21-02-2011, 09:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-02-2011, 01:35 AM by Greg Burnham.)
Stan,
I appreciate your post very much. Thank you. I also appreciate Charles' reply to it.
It would be disingenuous for me to claim that I have never "in the heat of battle" been less than a gentleman. It has happened in the past and it may occur in the future due to the passion that is expressed by those of us who care deeply and perhaps become somewhat carried away by the moment. However, I believe that my tolerance for the diversity displayed among sincere researchers has increased over the years and I am better off for it. But, that's just me. Perhaps the opposite or different approach is better suited to Charles--and that's just him. Again, diversity is tolerable, in my opinion--indeed it is desirable--and therefore I respect his approach even though it is not the same as mine.
I think that one reason that I have become more tolerant is because Rich DellaRosa pointed out to me that sometimes the intensity of my response to those with a more fragile confidence level than I may have caused them to withdraw from sharing their research, and some of that research turned out to be very worthwhile, notwithstanding the portion that we disagreed on. That revelation caused me to engage in some rather deep self evaluation and alter my approach to those with whom I disagreed on details. However, I know it's not my "job" to persuade anyone else to adopt such an approach.
Having said that, a point of clarification is in order. I re-read this thread and realized that perhaps more was "read into" my post than what I actually wrote and more than what I actually believe. I didn't address it earlier and therefore part, if not all, of this avoidable conflict was not averted. Namely, I did not mean to imply that JFK was speaking about those that he believed or anticipated were going to murder him! I didn't even realize that was the impression that several gleaned from my post. I think it started with Jack and I failed to clarify my position after his post.
In my view, JFK was not speaking directly or consciously about the forces he suspected would kill him. If that was the impression anyone got from my post please read it again with the view that I was speaking of a "global silent secret force" beyond communism, etc. -- In retrospect, I could have clarified that much sooner. Either way, thanks to all who participated in this thread. And thanks for having me.
I appreciate your post very much. Thank you. I also appreciate Charles' reply to it.
It would be disingenuous for me to claim that I have never "in the heat of battle" been less than a gentleman. It has happened in the past and it may occur in the future due to the passion that is expressed by those of us who care deeply and perhaps become somewhat carried away by the moment. However, I believe that my tolerance for the diversity displayed among sincere researchers has increased over the years and I am better off for it. But, that's just me. Perhaps the opposite or different approach is better suited to Charles--and that's just him. Again, diversity is tolerable, in my opinion--indeed it is desirable--and therefore I respect his approach even though it is not the same as mine.
I think that one reason that I have become more tolerant is because Rich DellaRosa pointed out to me that sometimes the intensity of my response to those with a more fragile confidence level than I may have caused them to withdraw from sharing their research, and some of that research turned out to be very worthwhile, notwithstanding the portion that we disagreed on. That revelation caused me to engage in some rather deep self evaluation and alter my approach to those with whom I disagreed on details. However, I know it's not my "job" to persuade anyone else to adopt such an approach.
Having said that, a point of clarification is in order. I re-read this thread and realized that perhaps more was "read into" my post than what I actually wrote and more than what I actually believe. I didn't address it earlier and therefore part, if not all, of this avoidable conflict was not averted. Namely, I did not mean to imply that JFK was speaking about those that he believed or anticipated were going to murder him! I didn't even realize that was the impression that several gleaned from my post. I think it started with Jack and I failed to clarify my position after his post.
In my view, JFK was not speaking directly or consciously about the forces he suspected would kill him. If that was the impression anyone got from my post please read it again with the view that I was speaking of a "global silent secret force" beyond communism, etc. -- In retrospect, I could have clarified that much sooner. Either way, thanks to all who participated in this thread. And thanks for having me.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)

