New Pentagon video

[Charles Drago]

I will. I would put Charles over my knees and give him a good spanking but I know he'll only be back for more and more and I have many other things I need to do today.

Oooh ...

Up the creek with a paddle ...

Only thing is, I like being the spanker, not the spankee. But I'm sure we can work something out.

(If I were prone to using icons, I'd place a VERY happy one here.)

[Gary Severson]

Boo hoo.

Yawn.

Wrong side of the bed this morning, eh. For some reason I put you in Hartford, at any rate, I know Hartford is a depressing place with all those corrupt insurance companies. Depresses the whole town. I know, I lived there in 71-2 just around the corner from the Twain house. I even house sat for some of those Aetna execs. Seriously, the best year of my academic life was spent at the Hartford Seminary, just wish I could have stayed longer & eventually have run into GME. Maybe I did cuz I did attend some events at the U.of Hartford.

[Greg Burnham]

Give it up, Gary. You are totally out matched. You have displayed intellectual dishonesty for the entire time I've known you, which is close to a decade. Changing the subject is a nice touch, though. It's much more bearable than your usual tactics. Rich was loath to ever ban anyone from the JFKresearch Forum. Even when I insisted it was appropriate due to extremely disruptive behavior, he would resist until the behavior was so "over-the-top" that it was inescapably the only option left. In the 13 years that we were on-line only a dozen members were banned. That's evidence of a tolerant environment. It was not your opinions or your beliefs that got you banned. It was your "modus operandi" that did it. In my view, you either have so little self respect that you care not if your arguments are cogent or sound--OR--you have an agenda that is based in mis-or-dis information. Either way, it is a painfully tiresome, if not pathetic, display of ineptitude.

[Gary Severson]

Hi Greg, Let's see, the disagreements at the the Research Forum, were about AGW, the origins of petrol & the sewer shooter. In 2 cases I took the most accepted scientific positions, i.e. oil is not continually regenerated by some interior planetary process & of course the reality of AGW. The sewer shooter myth I disagreed with was based on a presentation given at Lancer by a Mr. Parker? I believe. You guys took the cognitive dissonance route in all your benightedness in all 3 of these issues. Your misrepresentation of what went on there is what is reprehensible. I can't believe what real estate can do to screw up someone's worldview.

[Greg Burnham]

Hi Greg, Let's see, the disagreements at the the Research Forum, were about AGW, the origins of petrol & the sewer shooter.

Irrelevant. No one is faulting you (nor did anyone ever fault you in the past) for your opinions or beliefs, including those opinions or beliefs that ran/run contrary to our own. Re-read my previous post and attempt to comprehend the language in the American vernacular.

Your methodology is signature. It is of a specific genre. It is contrived. It is the same as that of Ronald Williams and CIA asset Bradley Ayers. Notwithstanding the support garnered from my close friend, Jim Fetzer, by Ayers...it still reeks.

In 2 cases I took the most accepted scientific positions... [snip]

Who gives a rat's ass about the "most accepted scientific position"??? That is irrelevant. Galileo claimed that the Earth was not at the center of the universe, a claim that ran contrary to your "most accepted scientific position" of the day. He was sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life, but--as it turned out--HE WAS RIGHT! So, taking the "most accepted scientific position" is no argument as to the validity of that "scientific position" is it? No. It most certainly is not. Moreover, the qualitative value that you have so conveniently assigned to YOUR "theory" being that of "most accepted scientific position" is arbitrary. After all, WHO ASSIGNED YOU THE ROLE OF JUDGING WHAT IS THE "MOST ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC POSITION" in the first place?

... i.e. oil is not continually regenerated by some interior planetary process & of course the reality of AGW.

Again, you persist in assuming "facts not in evidence" by your phrase: "& of course the reality of AGW."

No, Gary. Not "of course the reality of AGW"! That has very often been the SUBJECT of the discussion. You are either dense, elderly beyond competence, or an "agent" of some sort. I do NOT say this lightly. I grow weary of you and those of your ilk.

The sewer shooter myth I disagreed with was based on a presentation given at Lancer by a Mr. Parker? I believe.

Who cares? This "display of true colors" is not about, nor has it ever in the past been about, your opinions or beliefs. It is about something much deeper.

You guys took the cognitive dissonance route in all your benightedness in all 3 of these issues.

I have suffered you long enough.

Your misrepresentation of what went on there is what is reprehensible.

I have the forum ARCHIVES. So does Scott Myers.

I can't believe what real estate can do to screw up someone's worldview.

I heard that you were a school teacher. Lord God, help us all!

[Charles Drago]

Severson, you are done at DPF.

Your posting privileges have not -- yet -- been revoked, but you are now our official Village Idiot.

And that's being charitable.

You are not welcome here. Your posts are of value only to those who wish to study learning disabilities and/or disinformation methodologies.

When you took up cause with the disinformation specialist "Prichard," you sealed your fate.

Why stick around where you're loathed and laughed at?

Walk out before you're kicked out.

[Gary Severson]

[edited by charles drago to remove disinformation.]

[Gary Severson]

Severson, you are done at DPF.

Your posting privileges have not -- yet -- been revoked, but you are now our official Village Idiot.

And that's being charitable.

You are not welcome here. Your posts are of value only to those who wish to study learning disabilities and/or disinformation methodologies.

When you took up cause with the disinformation specialist "Prichard," you sealed your fate.


Why stick around where you're loathed and laughed at?

Walk out before you're kicked out.

Oh well Charles, I'm kinda out of time to waste here anyway since I need to start my 38th & final yr. teaching at JFK HS. I've managed to teach about the JFK assassination as a conspiracy for much of that time starting with my 1st class back in 74. I have learned a lot in the last mth. or so about some of the more fringe views on the issues. On Fri. the 9th our whole school district has been mandated to commemorate 9/11 partly because Tom Burnett, killed on 9/11 on Fl.93, was a student here. We are supposed to follow the official govt. line but I will deviate & teach it as a USG conspiracy as I always have. It will be very satisfying to have parents come to student conferences and thank me for making their children excited about history because they were fascinated by the assassination studies we did. I said to Jessie Ventura at a book signing he did a couple of yrs. ago at THE MALL OF AMERICA that I teach the assassination at JFK HS as a conspiracy & he said " they let you do that?"

[Gary Severson]

In 2 cases I took the most accepted scientific positions... [snip]

GREG SAID, Who gives a rat's ass about the "most accepted scientific position"??? That is irrelevant. Galileo claimed that the Earth was not at the center of the universe, a claim that ran contrary to your "most accepted scientific position" of the day. He was sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life, but--as it turned out--HE WAS RIGHT! So, taking the "most accepted scientific position" is no argument as to the validity of that "scientific position" is it? No. It most certainly is not. Moreover, the qualitative value that you have so conveniently assigned to YOUR "theory" being that of "most accepted scientific position" is arbitrary. After all, WHO ASSIGNED YOU THE ROLE OF JUDGING WHAT IS THE "MOST ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC POSITION" in the first place?

GARY SAID, I think Galileo was contrary to the church as much as anything. I guess I have the same right to say what the experts think is the dominant scientific view as you & Charles have the right to pull BS out of your arses and call it science. At least I go with the best science while you guys go with the best of paranoid delusions, like Severson must be a disinfo. agent on the weekends & just teaches conspiracy theory during the week to cover his real ID. You guys are some sick puppies.

[Greg Burnham]

I think Galileo was contrary to the church as much as anything.

What? Are you SERIOUS! Galileo was NOT "contrary to the church" at all! He was a Catholic first and a scientist second...until THE TRUTH was rejected by the church. Even then, he remained a Catholic and suffered under their oppression for his having told the truth.

I guess I have the same right to say what the experts think is the dominant scientific view...

First of all: YOU HAVE NO "RIGHT" TO POST HERE at all! Just like membership at the JFKresearch Forum, posting is a PRIVILEGE not a "right" -- But, I suppose you can "say" whatever you want about the "dominant" scientific view. However, that is not an ARGUMENT as to the validity of that view! The Warren Report remains the dominant "official" view of the JFK assassination, but that is NOT an argument as to the validity of its conclusions.

That you are a High School teacher who cannot make these distinctions is terribly frightening. You are at the core of the "Dumbing Down of America" as far as I can tell. That you allegedly teach JFK's assassination as a conspiracy "theory" is even more frightening. I would prefer to work with students that were indoctrinated by Arlen Specter. They would no doubt be less confused.

... as you & Charles have the right to pull BS out of your arses and call it science.

Look, Gary. I'm being kind. Stop pushing for a thrashing.

At least I go with the best science while you guys go with the best of paranoid delusions, like Severson must be a disinfo. agent on the weekends & just teaches conspiracy theory during the week to cover his real ID. You guys are some sick puppies.

What does "teaches conspiracy theory" mean? You're a high school teacher. Go ask the chairman of the English Grammar Department what's wrong with that sentence. It's almost like using a transitive verb inappropriately. It is improper to say this (pseudo) sentence: "I make." That is not a sentence. You can say, "I ran." That is a sentence. You can say, "I left." That too, is a sentence. But, "I make." is not a sentence. So too, the idea that you "teach conspiracy theory" is really idiotic, isn't it? Do you teach EVERY conspiracy theory ever imagined to your students or do you teach only select ones?

To paraphrase Charles: You are fucking wrong...again.