17-01-2011, 01:34 AM
Does anyone else on this thread detect Drago's principal weapon: argument by intimidation? Such is not an argument of course, but rather a means to bypass reason and evidence by psychological pressure. Examples:
a) Your inability -- or is it unwillingness -- to see it tells us all we need to know about your intellectual acuity and dedication to truth.
b) Resort to "automatic" knee-jerk responses to your hearts content. When you can demonstrate the discipline and learning to go beyond such childish responses, get back to me.
c) The onus is on you to find the Evica/Drago model of the assassination and comment cogently upon it. You dare not. You bore me. And you reveal your limitations with every word you type.
d) Until you can demonstrate more than a pathetically pedestrian appreciation of the JFK conspiracy, you are relegated to the peanut gallery.
And so on.
It's all about the Drago superior intellect and the inferior learning and capacity of others who use their minds and come to different conclusions, defensible conclusions.
I've not heard Drago and company ID the principals in the assassination. And I doubt they ever will except to refer to "forces, the "puppet masters," powers that be, shadow government, international bankers, etc. They never name persons and offer their evidence to back it up, nor do I expect they ever will. Welcome to the matrix.
When I joined this forum, I was attracted by the "Deep Politics Forum" name alone, and a thread on Nelson was attractive if only because I was fascinated with the book and sought out to find informed criticism and assessment of evidence, praise, shortcomings, etc. Yet critics have showed me NADA thus far. I hoped to find rational assessment and debate about the evidence for and against Nelson's thesis of LBJ as the mastermind of JFK's assassination. That hope has been dashed.
This is probably a preview, unfortunately, of 9/11 research 47 years hence: honest researchers vexed by a den of vipers blocking and smearing legitimate hypotheses and empirical research.
a) Your inability -- or is it unwillingness -- to see it tells us all we need to know about your intellectual acuity and dedication to truth.
b) Resort to "automatic" knee-jerk responses to your hearts content. When you can demonstrate the discipline and learning to go beyond such childish responses, get back to me.
c) The onus is on you to find the Evica/Drago model of the assassination and comment cogently upon it. You dare not. You bore me. And you reveal your limitations with every word you type.
d) Until you can demonstrate more than a pathetically pedestrian appreciation of the JFK conspiracy, you are relegated to the peanut gallery.
And so on.
It's all about the Drago superior intellect and the inferior learning and capacity of others who use their minds and come to different conclusions, defensible conclusions.
I've not heard Drago and company ID the principals in the assassination. And I doubt they ever will except to refer to "forces, the "puppet masters," powers that be, shadow government, international bankers, etc. They never name persons and offer their evidence to back it up, nor do I expect they ever will. Welcome to the matrix.
When I joined this forum, I was attracted by the "Deep Politics Forum" name alone, and a thread on Nelson was attractive if only because I was fascinated with the book and sought out to find informed criticism and assessment of evidence, praise, shortcomings, etc. Yet critics have showed me NADA thus far. I hoped to find rational assessment and debate about the evidence for and against Nelson's thesis of LBJ as the mastermind of JFK's assassination. That hope has been dashed.
This is probably a preview, unfortunately, of 9/11 research 47 years hence: honest researchers vexed by a den of vipers blocking and smearing legitimate hypotheses and empirical research.