+- 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 Issue Reduced to Its Essence (/thread-10350.html)
The Issue Reduced to Its Essence - Charles Drago - 23-02-2013
On another "forum," Pamela Brown -- a researcher with whom I sometimes find common ground -- wrote the following within the context of JFK assassination scholarship:
"Nobody has the right to claim without a doubt that their position is correct. They can attempt to persuade others that it is.
If two sides are unable to come to an agreement, they can agree-to-disagree and move forward.
"All of this can be done with respect. Why not?"
To which I would respond:
1. Are you prepared to "agree to disagree" with proponents of the LN lie?
2. I not only have the "right," but the MORAL OBLIGATION to proclaim that conspiracy in the death of JFK is established fact.
3. Would you have me "respect" the accessories-after-the-fact to JFK's assassination?
What are we engaged in, a game of "Clue"?
The Issue Reduced to Its Essence - Jim DiEugenio - 23-02-2013
Charles, that is not being fair and/or contextual.
You are quoting Pamela Brown, an expert on the limo, trying to stop an escalation between Fetzer and Robin Unger over at Spartacus.
It does not have anything to do with the SBT or LN stuff. It deals with Z film alteration which has become the most divisive issue there is within the research community.
And that is the issue she was trying to simmer down over.
And its why, with few exceptions, I try and steer clear of it. Even Patrick Block, who seems to think there was alteration does not think it wise to push it this year.
BTW, although I am an agnostic on this, I must say that the Sydney Wilkinson high resolution digitalized image is quite provocative. I am in agreement with Patrick and Burnham on that one.
The Issue Reduced to Its Essence - Charles Drago - 23-02-2013
If I'm being unfair to Pamela -- for whom I harbor respect -- then I apologize for decontextualizing her comment.
Although in all fairness, her admonition honestly can be interpreted as a general -- rather than specific -- comment.
If you're in a position to do so, Jim, would you consider inviting Pamela to join DPF?
But the comment itself -- removing her authorship from it -- represents an all-too-common point of view among those in our extended community for whom JFK assassination research remains a white glove, embroidered cuff, I'm OK - you're OK exercise in historical speculation.
Fuck that! Our lives are at stake.
Thanks.