03-12-2011, 06:26 PM
Charles,
You persist in embarrassing and discrediting yourself. So be it! My mention of the two books, as I have explained many times on the air and elsewhere, is because Douglass explains how JFK had antagonized the most powerful special interest groups in the country and Nelson's explains what they did about it--which revolved around the unique character and personality of his Vice President, where, as Jack Ruby observed, if someone else had occupied that officer, the assassination would never have occurred. I doubt that I have ever encountered a more block-headed and aggressive response to the use of a single word than has been emanating from your pen since I first spoke up for Phil's brilliant work. I can only report my dismay someone whom I have admired in the past should have committed himself to the denigration of a book that (I remain convinced) he has never read. In the past I mistook you for a serious student of the assassination, but you have long since disabused me of that belief. The evidence is on my side, rhetoric alone on yours. I really cannot believe that you are continuing with this charade of pretense that you know what you are talking about when you haven't read the relevant books or interacted with the players who knew him "up close and personal". This has been a stunning revelation about someone I used to admire. This is sad.
Jim
You persist in embarrassing and discrediting yourself. So be it! My mention of the two books, as I have explained many times on the air and elsewhere, is because Douglass explains how JFK had antagonized the most powerful special interest groups in the country and Nelson's explains what they did about it--which revolved around the unique character and personality of his Vice President, where, as Jack Ruby observed, if someone else had occupied that officer, the assassination would never have occurred. I doubt that I have ever encountered a more block-headed and aggressive response to the use of a single word than has been emanating from your pen since I first spoke up for Phil's brilliant work. I can only report my dismay someone whom I have admired in the past should have committed himself to the denigration of a book that (I remain convinced) he has never read. In the past I mistook you for a serious student of the assassination, but you have long since disabused me of that belief. The evidence is on my side, rhetoric alone on yours. I really cannot believe that you are continuing with this charade of pretense that you know what you are talking about when you haven't read the relevant books or interacted with the players who knew him "up close and personal". This has been a stunning revelation about someone I used to admire. This is sad.
Jim
Charles Drago Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Charles,
I know where you are coming from, given our past exchanges, but what in the world do you mean by "arguments from authority" as you use it here?
The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.
You know I HAVE read the books that you take glee in acknowledging you have NOT read. Which means that the evidence I have available to assess the situation is far more extensive than yours. In that sense, yes, I have greater epistemic authority than do you, where I find it embarrassing that you go on and on about all this WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THEIR BOOKS.
History repeats itself.
Backed into a corner, you now call me a liar.
Of course you're wrong. And you know it.
So it goes, so it goes.