01-04-2011, 12:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2011, 01:58 AM by Seamus Coogan.)
Dear CD.
Thanks for popping in.
Some of Proffessor Fetzers social commentries I agree may well survive. But his JFK research indeed his conspiracy work as a whole will be used as a bench mark for derision by future generations.
I agree that it is the associates of Fetzers that CD mentions who are the credibility killers. But Mr Fetzer your lack of acknowledgment of CD's points make it clear that you did not read the same post myself and the rest of humanity did?
My replies to Fetzers latest abomination are indented in blue.
Here are my comments in bold. I appreciate Charles' last post.
in fetzer land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?
I was being deliberately provocative with that post because I
have been disillusioned with the resistance to Lyndon's role.
Your deliberately provocative because you love being the centre of attention. :horn:And hey lets face it you really do think your better than everyone else. You also obviously like to think of yourself as some kind of genius (totally misunderstood in his own time). At night you dream that one day people will realise how special you truly are. Yes, they will one day Im sure.
Not as a researcher of any importance but as a unique comedian who never realised that the joke was on himself.
I'm now going to call you 'Ron' and I urge others to do so as I see no difference between you and that attention seeking moron on the bridge in Venturas show. If it was not you (which as I have said I accept) you may as well have been him.:fullofit:
Phil nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with jim douglass.
Jim Douglass explains how JFK antagonized the most powerful
special interests in the country, while Phil Nelson's explains
what they did about it, where Lyndon played the pivotal role.
Let's go and ask Jim Douglas about this book shall we? I'll email him and ask some questions pertaining to Phil Nelsons stuff and other cretins you enjoy. Will JVB and Maddie Brown get a pass mark? Will Zap film and body alteration make the grade? Will LBJ organising the hit or being part of the cabal that did it float with Jim Douglas?
Nope it won't.
You couldn't wipe Douglas's ass nor could you even fold Gerald McKnights and the late Harold Weisbergs washing. Good god I'd love to get Weisbergs views on your B.S! He thought Lifton was a flake! Oh and trust me I'll go out and get Gerald McKnights, John Newmans and a host of other well known and alive researchers opinions on your works let's see what they think.
Im sick and tired of your misuse and misappropriation of good solid material. If I was JD I'd sue you for defamation. The idea of you associating yourself or endorsing any work of mine or his chills me. Indeed it's the sort of thing deluded individuals like John Hankey (Jim Di and I will arrange a blind date sometime) have done.
Jim Douglas opened his book tour and avoided your endorsement like the plague and went with Lisa Pease and Oliver Stone. Does Ventura (whose show you appeared on and who used next to nothing from Douglas's book know as much about the case as Douglas, Stone or Lisa Pease? Judging by his (at times) pathetic attempts in his show and his inclusion of you in it I'd have to argue in the negative on that one!
hutup: It's no coincidence to me that you were there when he did the shooting sequence and then got the times wrong.
Russ baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.
I'm not sure what Jim is referring to, but if it is his Family of
Secrets, I think that is an excellent study with some lapses.
Ron, judging by what you have endorsed in the past. It's no surprise you think
it an excellent study. Its a well below par punt and no I didn't need Jim to tell me either!
Joe farrell, fresh from conspiracy la la land, an exceptional contribution.
So far as I am aware, I have yet to comment on this book. I do
have it and it does look interesting, but I am not yet in a position
to comment. Is this 'La La Land' comment supposed to pass for
an argument? Apparently DiEugenio presumes that he is entitled to
assail me for comments I have yet to make on a book I haven't read.
Trust me you will read it and likely love it because you Ron well-you love everything thats half baked and half cocked. There's some stuff in there you may dislike but all in all it's a candidate for your library of the absurd! There's the Torbitt document that you will likely fondle yourself over for starters oh and Hoaglands stuff.
Isn't it sad that Jim Di, myself and others (let's not forget the term 'others' here as there is a growing tide of us) assume you will like this type of garbage. It mirrors in many ways what I said about people assuming or agreeing that it was you as Ron on the bridge.
They associate you with well ahhhhh (what do I say) garbage!!!!
Madeline brown, wonderful witness.
Again, Jim apparently does not know that I had over one hundred
conversations with Madeleine, have read both of her books, and
even interviewed her at Lancer a few years back. What she had to
say has been confirmed by Billy Sol Estes, by E. Howard Hunt and by
Nigel Turner in the key 9th segment of 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'.
Her story 'hangs together' the right way with the rest of the evidence.
:what:Billy Sol Estes a convicted felon and liar, so to E Howard Hunt and Nigel Turner the experts expert who got himself sued. Are you really going to use these goofballs as character witnesses to talk about another convicted felon Brown herself?
Good one Ron. Her story 'hangs around' like a bad smell. When you spoke to her was she taking a dump by any chance? Hmmmm the smell certainly stuck in your clothes! (and your the one accusing myself of bad smells) When you get John Hanky on your show (which I urge you to do) ask him about his comments regarding Miss Brown as a hooker. But beware even the worst researcher in JFK history Hanky himself said 'If Hunt says LBJ did it, it's reason enough to think he didn't'. This means your officially even worse than he is.:thumbsdown:
Oh Ron is it me or were you and Lifton banned from the Lancer forum? Oh yeah and please tell everyone about the chances of you guys doing a Lancer conference ever again while your at it. Full credit too Lancer for finally ridding themselves of you both.
Judy baker, a living saint.
We all know where we stand on Judy. I believe in her, you don't.
So what? And in particular, what does this have to do with your
abysmal failure to know what you're talking about in attacking me?
Hahahha this is hilarious hypocrisy at it's best or most absurd. Like it's no big issue for anyone to disagree with you on JVB? Thats an horrific lie. Tell that to anybody who saw your ludicrous mammoth running debate with Jack White who caned you over her on the Education Forum. Don't play coy here Ron. It's never a small thing to disagree with a
like yourself on anything in particular liars like her.
Besides it's not just the fact you believe in JVB, its as Jim has said, the fact that you believe in every other bogus and baloney piece of research in the field and go out of your way to endorse them. You have no radar for B.S! Your review of James Bamford was fawning and embarrassing. It showed how little you understood about Lansdale, Northwoods and Mongoose itself. Not to mention how much of a stooge for the intelligence establishment Bamford is.
As for Greg Douglas well hey Jim Douglas's work endorsed his efforts as well didn't it?
Doug horne, a tremendous contribution.
Monumental. I know you don't understand the medical, ballistic or
photographic and film evidence, but Doug published a masterpiece.
That you would say this speaks volumes about your incompetence.
Doug Horne has some really useful stuff. But hey! He also endorsed every hair brained tin foil hat wearing load of tripe you ever loved. That effectively sunk him. So why would you be dissapointed? Jim avoids embarrassing himself with this utter shite and you call him incompetent? Ron, your the one doing the plumbing in Browns toilet not us.
David lifton, a brilliant book.
I learned more about the case from Best Evidence than any other
single source and regard my own books as sequels to his brilliant
study, which focuses on the medical, ballistic, and film evidence.
Hence why you and Lifton are total jokes it's understandable! Paper Mache'd trees and assassins everyone-If thats a pre-cursor to 'Best Evidence' then I rest my case! I'm going to stick with Jim Di, Martin Hay, Pat Speer, Harold Weisberg, Cyril Wecht and Gary Agulilar, Milicent Cranor and Bobbie Groden than your good selves. You can wander into Never Never Land with Dave....who oddly enough believed JVB to also be a fraud!
Nigel turner, learned more as he went along.
That's the idea. We are all supposed to reassess our beliefs when
we acquire new evidence or new alternative hypotheses. Would you
better understood the nature of rationality and scientific inquiry. It
is comments like this that tell me that you're cognitively impaired.
:monkeypiss:The pot didn't just call the kettle black he called him an ethnic slur!
What utter and demeaning crapola. The problem here is two fold.
Nigel turner completely blew a fantastic opportunity. He had several hours to make a fine case with the best the research community had to offer at the last anniversary, the 40th.
What does the jerk put on? Of all people, all people, judy baker! He then doubles down and puts that loud mouthed blowhard barr mcclellan on.
But even that is not enough. He then puts on some liftonesque stuff about altering the body. This was one he got sued on. But even that is not enough. To cap it off, he gives time to the murchison party also!?
Please jim. Please.
It's stunning to me that you continue to entertain doubts about the
Murchison party, which was confirmed by the chauffeur who drove
Mr. Hoover to the event and by one of the chefs who prepared it. I
am sorry you are so inept at evaluating evidence and understanding
key events like this, especially for one with pretensions as an historian.
It's stunning to the share majority of researchers (not forum wall flowers) that you actually believe in it. My review of your one time pal Alex Jones (as if that was bad enough you were actually mates with that fraud) nailed the idea of Hoover and or McCloy being in attendance for one! Why would they need to organise the plot or discuss it the night before at a piss up anyhow? It's stupid immature fantasy and I wouldn't believe any source you vouch for considering your being taken in by every stooge ploy Langley has ever planted on the scene.
Stupid is as stupid does I guess.:coffeescreen:
The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted aguilar and mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. I guess he never saw any of the cheap thrills--aka prat falls-- in them that the likes of judy baker gave him.
That show was enough to set us back for a decade. That is how bad it was. Thanks to ventura we got a reprieve. But even jesse had to go and put that idiot opportunist saint john hunt on, which as seamus pointed out, almost ruined the show.
Finally, i don't condemn the right of anyone to change their minds in this field. I actually used to think that the king and rfk cases were not conspiracies.
But if you are going to actually be as wild and irresponsible as to tell the american public who was on the grassy knoll, you had better have some really good evidence--i mean really good. Or else why do it at all? Turner was clearly wrong here, as later research--which he should have done himself--proved.
Then, without blinking, he then says well, its not the corsican mafia, but lbj and mac wallace etc. without telling the viewer that mcclellan's book says it was wallce not on the gk, but on the sixth floor, firing away right next to oswald!!!
yeah jim. That is what turner has learned, oswald was shooting at kennedy. Or did you miss that?
Look, Jim. You can't even get my views right when they are in the
public domain. You have no entitlement to act so self-righteous
when you are incompetent in so many crucial respects. They may
not have gotten everything right, but that's because the situation is so
complicated and complex. You can't even get my positions correct
when I have published them all over the place. That's quite pathetic.
Oh my lord dont you get it Ron! Sensible and cautious people like Jim expect the very worst from you? That's the entire point of Jim's post.
You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. (and you initially fell for that lying forger gregory douglass.) if you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe alex jones jr.?
It's not true. You don't even know my positions. That is just dumb.
I've already discussed the situation with Gregory Douglas, where I
pursued it until I figured out the score. You can't even understand
the import of Madeleine and Billy Sol's testimony, which is stunning,
not to mention dozens of other blunders you have made here alone.
Ha ha ha ha ha you actually had to pursue Douglas to figure out he was talking crap when everyone else had figured it out? Furthermore you now condone and champion the integrity of two convicted felons.
Well done Ron that's soooooo claaaassssssy! And yet you wonder why we judge you so. It's because (and let me repeat this for the umpteenth time) you believe nearly every piece of BS that comes out about anything. I digress when I say 'nearly' I'm being charitable.
Wow, what an ambition: "lbj was ready to radio in the helicoptered swat teams if jfk made it out of the kill zone."
Sarcasm appears to be the best you can do. Logic and evidence are
not on your side. Like Tink, you think your cheap, petty, and nasty
attacks are going to endure you to others. But you have almost
everything wrong, which further reveals your incompetence with
regard to your attacks upon me, which are singularly without merit.
It's not. A large number douche bags you endorsed or have been friends with at some point (before you parted company in a bitter spat-theres a pattern here and theres a lot of them). Believe Johnson was orchestrating the hit from the back seat of his car in front of his wife, Senator Ralph Yarbrough and HB McClain. You may or may not endorse this but who can blame Jim for guilt by association?
I also think that this is another extremely hypocritical statement. Judging by the demeaning tone in numerous posts made by yourself. What I'm serving you Ron (indeed what Jim has also in a more mild manner than myself) is really a mere trifle compared to what you-yes you dish up yourself on a regular basis! The most immature thing about it all is that you then go running off to the Mod's complaining when someone goes at you. Namely myself.
As for your persecution complex about being attacked without merit.
Theres a saying here in New Zealand where I'm from Ron it's called 'harden up'. Don't make comments unless you can actually bar up to the consequences.
Hey, in fetzer land, why not?
In DiEugenio land, you can attack anyone you want, especially me,
no matter if you know where I stand or not. For someone posing
as an historian, you need to get a far better grip on the difference
between fantasy and reality, because your criticisms of my research
demonstrate--conclusively!--that, regarding me, you haven't a clue.
This is extremely funny coming from Ron who will no doubt attack me for being
Jim's stooge. The thing is that as close as Jim and I are on the share majority of what CTKA says and does I disagree with Jim on a number of issues. Sometimes extremely so. But we don't choose to air our dirty laundry with each other in public forums. We also heartily agree (as do a number of people who have sent me emails about this particular thread) that Jim and indeed myself have summed you up more than correctly.
It's a one word no brainer 'Crank' :lol:
Thanks for popping in.
Some of Proffessor Fetzers social commentries I agree may well survive. But his JFK research indeed his conspiracy work as a whole will be used as a bench mark for derision by future generations.
I agree that it is the associates of Fetzers that CD mentions who are the credibility killers. But Mr Fetzer your lack of acknowledgment of CD's points make it clear that you did not read the same post myself and the rest of humanity did?
My replies to Fetzers latest abomination are indented in blue.
Here are my comments in bold. I appreciate Charles' last post.
in fetzer land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?
I was being deliberately provocative with that post because I
have been disillusioned with the resistance to Lyndon's role.
Your deliberately provocative because you love being the centre of attention. :horn:And hey lets face it you really do think your better than everyone else. You also obviously like to think of yourself as some kind of genius (totally misunderstood in his own time). At night you dream that one day people will realise how special you truly are. Yes, they will one day Im sure.
Not as a researcher of any importance but as a unique comedian who never realised that the joke was on himself.
I'm now going to call you 'Ron' and I urge others to do so as I see no difference between you and that attention seeking moron on the bridge in Venturas show. If it was not you (which as I have said I accept) you may as well have been him.:fullofit:
Phil nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with jim douglass.
Jim Douglass explains how JFK antagonized the most powerful
special interests in the country, while Phil Nelson's explains
what they did about it, where Lyndon played the pivotal role.
Let's go and ask Jim Douglas about this book shall we? I'll email him and ask some questions pertaining to Phil Nelsons stuff and other cretins you enjoy. Will JVB and Maddie Brown get a pass mark? Will Zap film and body alteration make the grade? Will LBJ organising the hit or being part of the cabal that did it float with Jim Douglas?
Nope it won't.
You couldn't wipe Douglas's ass nor could you even fold Gerald McKnights and the late Harold Weisbergs washing. Good god I'd love to get Weisbergs views on your B.S! He thought Lifton was a flake! Oh and trust me I'll go out and get Gerald McKnights, John Newmans and a host of other well known and alive researchers opinions on your works let's see what they think.
Im sick and tired of your misuse and misappropriation of good solid material. If I was JD I'd sue you for defamation. The idea of you associating yourself or endorsing any work of mine or his chills me. Indeed it's the sort of thing deluded individuals like John Hankey (Jim Di and I will arrange a blind date sometime) have done.
Jim Douglas opened his book tour and avoided your endorsement like the plague and went with Lisa Pease and Oliver Stone. Does Ventura (whose show you appeared on and who used next to nothing from Douglas's book know as much about the case as Douglas, Stone or Lisa Pease? Judging by his (at times) pathetic attempts in his show and his inclusion of you in it I'd have to argue in the negative on that one!
hutup: It's no coincidence to me that you were there when he did the shooting sequence and then got the times wrong.Russ baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.
I'm not sure what Jim is referring to, but if it is his Family of
Secrets, I think that is an excellent study with some lapses.
Ron, judging by what you have endorsed in the past. It's no surprise you think
it an excellent study. Its a well below par punt and no I didn't need Jim to tell me either!
Joe farrell, fresh from conspiracy la la land, an exceptional contribution.
So far as I am aware, I have yet to comment on this book. I do
have it and it does look interesting, but I am not yet in a position
to comment. Is this 'La La Land' comment supposed to pass for
an argument? Apparently DiEugenio presumes that he is entitled to
assail me for comments I have yet to make on a book I haven't read.
Trust me you will read it and likely love it because you Ron well-you love everything thats half baked and half cocked. There's some stuff in there you may dislike but all in all it's a candidate for your library of the absurd! There's the Torbitt document that you will likely fondle yourself over for starters oh and Hoaglands stuff.
Isn't it sad that Jim Di, myself and others (let's not forget the term 'others' here as there is a growing tide of us) assume you will like this type of garbage. It mirrors in many ways what I said about people assuming or agreeing that it was you as Ron on the bridge.
They associate you with well ahhhhh (what do I say) garbage!!!!
Madeline brown, wonderful witness.
Again, Jim apparently does not know that I had over one hundred
conversations with Madeleine, have read both of her books, and
even interviewed her at Lancer a few years back. What she had to
say has been confirmed by Billy Sol Estes, by E. Howard Hunt and by
Nigel Turner in the key 9th segment of 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'.
Her story 'hangs together' the right way with the rest of the evidence.
:what:Billy Sol Estes a convicted felon and liar, so to E Howard Hunt and Nigel Turner the experts expert who got himself sued. Are you really going to use these goofballs as character witnesses to talk about another convicted felon Brown herself?
Good one Ron. Her story 'hangs around' like a bad smell. When you spoke to her was she taking a dump by any chance? Hmmmm the smell certainly stuck in your clothes! (and your the one accusing myself of bad smells) When you get John Hanky on your show (which I urge you to do) ask him about his comments regarding Miss Brown as a hooker. But beware even the worst researcher in JFK history Hanky himself said 'If Hunt says LBJ did it, it's reason enough to think he didn't'. This means your officially even worse than he is.:thumbsdown:
Oh Ron is it me or were you and Lifton banned from the Lancer forum? Oh yeah and please tell everyone about the chances of you guys doing a Lancer conference ever again while your at it. Full credit too Lancer for finally ridding themselves of you both.
Judy baker, a living saint.
We all know where we stand on Judy. I believe in her, you don't.
So what? And in particular, what does this have to do with your
abysmal failure to know what you're talking about in attacking me?
Hahahha this is hilarious hypocrisy at it's best or most absurd. Like it's no big issue for anyone to disagree with you on JVB? Thats an horrific lie. Tell that to anybody who saw your ludicrous mammoth running debate with Jack White who caned you over her on the Education Forum. Don't play coy here Ron. It's never a small thing to disagree with a
like yourself on anything in particular liars like her.Besides it's not just the fact you believe in JVB, its as Jim has said, the fact that you believe in every other bogus and baloney piece of research in the field and go out of your way to endorse them. You have no radar for B.S! Your review of James Bamford was fawning and embarrassing. It showed how little you understood about Lansdale, Northwoods and Mongoose itself. Not to mention how much of a stooge for the intelligence establishment Bamford is.
As for Greg Douglas well hey Jim Douglas's work endorsed his efforts as well didn't it?
Doug horne, a tremendous contribution.
Monumental. I know you don't understand the medical, ballistic or
photographic and film evidence, but Doug published a masterpiece.
That you would say this speaks volumes about your incompetence.
Doug Horne has some really useful stuff. But hey! He also endorsed every hair brained tin foil hat wearing load of tripe you ever loved. That effectively sunk him. So why would you be dissapointed? Jim avoids embarrassing himself with this utter shite and you call him incompetent? Ron, your the one doing the plumbing in Browns toilet not us.
David lifton, a brilliant book.
I learned more about the case from Best Evidence than any other
single source and regard my own books as sequels to his brilliant
study, which focuses on the medical, ballistic, and film evidence.
Hence why you and Lifton are total jokes it's understandable! Paper Mache'd trees and assassins everyone-If thats a pre-cursor to 'Best Evidence' then I rest my case! I'm going to stick with Jim Di, Martin Hay, Pat Speer, Harold Weisberg, Cyril Wecht and Gary Agulilar, Milicent Cranor and Bobbie Groden than your good selves. You can wander into Never Never Land with Dave....who oddly enough believed JVB to also be a fraud!
Nigel turner, learned more as he went along.
That's the idea. We are all supposed to reassess our beliefs when
we acquire new evidence or new alternative hypotheses. Would you
better understood the nature of rationality and scientific inquiry. It
is comments like this that tell me that you're cognitively impaired.
:monkeypiss:The pot didn't just call the kettle black he called him an ethnic slur!
What utter and demeaning crapola. The problem here is two fold.
Nigel turner completely blew a fantastic opportunity. He had several hours to make a fine case with the best the research community had to offer at the last anniversary, the 40th.
What does the jerk put on? Of all people, all people, judy baker! He then doubles down and puts that loud mouthed blowhard barr mcclellan on.
But even that is not enough. He then puts on some liftonesque stuff about altering the body. This was one he got sued on. But even that is not enough. To cap it off, he gives time to the murchison party also!?
Please jim. Please.
It's stunning to me that you continue to entertain doubts about the
Murchison party, which was confirmed by the chauffeur who drove
Mr. Hoover to the event and by one of the chefs who prepared it. I
am sorry you are so inept at evaluating evidence and understanding
key events like this, especially for one with pretensions as an historian.
It's stunning to the share majority of researchers (not forum wall flowers) that you actually believe in it. My review of your one time pal Alex Jones (as if that was bad enough you were actually mates with that fraud) nailed the idea of Hoover and or McCloy being in attendance for one! Why would they need to organise the plot or discuss it the night before at a piss up anyhow? It's stupid immature fantasy and I wouldn't believe any source you vouch for considering your being taken in by every stooge ploy Langley has ever planted on the scene.
Stupid is as stupid does I guess.:coffeescreen:
The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted aguilar and mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. I guess he never saw any of the cheap thrills--aka prat falls-- in them that the likes of judy baker gave him.
That show was enough to set us back for a decade. That is how bad it was. Thanks to ventura we got a reprieve. But even jesse had to go and put that idiot opportunist saint john hunt on, which as seamus pointed out, almost ruined the show.
Finally, i don't condemn the right of anyone to change their minds in this field. I actually used to think that the king and rfk cases were not conspiracies.
But if you are going to actually be as wild and irresponsible as to tell the american public who was on the grassy knoll, you had better have some really good evidence--i mean really good. Or else why do it at all? Turner was clearly wrong here, as later research--which he should have done himself--proved.
Then, without blinking, he then says well, its not the corsican mafia, but lbj and mac wallace etc. without telling the viewer that mcclellan's book says it was wallce not on the gk, but on the sixth floor, firing away right next to oswald!!!
yeah jim. That is what turner has learned, oswald was shooting at kennedy. Or did you miss that?
Look, Jim. You can't even get my views right when they are in the
public domain. You have no entitlement to act so self-righteous
when you are incompetent in so many crucial respects. They may
not have gotten everything right, but that's because the situation is so
complicated and complex. You can't even get my positions correct
when I have published them all over the place. That's quite pathetic.
Oh my lord dont you get it Ron! Sensible and cautious people like Jim expect the very worst from you? That's the entire point of Jim's post.
You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. (and you initially fell for that lying forger gregory douglass.) if you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe alex jones jr.?
It's not true. You don't even know my positions. That is just dumb.
I've already discussed the situation with Gregory Douglas, where I
pursued it until I figured out the score. You can't even understand
the import of Madeleine and Billy Sol's testimony, which is stunning,
not to mention dozens of other blunders you have made here alone.
Ha ha ha ha ha you actually had to pursue Douglas to figure out he was talking crap when everyone else had figured it out? Furthermore you now condone and champion the integrity of two convicted felons.
Well done Ron that's soooooo claaaassssssy! And yet you wonder why we judge you so. It's because (and let me repeat this for the umpteenth time) you believe nearly every piece of BS that comes out about anything. I digress when I say 'nearly' I'm being charitable.
Wow, what an ambition: "lbj was ready to radio in the helicoptered swat teams if jfk made it out of the kill zone."
Sarcasm appears to be the best you can do. Logic and evidence are
not on your side. Like Tink, you think your cheap, petty, and nasty
attacks are going to endure you to others. But you have almost
everything wrong, which further reveals your incompetence with
regard to your attacks upon me, which are singularly without merit.
It's not. A large number douche bags you endorsed or have been friends with at some point (before you parted company in a bitter spat-theres a pattern here and theres a lot of them). Believe Johnson was orchestrating the hit from the back seat of his car in front of his wife, Senator Ralph Yarbrough and HB McClain. You may or may not endorse this but who can blame Jim for guilt by association?
I also think that this is another extremely hypocritical statement. Judging by the demeaning tone in numerous posts made by yourself. What I'm serving you Ron (indeed what Jim has also in a more mild manner than myself) is really a mere trifle compared to what you-yes you dish up yourself on a regular basis! The most immature thing about it all is that you then go running off to the Mod's complaining when someone goes at you. Namely myself.
As for your persecution complex about being attacked without merit.
Theres a saying here in New Zealand where I'm from Ron it's called 'harden up'. Don't make comments unless you can actually bar up to the consequences.
Hey, in fetzer land, why not?
In DiEugenio land, you can attack anyone you want, especially me,
no matter if you know where I stand or not. For someone posing
as an historian, you need to get a far better grip on the difference
between fantasy and reality, because your criticisms of my research
demonstrate--conclusively!--that, regarding me, you haven't a clue.
This is extremely funny coming from Ron who will no doubt attack me for being
Jim's stooge. The thing is that as close as Jim and I are on the share majority of what CTKA says and does I disagree with Jim on a number of issues. Sometimes extremely so. But we don't choose to air our dirty laundry with each other in public forums. We also heartily agree (as do a number of people who have sent me emails about this particular thread) that Jim and indeed myself have summed you up more than correctly.
It's a one word no brainer 'Crank' :lol: