The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Magda Hassan]

Charles hasn't deleted any thing. I have put some of the posts on moderation as they do not conform to forum rules.

[Adele Edisen]

Hey, Everybody,

One thing I learned in College at the University of Chicago when Robert Hutchins was Chancellor, and classes were conducted by the Socratic discussion method of teaching, was that DEFINITIONS were very important to be understood and agreed upon. It clarifies thinking for members and allows for more calm and orderly discussions, understanding, agreement, and even disagreement. It does not impede the expression of ideas, it may actually broaden and expand understanding and knowledge.

So, please, define your terms. We are not mind readers, and we all need to know what it is that is being discussed or questioned. That may be why these melees occur when this is not happening. When someone does not understand something, a definition (or description or name) may be essential.

My two cents. Thanks for reading.

Adele

Thank you for this, Adele. I truly respect your work, your mind, and your intentions in this exchange.

Please be aware that I have defined my terms at least THREE TIMES on this thread, which I originated. If you read from the opening post, you will see how I have attempted to reword/clarify the expression of my initial, relatively complex hypothesis.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide further clarification -- which at this point would amount to dumbing down the material and patronizing the majority of DPF correspondents. And to be blunt, I do not believe that further clarification is necessary in order to make my work accessible to bright readers who have a moderately sophisticated grasp of this case in particular and deep politics in general.

I shall not cross the border from simple to simple-minded.

As previously stated, I am not particularly proud of the fact that I lose patience with individuals who do not bring the requisite intelligence and/or learning to our discussions.

And then there are a select few whose repeated misreadings and misrepresentations of fact are, in my informed opinion, ego-driven and/or offered in service to dark agendas.

I have created many DPF threads on which I state a hypothesis and invite honorable argument. In doing so I am not seeking obeisance, but only honest debate.

My prose is not always as artful as I might wish it to be. But it is always the best of which I am capable at the moment I create it.

Warm regards.

Charles,

Thank you for your kind words and warm regards. These are greatly appreciated.

I certainly did not expect to cause any more turmoil.

When I wrote my little note, I had no particular person in mind. It was more related to the time when I was a contributing member of the Simkin Education Forum years ago, where I encountered in my reading of forum posts many exchanges of disagreements and arguments amongst various other posters. Like many people here who had similar experiences at the same forum, I realized I was not benefitting from my time at that forum. I began to feel alienated and isolated, and yearned for some place where people could be more respectful of each other and of the important topic we were to be discussing. When no one seemed to be making any sense at all, and I was not learning anything, and could not bring a discussion to an understandable level, I figured it was time to go. Then Jan rescued me and I settled in at the Deep Politics Forum.

What I saw as one problem at the Educ. Forum was the lack of agreement on the terms being used. That in itself often was cause for argument. Then there was the expectation that others agreed with some sort of common, stereotypical thinking. We certainly have seen a lot of that in political debates here in this country, and that's besides the lies and exaggerations.

I wish we could start all over again, with more patience and tolerance. We, many of us, have been through the battles and are getting a bit weary and achy in the knees and backs, and are gettting tired and older. But we should all, meaning also me, myself and I, try to be good role models for the younger ones here. They will have to fight the future battles for truth which we older ones will eventually have to miss.

We all should ask questions when something is not clear. That's what Socrates did. He was a perpetual student, and that's how he became the wisest man in Athens.

Thank you, Charles.

Adele

[Gordon Gray]

The people who created the Oswald in Mexico/agent of Castro/Soviets scenario were most likely Phillips, Hunt, and co. I doubt it was their intention to use this to intimidate LBJ and later any subsequent investigation into accepting a LN scenario. In light of the consensus among Congressional leadership, the Military, the Intelligence community and others among the deep state, for an invasion of Cuba and a possible first strike against the Soviet Union during the Missile Crisis, I don't see how those objectives would have changed much in a year. It seems to me that Phase Two was a fall back position when Hoover, in the interests of himself and the Bureau, made it clear to Johnson that this information was fabricated. Rather than risk exposing the CIA's involvement in the assassination, they chose Phase Two. Certainly Dullas was on board with Phase Two when the Warren Commission was convened.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Hey, Everybody,

One thing I learned in College at the University of Chicago when Robert Hutchins was Chancellor, and classes were conducted by the Socratic discussion method of teaching, was that DEFINITIONS were very important to be understood and agreed upon. It clarifies thinking for members and allows for more calm and orderly discussions, understanding, agreement, and even disagreement. It does not impede the expression of ideas, it may actually broaden and expand understanding and knowledge.

So, please, define your terms. We are not mind readers, and we all need to know what it is that is being discussed or questioned. That may be why these melees occur when this is not happening. When someone does not understand something, a definition (or description or name) may be essential.

My two cents. Thanks for reading.

Adele

Thank you for this, Adele. I truly respect your work, your mind, and your intentions in this exchange.

Please be aware that I have defined my terms at least THREE TIMES on this thread, which I originated. If you read from the opening post, you will see how I have attempted to reword/clarify the expression of my initial, relatively complex hypothesis.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide further clarification -- which at this point would amount to dumbing down the material and patronizing the majority of DPF correspondents. And to be blunt, I do not believe that further clarification is necessary in order to make my work accessible to bright readers who have a moderately sophisticated grasp of this case in particular and deep politics in general.

I shall not cross the border from simple to simple-minded.

As previously stated, I am not particularly proud of the fact that I lose patience with individuals who do not bring the requisite intelligence and/or learning to our discussions.

And then there are a select few whose repeated misreadings and misrepresentations of fact are, in my informed opinion, ego-driven and/or offered in service to dark agendas.

I have created many DPF threads on which I state a hypothesis and invite honorable argument. In doing so I am not seeking obeisance, but only honest debate.

My prose is not always as artful as I might wish it to be. But it is always the best of which I am capable at the moment I create it.

Warm regards.

Charles,

Thank you for your kind words and warm regards. These are greatly appreciated.

I certainly did not expect to cause any more turmoil.

When I wrote my little note, I had no particular person in mind. It was more related to the time when I was a contributing member of the Simkin Education Forum years ago, where I encountered in my reading of forum posts many exchanges of disagreements and arguments amongst various other posters. Like many people here who had similar experiences at the same forum, I realized I was not benefitting from my time at that forum. I began to feel alienated and isolated, and yearned for some place where people could be more respectful of each other and of the important topic we were to be discussing. When no one seemed to be making any sense at all, and I was not learning anything, and could not bring a discussion to an understandable level, I figured it was time to go. Then Jan rescued me and I settled in at the Deep Politics Forum.

What I saw as one problem at the Educ. Forum was the lack of agreement on the terms being used. That in itself often was cause for argument. Then there was the expectation that others agreed with some sort of common, stereotypical thinking. We certainly have seen a lot of that in political debates here in this country, and that's besides the lies and exaggerations.

I wish we could start all over again, with more patience and tolerance. We, many of us, have been through the battles and are getting a bit weary and achy in the knees and backs, and are gettting tired and older. But we should all, meaning also me, myself and I, try to be good role models for the younger ones here. They will have to fight the future battles for truth which we older ones will eventually have to miss.

We all should ask questions when something is not clear. That's what Socrates did. He was a perpetual student, and that's how he became the wisest man in Athens.

Thank you, Charles.

Adele

Once again, the guidance on DPF is not to quote entire posts when replying to them, as it wastes bandwidth.

But no bandwidth is wasted by repeating these fine phrases.

Adele - you are a wise and patient truth seeker.

Even when we have disagreed on interpretations, and we have, you have displayed what Hemingway famously called Grace Under Pressure.

Equally I agree with Charles that we are engaged in a War.

And for me, the battle is not just against the Sponsors of the Public Slaughter of JFK.

It is a battle against Power and Hypocrisy.

It is a struggle with those who lust after Control, who glory in Power over others, who despoil the planet in their myopic meaningless games, who rape - and facilitate the rape of - innocent children to turn leaders into puppets.

Can I clamber into a ring and go ten rounds, under Marquess of Queensberry rules, with these Criminals?

No. They play by their own rules, in their own arenas.

DPF is our arena.

It's not very grand. The stands are not packed. We are at best a boil on Their lardy butts. At worst, irrelevant.

Every day I read posts here that hugely irritate me. Sometimes these posts are but red herrings. Sometimes they may possibly seek to derail the journey towards truth.

Every day I read posts here that give me hope, that illuminate and that serve the path of truth.

DPF is currently fighting for its soul, so I will do what we, the founders, pledged not to do, and discuss forum business in public.

My threshold for banning members is high.

I am perhaps prepared to be more patient than other founders before casting members out of our home, our arena.

But I have a threshold.

My own interpretation of this thread is that Charles pitched it high.

He cited the work of Prof Peter Dale Scott and wanted to use this thread to explore a hypothesis. And right from the start, that hypothesis was ignored, and discussion took place in another dimension.

A Twilight Zone - if you will.

I have started threads designed to explore a hypothesis, to provoke dialectic insights, and seen them hijacked and derailed in this fashion. An example being the MK-ULTRA Iceberg thread.

I abandoned the thread.

But we are all made differently.

Charles has not abandoned his thread, or his desire to explore the original hypothesis.

As we founders have stated several times, DPF is not a deep political kindergarten.

Equally, a child can ask fascinating questions which lead to new discoveries, fresh insights.

I wish I could behave with Adele's grace under pressure.

My parents were teachers.

I have the gene, and some patience.

I know I do not have the patience of Adele.

My instinct is sometimes to bite, sometimes to try again.

Sometimes to turn away.

We are all different.

Here's the key.

Is DPF worth fighting for?

I say YES.

Will I fight for it?

YES.

Here's a plea.

Let's turn our minds, our experience, our pens on the real enemy.

Those who murdered JFK.

Those who seek only Power and Control.

[Jim Hackett II]

Jan,
and all the mods,
thanks for providing this arena. It is no catbox as er... other places are.

The phrase 'Fight the enemy' alone designates DPF as not your brand x community.
Not the norm as political sites go.
The no 'theory and no LN bunk' idea isn't new but the deep politics perspective is.

Once any interested person looks into the case and concludes on the evidence as it now exists that there was a conspiracy and no theory in the murder of John Kennedy, then a world view choice is made.

In this place questions can be asked that in other places would bring down the hellfire of LN debunkers of DP concepts - hence no discussion no answers given another hijacked thread....

Threads will be hijacked here too as we all have seen.

There is much good data here on this site. In old threads and new ones, much better than brand x or brand y sites.
Jim

[Charles Drago]

Jan,

Amen.

And thank you for your many kindnesses, most especially and on this thread:


"My own interpretation of this thread is that Charles pitched it high.

"He cited the work of Prof Peter Dale Scott and wanted to use this thread to explore a hypothesis. And right from the start, that hypothesis was ignored, and discussion took place in another dimension.

A Twilight Zone - if you will."


I think it appropriate to re-post my introductory offering:

Peter Dale Scott's masterful multi-phase JFK assassination cover-up hypothesis is both a distillation of previous research (his own and that of others) and a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts template for post-Dallas deep state conspiracies and their aftermaths.

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3835

Scott's Phase I describes the production of wholly contrived evidence suggesting that "the" Soviets and the Cubans had conspired successfully to kill the president. Release of this information to the public, it was argued by LBJ and others, would result in irresistible calls for retaliation in the form of a war that, in the now-infamous phrase, "would cost 40 million American lives."

LBJ claimed that this very argument was enough to get Earl Warren to head the commission that would endorse Phase II of the cover-up: the admittedly contrived fallback position that Oswald acted alone.

So how did LBJ and other Phase I touts respond to the inevitable, outrage-driven question, "Are we going to let those Commie murderers off the hook?"

I think that the most likely response was something along these lines:

-- Powerful individuals within the Soviet and Cuban governments were responsible, but the assassination was not a sanctioned act of those governments. We'll take out the guilty parties in good time -- without spilling the blood of innocents in their tens of millions.

How else might movement from Phase I to Phase II have been facilitated peacefully?

The bold section above was not highlighted in the original. I draw everyone's attention to it now -- especially to the word "inevitable" -- to support my statement for the record that yes, at the core of my hypothesis are my assumptions that the Phase I story was created to be used and was used in the fashion I describe, and that those who bought it almost certainly would have asked the "When/how will be strike back?" questions.

Forgive me for being a cockeyed optimist, but I never suspected that I would have to provide the following definition to even one DPF reader:

hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.


I failed to declare the obvious with an air of discovery. Then all hell broke loose. And at one point it occurred to me that if the Dealey Plaza shooters had missed their target as often as some correspondents on this thread have missed my point, John Kennedy would have lived to comb gray hairs.

Perhaps if I had opened the proceedings with "WHAT IF ... " or "LET'S CLOSE OUR EYES AND MAKE BELIEVE ... " we might avoided the ugliness.

All of this being stated:

Adele, I thank you for your clarifying, much needed words here. You can share my foxhole anytime.

And that goes for you too, Jan -- and Magda, and Dawn. Despite what I might have written last night.

My best to you,

Charles

[David Josephs]

Thanking Jan for the reminder... I would like to examine CD's post strictly in the context of Scott's work.

Peter Dale Scott's masterful multi-phase JFK assassination cover-up hypothesis is both a distillation of previous research (his own and that of others) and a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts template for post-Dallas deep state conspiracies and their aftermaths.

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3835

Scott's Phase I describes the production of wholly contrived evidence suggesting that "the" Soviets and the Cubans had conspired successfully to kill the president. Release of this information to the public, it was argued by LBJ and others, would result in irresistible calls for retaliation in the form of a war that, in the now-infamous phrase, "would cost 40 million American lives."

LBJ claimed that this very argument was enough to get Earl Warren to head the commission that would endorse Phase II of the cover-up: the admittedly contrived fallback position that Oswald acted alone.

So how did LBJ and other Phase I touts respond to the inevitable, outrage-driven question, "Are we going to let those Commie murderers off the hook?"

I think that the most likely response was something along these lines:

-- Powerful individuals within the Soviet and Cuban governments were responsible, but the assassination was not a sanctioned act of those governments. We'll take out the guilty parties in good time -- without spilling the blood of innocents in their tens of millions.

How else might movement from Phase I to Phase II have been facilitated peacefully?

So let's go to the link CD posted in post #1 - the basis for his questions...

Scott writes:
In Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, I called these "Phase-One" reports, part of a two-fold process. Phase One put forward the phantom of an international plot, linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries together. This phantom was used to invoke the danger of a possible nuclear confrontation, which induced Chief Justice Earl Warren and other political notables to accept Phase Two, the equally false (but less dangerous) hypothesis that Oswald killed the President all by himself. …. [T]he Phase-One story… was first promoted and then defused by the CIA. Michael Beschloss has revealed that, at 9:20 AM on the morning of November 23, CIA Director John McCone briefed the new President. In Beschloss' words: "The CIA had information on foreign connections to the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which suggested to LBJ that Kennedy may have been murdered by an international conspiracy."[SUP][SUP]28[/SUP][/SUP]

After reading this and linking to it, CD wrote:

Scott's Phase I describes the production of wholly contrived evidence suggesting that "the" Soviets and the Cubans had conspired successfully to kill the president. Release of this information to the public, it was argued by LBJ and others, would result in irresistible calls for retaliation in the form of a war that, in the now-infamous phrase, "would cost 40 million American lives."

What Scott himself writes:
"As noted earlier, the DFS played a central role, along with the CIA, in the
management of conspiratorial stories about Oswald in Mexico, including the false
Oswald-Soviet intercept. The key to this procedure, as I argued in Deep
Politics, was a two-fold process. Phase One put forward the phantom of an
international plot, linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries
together. This phantom was used to invoke the danger of a possible nuclear
confrontation, w[B]hich induced Chief Justice Earl Warren and other political
notables to accept Phase Two[/B], the equally false (but less dangerous) hypothesis
that Oswald killed the President all by himself"

So while CD interprets Scott as " "the" Soviets and the Cubans had conspired successfully to kill the president" what Scott actually writes is the attempt "linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries together"

A subtle distinction yet a serious one... CD wants us to believe Phase 1 was about blaming the Soviets/Cubans when in reality it was focused on LINKING OSWALD to these countries... and letting imagination and events run wild from there.

Harriman, within a day, tells LBJ that the Soviets had nothing to do with it....
"THE" call from the Sit Room to AF-1 conveys the same message...
Hoover has been "Phase 1"'d since info came in from Mexico City trying to place Oswald in the Cuban Embassy calling the Russian embassy... and as Scott writes, the DFS was hand in hand with the CIA on this....

LBJ claimed that this very argument was enough to get Earl Warren to head the commission that would endorse Phase II of the cover-up: the admittedly contrived fallback position that Oswald acted alone.

This statement stretches the bounds of credibility... does CD honestly believe that LBJ and Warren, on Nov 29th, were already aware of the WCR conclusions when Hoover was telling LBJ there were still problems in Mexico City? When Warren himself tells us that the RUMORS (remember my statement about imagination and events running wild) were enough for him to accept LBJ's pressure (as if he had a choice) and help avoid a nuclear MISTAKE...

the writing on the wall was that the USA simply could not say there were connections to the Cubans or Soviets without the sayso of this Commission... which in turn was getting their info from the FBI's report... which told them that Oswald acted alone.

When the Commission got down to it, it became extremely obvious that Phase 1 nor Phase 2 were the answer... but that the "fingerprints of intelligence were all over him" and that Phase 2 was the lesser of two evils for everyone on the planet.

http://www.vectorsite.net/twjfk_21.html
LBJ targeted Chief Justice Warren to lead the investigation, talking to
Warren about the matter at the White House on 29 November 1963, with LBJ giving
Warren the "Johnson treatment", a peculiar but effective mix of energetic
persuasion, folksy charm, and bullying. Warren wrote later:

BEGIN QUOTE:
[LBJ] said he was concerned about the wild stories and rumors that were
arousing ... the world. He said that because Oswald had been murdered, there
could be no trial ... and that unless the facts were explored objectively and
conclusions reached that would be respected by the public, it would always
remain an open wound with ominous potential. He added that several congressional
committees and Texas local and state authorities were contemplating public
investigations with television coverage which would compete with each other for
public attention, and in the end leave the people more bewildered and emotional
than at present.

He said he was satisfied that if he appointed a bipartisan Presidential
Commission to investigate the facts impartially and report them to a troubled
nation that the people would accept its findings. He told me that he had made up
his mind as to the other members ... I then told the President my reasons for
not being available for the chairmanship. He replied, "You were a soldier in
World War I, but there was nothing you could do in that uniform comparable to
what you can do for your country in this hour of trouble."

He then told me how serious were the rumors floating around the world. The
gravity of the situation was such that it might lead us into war, he said, and,
if so, it might be a nuclear war. He went on to tell me that he had just talked
to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who had advised him that the first nuclear
strike against us might cause the loss of forty million people.

I then said, "Mr. President, if the situation is that serious, my personal
views do not count. I will do it." He thanked me, and I left the White House.
END QUOTE

Sorry to say but I see nothing here that suggests PHASE 2. If anything it was classic LBJ getting what he wanted any way he could.

Russell to LBJ: "I just can't serve on that Commission... with Chief Justice Warren... I don't like that man..."

LBJ to Russell on LBJ's insisting Russell serve with Warren "Dick... it has already been announced...we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Kruschev and Castro did this and did that and check us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour"

Hoover, on the other hand WAS promoting Phase 1 with outright lies to RFK:

PDScott:
At 4:00 PM on the afternoon of November 22, Ho[B]over told Bobby Kennedy that Oswald "went to Cuba on several occasions, but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for[/B]."[26] (There is nothing in FBI files on Oswald, as released to the public, to suggest either that Oswald had visited Cuba, or that he had been interrogated about such visits by the FBI.)

So how did LBJ and other Phase I touts respond to the inevitable, outrage-driven question, "Are we going to let those Commie murderers off the hook?"

I think that the most likely response was something along these lines:

-- Powerful individuals within the Soviet and Cuban governments were responsible, but the assassination was not a sanctioned act of those governments. We'll take out the guilty parties in good time -- without spilling the blood of innocents in their tens of millions.

Here is where I have the most difficulty with this "hypothesis".... The question CD starts with - which was never uttered by anyone at any time, and certainly not by Mr Scott - allows him to create a hypothetical "answer"....
It seems to me that CD forgets that Scott himself warns that BOTH Phase 1 and 2 were lies....
THAT in turn begs the question... which lie gets whoever was "touting" it what they wanted?

"Phase 1 touts" refers to specific people other than LBJ... we KNOW LBJ needed his Commission to rubberstamp the FBI report... yet at this early date Hoover was still convinced that something might be up in Mexico City

Hoover is adamant about NOT concluding that it was Oswald alone in his Dec 12 letter.. Phase 1.... yet the conclusion of the FBI report is pure Phase 2.

Does McCone know that Phase 1 is bullsh!t on Nov 23rd when he briefs LBJ yet promotes it anyway? Maybe, yet from the info he has he either 1) knows his boys are involved in both JFK and attempts on Castro and needs to protect it or 2) does not know and only knows what the cables tell him... Phase 1.

The fear of revealing Castro assassination attempts ONGOING well after RFK/JFK order them stopped is the motivation for McCone to tout Phase 1....
So what does McCone have to say about the transition to Phase 2? I doubt highly that it included the question, "Are we going to let those Commie murderers off the hook?" but if CD has evidence to support such a conclusion...POST IT.

Within the context of Scott's work.. I firmly believe I have illustrated that CD created a nice, fictional scene that barely touches upon what Scott actually writes to offer a hypothetical scenario whereby he can ask a question that doesn't even deserve to be considered... WITHOUT first naming who he thinks Scott is talking about when he writes "other political notables" or Scott's understanding within this context of "the inevitable, outrage-driven question" that no one has EVER been credited with saying or even thinking.

One should not set the ground rules or framework for a discussion and immediately break those rules when offering a hypothesis... and not accept a request to explain why/who/what/where/when.... which my first post on this thread started out asking... after CD YET AGAIN has to reword and reask the question since not a single person GOT it... even CD gets tired of trying to explain himself... and this post of his was BEFORE I had made a single comment.

I'll try to ask it one moretime:

How were the most powerfulpeople in and around government who, innocent of any involvement in the conspiracy,were told and accepted as being truewhat today we call the Phase I story, mollified when they asked (and Ibelieve many of them did), "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban andSoviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban andSoviet parties be punished?"

My hope is that I've finally found the words and constructions requiredto make my point.

Because I'm done trying.

DJ: Who was aware of this Phase 1 story?

[Charles Drago]

So while CD interprets Scott as " "the" Soviets and the Cubans had conspired successfully to kill the president" what Scott actually writes is the attempt "linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries together"

A subtle distinction yet a serious one... CD wants us to believe Phase 1 was about blaming the Soviets/Cubans when in reality it was focused on LINKING OSWALD to these countries... and letting imagination and events run wild from there.

Forgive me, but I'm at a loss to find a rationale argument worthy of response in the preceding stream-of-consciousness ... what shall I call it ... diatribe.

And so, out of frustration and not a little bit of indignation, I am left to walk the ad hom tightrope. I'll do everything in my power not to fall off.


This Josephs person continues to misinterpret me and vainly -- in more ways than one -- attempt to speak for me.

Contrary to what Josephs would have you believe, I make no such interpretation as he claims above. Is he seriously suggesting that I've concluded that Scott has concluded that "the Soviets and Cubans conspired to kill" JFK???

Really ... I'm not trying to cause trouble here ... but who the hell does he think he's talking to? Who does he think he's fooling?

Further, I don't want anyone to believe anything.

How much more of this are we supposed to take?

Josephs attempts to characterize my response to Adele as an "insult."

Adele repudiates him.

What does this tell you about Josephs' character that, without permission, he would enlist her in his jihad?

Josephs attempts to convince readers that in this thread I am arguing for a certain position.

Jan straightens him out. Or at least tries to.

But Josephs won't stop trying to misrepresent me.

Why?

It is not my intention to proffer ad hominem-as-response. It's just that I am at a loss to account for his behavior.

Josephs seems unwilling or unable to grasp the nature of this thread:

HYPOTHESIS.

Why won't he stop?

My answer, for what it's worth as an opinion formulated without benefit of a degree in psychology, is expressed in just one word:

OBSESSION.

I guess it's official. I have a stalker.

Has anyone else had just about enough of this guy?

[Magda Hassan]

:banghead:

Josephs attempts to characterize my response to Adele as an "insult."

Adele repudiates him.

What does this tell you about Josephs' character that, without permission, he would enlist her in his jihad?

Josephs attempts to convince readers that in this thread I am arguing for a certain position.

Jan straightens him out. Or at least tries to.

Try reading between the lines as well. Some times there is some good information there.

Why won't he stop?

My answer, for what it's worth as an opinion formulated without benefit of a degree in psychology, is expressed in just one word:

OBSESSION.

Whose obsession?

Has anyone else had just about enough of this guy?

Given the deafening silence last time you asked this same question about the same person I guess the answer is no.

[Charles Drago]

:banghead:

Josephs attempts to characterize my response to Adele as an "insult."

Adele repudiates him.

What does this tell you about Josephs' character that, without permission, he would enlist her in his jihad?

Josephs attempts to convince readers that in this thread I am arguing for a certain position.

Jan straightens him out. Or at least tries to.

Try reading between the lines as well. Some times there is some good information there.

I live between the lines. And I am not adverse to finding and weighing lessons about myself there.

Why won't he stop?

My answer, for what it's worth as an opinion formulated without benefit of a degree in psychology, is expressed in just one word:

OBSESSION.

Whose obsession?

Josephs'.

Has anyone else had just about enough of this guy?

Given the deafening silence last time you asked this same question about the same person I guess the answer is no.

[/QUOTE]

Based upon correspondence received at my personal e-mail address, I know for a fact that your guess is just plain wrong.