+- 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: Carry on here. (/thread-8444.html)
Carry on here. - Seamus Coogan - 10-12-2011
Its just a shame JF is now here. Note he has not had the testicles to reply after lying and misquoting me about GWB.
He's a one shot pony. Note this is a positively mild comment, JF will run behind someones skirt and complain.:joystick:
Carry on here. - Peter Lemkin - 11-12-2011
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Its just a shame JF is now here. Note he has not had the testicles to reply after lying and misquoting me about GWB.
He's a one shot pony. Note this is a positively mild comment, JF will run behind someones skirt and complain.:joystick:
Sorry, to me that is both gratuitously nasty and off topic, IMHO
Carry on here. - Seamus Coogan - 11-12-2011
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Seamus Coogan Wrote:Its just a shame JF is now here. Note he has not had the testicles to reply after lying and misquoting me about GWB.
He's a one shot pony. Note this is a positively mild comment, JF will run behind someones skirt and complain.:joystick:
Sorry, to me that is both gratuitously nasty and off topic, IMHO
No Peter JF's use of my quotes on GWB were 'gratuitously off topic'. Terribly so. I won't post her again and I await his reply to my comments
on the GWB thread.
Carry on here. - Peter Lemkin - 11-12-2011
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:Seamus Coogan Wrote:Its just a shame JF is now here. Note he has not had the testicles to reply after lying and misquoting me about GWB.
He's a one shot pony. Note this is a positively mild comment, JF will run behind someones skirt and complain.:joystick:
Sorry, to me that is both gratuitously nasty and off topic, IMHO
No Peter JF's use of my quotes on GWB were 'gratuitously off topic'. Terribly so. I won't post her again and I await his reply to my comments
on the GWB thread.
The growing bickering and nastiness is reminiscent of the Education Forum and one of the reasons [along with uequal handedness of the two boses, trolls and provocateurs, as well as and immoderators] that many of us left. I'm sad to see it spreading her. A bit more civility, even if people disagree, I think, will keep this Forum out of the mire of the other and others. You not scoring salient points, only attack points IMHO.
Carry on here. - Charles Drago - 11-12-2011
I agree with Peter.
Take on Jim Fetzer in response to his provocations where they occur.
To start a new thread simply to attack Fetzer is pointless, in defiance of this forum's spirit, and wholly counter-productive.
By all means have at Fetzer and anyone else if you stand in opposition to their stated positions. But I'm not even close to declaring that Fetzer is wittingly carrying our common enemy's water, and my arguments with him, no matter how strongly I express them, are focused on his stands on specific issues and are offered when and where he makes those stands.
I reiterate: Said arguments are made directly to him within the frameworks of relevant threads.
Have I violated my own rules of engagement? Probably. If so, I apologize to Fetzer and to the readers of this forum.
And no, it most assuredly is NOT a shame that Fetzer posts here. While some of what he posts is indeed shameful, Fetzer's presence on DPF is welcome for the light he shines -- intentionally or otherwise -- on our common enemy's methods.
Carry on here. - Dawn Meredith - 11-12-2011
Charles Drago Wrote:I agree with Peter.
Take on Jim Fetzer in response to his provocations where they occur.
To start a new thread simply to attack Fetzer is pointless, in defiance of this forum's spirit, and wholly counter-productive.
By all means have at Fetzer and anyone else if you stand in opposition to their stated positions. But I'm not even close to declaring that Fetzer is wittingly carrying our common enemy's water, and my arguments with him, no matter how strongly I express them, are focused on his stands on specific issues and are offered when and where he makes those stands.
I reiterate: Said arguments are made directly to him within the frameworks of relevant threads.
Have I violated my own rules of engagement? Probably. If so, I apologize to Fetzer and to the readers of this forum.
And no, it most assuredly is NOT a shame that Fetzer posts here. While some of what he posts is indeed shameful, Fetzer's presence on DPF is welcome for the light he shines -- intentionally or otherwise -- on our common enemy's methods.
CD speaks for all the founders and owners of DPF. I agree with Peter, we don't need this to resemble in any manner the other forum. I don't even know what that post -the first one- is in reference to, what the argument is. It implies something about George W. Bush. What I don't know as I can think of NO good thing to say about this man.
Dawn
Carry on here. - Jan Klimkowski - 11-12-2011
This thread is locked.
Somewhat charitably, I will assume Seamus was on the sauce when he started it.
However, starting threads of this nature is not what DPF is about.