A Non-Verbal Symbol For Our Cause

[Charles Drago]

While I have NOTHING against passive non-violence - it must have real meaning and involve real action.

Peter,

Would you please provide a specific example? I would like to know your thoughts on a specific activity, if you were hypothetically planning it, to occur in Dealey Plaza on the 50th anniversary.

The Salt Strike.

[Charles Drago]

A method that won Gandhi India.

"Innocence" should never be attacked in its entirety.

Be specific as to the "method" you reference.

And what, specifically, is "innocent" about true non-violent protest?

Next, why doesn't Mr. Prior share his understanding of and insights into satyagraha with us?

I'm a humble newcomer to the teachings of Gandhi (thank you, James Douglass), so perhaps I can benefit from such an exercise.

Now why, you may ask, should I expect Mr. Prior to be capable of conducting it?

Well ... He is the self-anointed leader of the Planning for the 50th brigade, if you will. As such, I expect him to be well-versed in the history of political protest in general and non-violent protest in particular.

Thrill me with your acumen, Agent Prior ...

Gandhi taught, "I have drawn the distinction between passive resistance as understood and practised in the West and satyagraha before I had evolved the doctrine of the latter to its full logical and spiritual extent. I often used 'passive resistance' and 'satyagraha' as synonymous terms: but as the doctrine of satyagraha developed, the expression 'passive resistance' ceases even to be synonymous, as passive resistance has admitted of violence as in the case of suffragettes and has been universally acknowledged to be a weapon of the weak. Moreover, passive resistance does not necessarily involve complete adherence to truth under every circumstance. Therefore it is different from satyagraha in three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatsoever; and it ever insists upon truth. I think I have now made the distinction perfectly clear."

[Mark Prior]

Well, I think my 4-finger gesture is simple, direct and can be easily explained to anyone.

We all believe that AT LEAST four shots took place on 11/22/63; the gesture does not restrict anyone from postulating that more than four shots were fired. Whether you believe 6, 8 or 11 shots were fired at the motorcade, each one of those scenarios includes the stipulation that at least four shots took place before achieving the totals of 6, 8 or 11 shots.

[Charles Drago]

[quote=Mark Prior]We all believe that AT LEAST four shots took place on 11/22/63/QUOTE]

I "believe" no such thing.

[Don Jeffries]

[quote=Mark Prior]We all believe that AT LEAST four shots took place on 11/22/63/QUOTE]

I "believe" no such thing.

This is a typically cryptic response from you. You obviously don't support the official story, so ipso facto you believe at least 4 shots were fired. Are you playing with semantics here, and objecting to the word "believe?"

[Charles Drago]

No and yes.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert is right about that, Peter.

You and Albert are not getting it, Mark.

Gandhi's choices to wear homespun and to depict himself spinning it were deeply semiotic in nature, development, and delivery. They amounted to profound, multi-layered commentaries on a host of relevant issues.

Your too-cute-by-half, fact-challenged four-finger salute, it may be argued, is none of the above.

I think you protest too much against the obvious Charles and therefore inversely prove the effectiveness of the four finger salute.


Something is better than nothing.

[Charles Drago]

Albert is right about that, Peter.

You and Albert are not getting it, Mark.

Gandhi's choices to wear homespun and to depict himself spinning it were deeply semiotic in nature, development, and delivery. They amounted to profound, multi-layered commentaries on a host of relevant issues.

Your too-cute-by-half, fact-challenged four-finger salute, it may be argued, is none of the above.

I think you protest too much against the obvious Charles and therefore inversely prove the effectiveness of the four finger salute.


Something is better than nothing.

And I think you're nuts.

What is "obvious"?

"Effectiveness" as what?

Would a poster showing, say, Priscilla Johnson McMillan being sodomized by Vince Bugliosi and captioned, "Sod the LNers!" be better than nothing?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

post removed because of poor taste.

[Peter Lemkin]

Well, I think my 4-finger gesture is simple, direct and can be easily explained to anyone.

We all believe that AT LEAST four shots took place on 11/22/63; the gesture does not restrict anyone from postulating that more than four shots were fired. Whether you believe 6, 8 or 11 shots were fired at the motorcade, each one of those scenarios includes the stipulation that at least four shots took place before achieving the totals of 6, 8 or 11 shots.

Folks, this is a diversion...to waste our time and make us spin our wheels and look like kindergardeners; while cleverly DIVIDING us, rather than the purported uniting. I'd call again for people to not play along and just let this insipid idea die - it [like the gesture] accomplishes nothing, but keep us from more important matters. The more I see Prior post the more suspect I am of his motives. Sorry, that is my call after decades of political action [not finger flipping]. How about if we all wear the same color hat?!..it is on that level, IMO. The thread is best dealt with by being ignored. The idea should have been from the get go. Those of you who seem to like this childish prank are either complicit or being had. IMHO. No sane person, interested in our cause, would keep battling on [or prattling on] in this much ado about NOTHING. One who is really in the other camp would continue this ad infinitum.