations. Launching an ad hominem assault is not illegal either,
yet it is ill-advised just the same.
Greg, I totally agree. 100%. Many years ago I had an argument with one good firend, a very private researcher. I stupidly sent an email exchange of that one argument in a nine year friendship to another friend. Several years later that email conv. appeared on a public forum. I was furious and the poster's sole argument was that emails are not private that anything on line is considered public. Now, as a result, I am more careful what I say in email.
Dawn
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Bernice Moore - 11-03-2012
Greg Dawn; i agree, if what i take such as being personal information within an email, but what if it relates to research and is re the assassinations...?? just a thought...take care b..
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Greg Burnham - 11-03-2012
Hi Bernice,
I think it all depends, but I still tend to think it is off limits.
If it is NOT personal in nature and only relates to the assassination research, then why not ask for
permission to share it in the first place? One could even give permission and yet request anonymity
if they preferred to not be cited as the source.