18-02-2011, 02:59 PM
Charles,
The book should reach me in a day or two. No, I was taking your description and what Phil has said about it as the basis for my inference, which I shall be glad to revised if it turns out to be wrong. Otherwise, I was just tweaking your nose a bit, my friend. Yes, I agree, we have both gone over the top about all of this. So indeed let's make it as many bottles of wine as it takes! Thanks for "being there"!
Jim
The book should reach me in a day or two. No, I was taking your description and what Phil has said about it as the basis for my inference, which I shall be glad to revised if it turns out to be wrong. Otherwise, I was just tweaking your nose a bit, my friend. Yes, I agree, we have both gone over the top about all of this. So indeed let's make it as many bottles of wine as it takes! Thanks for "being there"!
Jim
Charles Drago Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Since Phil posted this yesterday and your post went up this morning, I think he not only beat you to the punch but has it right: this book does not look like an honest investigation devoted to exposing the truth about Lyndon's role as the MASTERMIND of the assassination of JFK. It is certainly unfortunate that your cognitive incapacities have kept you from endorsing one of the best books ever on the death of our 35th president. For those who understand the case, it is not a debatable proposition. I guess I will simply have to appreciate your other fine qualities and do my best to overlook your limitations, as you so kindly do with mine.
Jim,
What are we, seven years old?
"Nyah nyah, he beat you to it! He beat you to it!"
On a serious note: Apparently you had not read Farrell before judging his work thusly: "[T]his book does not look like an honest investigation devoted to exposing the truth about Lyndon's role as the MASTERMIND of the assassination of JFK."
(Of course if you did read the entire book before so commenting, then make that fact known. I will not hesitate to take you at your word. And capitalizing "mastermind" does not somehow make the characterization an accurate one. Nyah nyah!)
Where to begin?
You reference a "truth" that has not been established, that exists solely in your head and those of a few others, and in fact is unsupportable by the evidence. But then all with deep understandings of how the deep political world operates already know this.
You indict Farrell because he doesn't buy into Nelson' disinformation ... which is as dizzying an example of circular reasoning as any that I've read of late.
I think we'd be wise to revise our plans. How about SIX bottles of wine?
Charles