08-01-2011, 02:11 AM
David,
I think you may have missed my point. I could care less whether anyone agrees or
disagrees with my conclusions. I only care about adhering to reason and rationality
in arrive at those conclusions based upon the relevant principles of logic (deductive
or inductive) based upon evidence and generally free from appeals based on fallacies.
I could not believe the ferocity of the reception to Phillip Nelson for having published
a book! I found it to be well-research, beautifully written, and ultimately convincing.
I am astonished by the quality of the remarks of those who underestimate Lyndon's
political genius who (I infer) would not hold thiose opinions had they read the book.
He was the most fascinating individual ever astride the American political stage for
the reason that he had so many powerful tendencies, both for good and for evil. I
have explained all of this before and find it astonishing that anyone, at this stage of
debate, would still fail to appreciate his extraordinary capacity to manipulate events.
Those who have disappointed me the most, no doubt, are Charles and DiEugenio. If
he had only read the book, Charles would have made more rational and less strident
attacks, initially upon Phil, then upon Robert, and eventually upon me--although the
order really doesn't matter, since he was rather equitable in his allocation of venom.
DiEugenio has displayed his penchant for the straw man, the ad hominem, and the
selective use of evidence. His attacks upon Hersh as a "CIA slut" are disgusting in
relation to the man who broke the My Lai massacre, the Phoenix program, and later
Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring. He deserves praise, not condemnation.
DiEugenio likes to find something--it could be anything--that he can convert into a
tool of attack. His latest intellectual atrocity is to alleged that Phil is "a liar" when
he asserts something he obviously believes to be true, again displaying a stunning
incapacity to separate saying something that might be false from real acts of lying.
I don't think he has bothered to read my posts or his would not still be so highly
repetitive and non-responsive. I doubt that Phil is mistaken in his claims, but even
if he were, unless he was making an assertion he knows to be false with the intent
of misleading his audience, he cannot be lying. DiEugenio is conceptually confused.
And you are even tolerating posts like those from Keith Millea! Let me emphasize
that I admire many on this forum, including you, Jan, Magda and others. I was not
seeking sympathy but mourning the loss of a forum I had thought was a refuge for
reason and rationality. For one who believes as I do, that is a very considerable loss.
Jim
I think you may have missed my point. I could care less whether anyone agrees or
disagrees with my conclusions. I only care about adhering to reason and rationality
in arrive at those conclusions based upon the relevant principles of logic (deductive
or inductive) based upon evidence and generally free from appeals based on fallacies.
I could not believe the ferocity of the reception to Phillip Nelson for having published
a book! I found it to be well-research, beautifully written, and ultimately convincing.
I am astonished by the quality of the remarks of those who underestimate Lyndon's
political genius who (I infer) would not hold thiose opinions had they read the book.
He was the most fascinating individual ever astride the American political stage for
the reason that he had so many powerful tendencies, both for good and for evil. I
have explained all of this before and find it astonishing that anyone, at this stage of
debate, would still fail to appreciate his extraordinary capacity to manipulate events.
Those who have disappointed me the most, no doubt, are Charles and DiEugenio. If
he had only read the book, Charles would have made more rational and less strident
attacks, initially upon Phil, then upon Robert, and eventually upon me--although the
order really doesn't matter, since he was rather equitable in his allocation of venom.
DiEugenio has displayed his penchant for the straw man, the ad hominem, and the
selective use of evidence. His attacks upon Hersh as a "CIA slut" are disgusting in
relation to the man who broke the My Lai massacre, the Phoenix program, and later
Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring. He deserves praise, not condemnation.
DiEugenio likes to find something--it could be anything--that he can convert into a
tool of attack. His latest intellectual atrocity is to alleged that Phil is "a liar" when
he asserts something he obviously believes to be true, again displaying a stunning
incapacity to separate saying something that might be false from real acts of lying.
I don't think he has bothered to read my posts or his would not still be so highly
repetitive and non-responsive. I doubt that Phil is mistaken in his claims, but even
if he were, unless he was making an assertion he knows to be false with the intent
of misleading his audience, he cannot be lying. DiEugenio is conceptually confused.
And you are even tolerating posts like those from Keith Millea! Let me emphasize
that I admire many on this forum, including you, Jan, Magda and others. I was not
seeking sympathy but mourning the loss of a forum I had thought was a refuge for
reason and rationality. For one who believes as I do, that is a very considerable loss.
Jim
David Guyatt Wrote:Jim, I don't usually enter the JFK folder because it is a subject I freely admit having no real knowledge of, or interest in.
But I came and watched. And saw.
And you must certainly know that much goes on behind the scenes that does not, and should not appear on the surface.
In the light of this I think it is wrong of you to make these judgements. Especially after these last past few very trying weeks, where an 18-hour day was not unusual for all of us founders and owners. And when other people were enjoying their deserved Christmas rest with their families, we were saving this forum from complete and utter destruction, so that you and other members could continue to post and yes, disagree with us -- over 5000 threads, tens of thousands of hours of effort, over 300 members posts (yours included) and God knows how many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of words etched here. Some highly original and irreplaceable.
And the bottom line is that we are only humans too. We make mistakes and errors of judgement, and later live to regret them.
It's just that I disagree with your judgement in this case. But then we are both big enough, old enough and ugly enough to agree to disagree. We've earned that right.
But I do understand why you make your judgement and the fact that you were hurt. It is often the case in discussion forums that people's feelings are not properly catered for - simply because the thrust is usually on rational, factual arguments. Plus the obvious fact that we men usually are so shit poor at our feelings, that it's embarrassing. Or rather "they" embarrass us.
We all tend to want to replicate "Macho man", as per the Steve Miller Band track.
You'll never get everyone to agree with your perspective, and I'll never get anyone to agree with mine either.
Let's just accept that fact and move on, okay?
In friendship Jim.
David