JFK Jr

[Greg Burnham]

Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

Seamus and all,

Perhaps it is just me...but, Seamus: I have a difficult time of it--deciphering your rhetoric--and figuring out your meaning. Not always, but often. It appears to very possibly be a simple cultural difference in the use of various nuances of language. I have often taken your meaning much stronger than it later appeared you intended. A New Zealander might have immediately understood, but I did not. That door seems to have swung both ways, as well. This is not meant as a criticism or as a means to gloss over perhaps significant differences. It is suggested merely as a possibility.