Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Greg Burnham]

excuse me, but this is a jfk assassination research forum, if i wanted to read about smut sex lives of whomever, there is many a site on the web, please robert get over this apparent obnoxious, and it has become that extreme posts about sex no matter with or about whom, for one i could care less and do not want to read about the sex lives of any, if one needs to , that imo says too much about them, you do go on so, like a broken record when you get a bee in your bonnet a one note man, on and on, , please learn to not be so bombastic, in your beliefs, fire is good to have in this assassination research but not to the point where there is no other opinion but your own, instead of continually antagonizing and wearing out your readers, why not try a much more suptle approach, for all our sakes, especially yours, imo you are not doing yourself any good, nor your reputation which i do believe you have worked hard at trying to make yours with a big splash in jfk research, but it appears now the worm is turning back on you, you have gone way too far over the line, of research and with smut reporting, please give it a rest take a deep breath, and calm down for heavens sake instead of just he says she says,from grunt books, give us some real research on the assassination, not just on whom you want all others to believe who was responsible..enough,already , it has become very boring to read your posts, which i now will put on the back burner and leave be, till they change to real research, thankyou...b

Thanks Beans.

Whew. It saved me from being even less kind!

The following is slightly off topic for this thread, but not for this behavior:

In Dallas this year, Morrow asked 4 questions during my presentation at COPA. Two of the questions were related to "who dunnit" (McGeorge Bundy and/or Cabot Lodge)? -- with an emphasis on their relationship to Rockefeller. The other two questions also related directly to Rockefeller:

"Was Rockefeller a hawk on Vietnam?"

and

"Who did LBJ support for president in 1968, covertly?" (answer, according to Morrow: Rockefeller).

It seemed lost on him that Rockefeller was NOT the topic of my presentation. Yet, he arbitrarily inserted his "slant" there simply because "he could get away with it" I suppose. It was inappropriate, it was irrelevant to that topic, and it was ill-advised drivel.

Quite similar to the performance he has displayed here.

A pity.