01-04-2011, 05:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2011, 06:12 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
You mean that I posted an announcement that the book had appeared? And from that you infer that therefore I must agree with everything its author says, even if I haven't read it yet--which, of course, remains the case to this day?
Get a grip, Jim. You have pulled this nonsense in relation to several authors and books that I like by assuming that, if I like a book, I THEREFORE ACCEPT EVERY CLAIM THE BOOK MAKES. That is your typical mode of reasoning!
Some would say, "Simple minded!" I would say, "Block headed!", in the sense that you treat a person's views, no matter how complex, as though they had to be accepted or reject IN TOTAL. That is very unsophisticated.
That I like James Douglass' book does not mean that I think he has everything right. He does a great job of explaining how JFK had antagonized very powerful special interest groups, such as the Joint Chiefs, the CIA, and the establishment.
That does not imply that he has explained how the assassination was carried out. In my view, that is the contribution made by Phil Nelson's book, even though you seem to be mentally incapacitated from appreciating that.
You have several times insisted that I cannot endorse JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE at the same time I endorse LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION. If I were endorsing every detail of both books at the same time, you might have a point.
Instead, you are simply displaying your BLOCK HEADED approach. You really need to exercise your intellect. I can appreciate Douglass for explaining why they wanted him out and Nelson for explaining how it was done, with Lyndon in the pivotal role.
Get a grip, Jim. You have pulled this nonsense in relation to several authors and books that I like by assuming that, if I like a book, I THEREFORE ACCEPT EVERY CLAIM THE BOOK MAKES. That is your typical mode of reasoning!
Some would say, "Simple minded!" I would say, "Block headed!", in the sense that you treat a person's views, no matter how complex, as though they had to be accepted or reject IN TOTAL. That is very unsophisticated.
That I like James Douglass' book does not mean that I think he has everything right. He does a great job of explaining how JFK had antagonized very powerful special interest groups, such as the Joint Chiefs, the CIA, and the establishment.
That does not imply that he has explained how the assassination was carried out. In my view, that is the contribution made by Phil Nelson's book, even though you seem to be mentally incapacitated from appreciating that.
You have several times insisted that I cannot endorse JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE at the same time I endorse LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION. If I were endorsing every detail of both books at the same time, you might have a point.
Instead, you are simply displaying your BLOCK HEADED approach. You really need to exercise your intellect. I can appreciate Douglass for explaining why they wanted him out and Nelson for explaining how it was done, with Lyndon in the pivotal role.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:For the record, Fetzer posted a blurb for the Farrell book on Spartacus.
That is where I got that part of the post.
And I did mean Family of Secrets of course.
His defense of his endorsement of the Nelson book is hapless. Summed up it says that Douglass showed why the villains wanted to kill Kennedy. Nelson then showed us how they did it.
This is as short sighted as his endorsement of Turner using Barr M.
It misses the point that Douglass applies no conspiratorial role to LBJ!!!
Douglass is pretty clear on who he thinks killed Kennedy. (And if you did not understand that then you did not read the book carefully.) And its not LBJ. I mean what the heck did LBJ have to do with Chicago? Or the Raleigh call? Or Bernard Haire?
But the thing about Douglass is this: No one could ever question the quality of his research or his sources. Which is something I congratulated him on. Now, if you do a qualitative comparison of Douglass' sources with Nelson's, I mean, are you serious?
The irony is, I actually think he is.