Who Are: Mack, Perry, Russo, Zaid, Loomis, Pozner, McAdams, et al.?!

[Charles Drago]

Don't run off.

No one is trying to silence you. You are free to continue to promote the Greer-did-it hypothesis; take your best shots, and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm going so far as to set up a thread dedicated to no-holds-barred discussions of poster motivations. No subject is banned here. No words are banned. Rather, most refined intellectual, academic, and behaviorial standards are encouraged.

We'd all benefit from an explantion of your reasons for leaving.

CD

[Magda Hassan]

And besides there's plenty more than just Greer/DiEugenio/etc. to discuss here.

[Charles Drago]

And I might add that not only do I permit exposes of posting disinformation agents ... I insist upon them.

In the proper thread.

[Peter Presland]

Well I for one will be VERY sorry to see Paul go. I have never detected any personal animosity in his posts and consider it unfortunate that others apparently have.

He has become one of only a few here whose posts I always read because, in my judgement, they are uniformly knowledgeable, thoughtful and well argued.

I have refrained from commenting on the JFK - Greer issue because I know my limitations when it comes to the detail of competing strands of motive, method, cover-up, disinfo etc. and prefer to remain silent unless I believe I have something useful to offer. That said, it seems to me that Paul has been somewhat 'ganged up on'. I found all his posts on this topic useful. They have not moved me to embrace the 'Greer did it' hypothesis but as far as I am concerned it should be allowed to remain an open question that can at least be debated on a forum like this.

Like Paul, I am congenitally wary of anything that smacks of easy consensus.

Paul, if you do move on, please PM me as to where so I can touch base occasionally. I value your insights.

[Magda Hassan]

I agree Peter. I too would be sorry to see Paul leave. I hope, Paul, that you will reconsider this decision. I haven't got anything to contribute to the Greer thread which is also my reason for not posting there. But Paul has always contributed a wide variety of interesting posts not just about JFK matters. I hope you continue to post here. Please feel free to PM me if there is anything you want to discuss with me. Anyone else for that matter also.

[Charles Drago]

Well I for one will be VERY sorry to see Paul go. I have never detected any personal animosity in his posts and consider it unfortunate that others apparently have.

So will I. Speaking for myself, in terms of personal animus I neither detected any from nor projected any toward Paul.

[Pauls posts] are uniformly knowledgeable, thoughtful and well argued.

With the exception of the Greer-did-it myth, I agree.

t seems to me that Paul has been somewhat 'ganged up on'.

On this point, Peter, we must disagree. Many of us voiced our strong objections to Paul's Greer-did-it hypothesis, and in fact I'm confident that, in doing so, we demolished it. But "ganging up" implies a concerted effort to bully, and I assure you that no such action was contemplated, let alone initiated.

I found all his posts on this topic useful. They have not moved me to embrace the 'Greer did it' hypothesis but as far as I am concerned it should be allowed to remain an open question that can at least be debated on a forum like this.

I agree that all of the Greer-did-it posts were useful indeed as they opened the door to revelation. And of course discussion on this topic never will be banned from the Deep Politics Forum.

However, just as the official Oswald-did-it cover story is no longer an "open question" but rather a clearly established fabrication, so too is Paul's pet theory revealed to be incorrect -- at the very least.

Like Paul, I am congenitally wary of anything that smacks of easy consensus.

Agreed.

Oops.

[Dawn Meredith]

So I guess it comes down to I am the bad guy here. Ok perhaps my response was overly harsh. I too don't wish to see Paul leave and in the past I always enjoyed his posts. But I felt personally attacked. All I did was pass on an invitation from Jim Di to have a further excahnge on the subject OFF this forum. It is Jim's choice to post or not to post, on any forum.

Anyone who knows me know the length I actually go to avoid getting into fights with people. And so f I probably should have let that post go. It was a hair trigger response on my part. And totally unlike me.
So, for the record I will no longer post for anyone. I will post articles but not
someone's emails. It seems to me that the issue here is between Jim and Paul and I was PUT in the middle. However I do not blame Jim, all he did was ask me to invite a personal discussion via email. Therefore I PM'd Paul making said offer. Paul started the name calling here. I apologise for the f word and calling him a loon. In my defense all I can say is that I am very loyal to friends. Bob Groden is a longtime friend and someone I very much admire. So when I saw him lumped in with Mack, after Paul repeatedly called me Bill MIller and a proxy, I saw red. For the record I happen to like Bill Miller too but saw him referred to as a proxy for Mack and even REALLY Mack at Ef many times. But all I did was pass on an invitation to email. To say he'd not engage in any private conversation with me AS A RESULT was rather over the top and I reacted.
So I am apologizing for my part in this.
Dawn

[Myra Bronstein]

...
So I am apologizing for my part in this.
Dawn

That's very classy of you Dawn. I'm reading this all after the fact (because I've been cryogenically frozen) and you were clearly provoked.

Dunno what's going on with Paul but we all have our flash points and bad days (or weeks or months...) so I hope that's all it was 'cause we need him on the case.

[Peter Presland]

..... we all have our flash points and bad days (or weeks or months...) so I hope that's all it was 'cause we need him on the case.

Just to added to that briefly.

Members will recall that Paul started the "Suspicion in Plenty: An anthology of scepticism published in Britain 1963-1973" thread back in April. He posted a vast amount of factual data to it, mainly in the form of British newspaper reports. Much of that stuff - in fact most of I'd guess - is simply not available online anywhere else. As I recall there was very little comment on the thread at the time - although Charles did put in a major 'Thank you' early on - and no speculation or thesis promotion by Paul himself either. That in itself was and remains a very valuable archive contribution to JFK research and I for one am grateful to him for it.

[Charles Drago]

Thanks for the reminder, Peter.

If he doesn't know, Paul should be aware that over the years my JFK-related work has been on the receiving end of both well-intentioned and covertly hostile public criticism. My mental stability -- such as it is -- was questioned in the pages of The Third Decade, and a noted researcher/author accused me, from a Lancer podium, of being dangerously narrow-minded in regard to his public argument for an ostensibly JFK-unrelated 20th century conspiracy.

For starters.

Paul will return to these cyber-pages, or he won't.

I'm hoping and calling for the former.