26-06-2012, 08:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 27-06-2012, 09:40 AM by Seamus Coogan.)
Don Jeffries
Seamus,
I don't "hide behind" the First Amendment, I believe in it. It's not "rubbish," although unfortunately, probably the majority of Americans would agree with you at this point. Re-read your post to David Healy. Healy and I have had exchanges in the past on the Ed Forum, so I'm not instinctively defending him. You come across again as beligerant and bullyish. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you use juvenile lines like "you've screwed with the wrong guy" or warning him against "tangling with the likes of me?"
Do you honestly think I sit here fuming and drooling at the thought of tearing a guy like Healy a new anus? Well, yes I do lol. Do I think about doing the same thing to his pal GB? There's a quick 'nope' to that one. Do I take myself seriously? Well not nearly as much as you seem to take me. You see a few people here have given warnings similar in tone to myself too nefarious individuals. Why do you think all of a sudden that this sort of term damages 'my' credibility. When A) You haven't actually debated with me properly point for point on any issues I have raised in my work at any time. B) You call us all conspiracy theorists and think its a kosher term C) You think the only reason why Pipes book was rejected is simply because it mentioned Israel. D) Because you make comments like the ones below.
It's laughable that you think Healy would be one of the "lets hold hands fraternity." If you read his posts, you'd understand that he's as combative as they come.
Don, while you think I am Leatherface, I think of you as our resident Neville Chamberlain lol. Mr Healy is so 'combatative' he's here sticking up for himself at the moment isn't he? Nope he isn't and once again 'Big Daddy Don' has come out to defend his flock from the 'Big Bad Wolf' me! Thus let's get back to the issue of credibility here. It's not about democracy Don. It's about who or what you tolerate. Your tolerance threshold is obviously higher than mine. Bully to you! If you want to get angry at me for having nothing to do with those in you're 'bum of the month club', then that is your issue. The fact that I'm still here and many of those peeps you defend like Cahalan, Nelson, Boner and Cinque have been given the boot, really should tell you a lot more about this forum than it does myself. Its quite obvious that you don't have the courage to confront the mods and the admins here. Whether I live or die on this platform is at the will of the mod Gods. They'll adjudge my credibilty in research and other matters here. Not you and certainly not myself (oh but to be a god lol).
He does raise a valid point though, which applies to someone like Josiah Thompson as well as you. Tink has appeared to have an obsession about Fetzer for years. He virtually never posts unless it's to challenge Fetzer. Why is it so important to you to try and discredit the Fetzers and the Hankeys?
Have you seen how bad their work is of late? Tell me why someone shouldn't speak up about it. Did you see Fetzer and Hankey's awful attempt at reanimating the corpse that is the 'Bush did it scenario'? I'll answer the silly question of 'obsession' in good time. In the present you are quite lucky here no one has yet found you're questions concerning JW, mildly offensive.
Did you feel the same way about the late Jack White? He was probably even more "extreme" than Fetzer in his views. He was a high profile apollo moon hoax advocate. He also didn't believe in evolution. Shall we smear him, too? After all, these are hardly the views of "creditable" researchers.
The difference between the late JW, Hankey and his pal Fetzer are quite substantial, yet sometimes quite disimilar. You forget that Fetzer himself also believed the moon landing to be a hoax, like Jack he also believed no planes hit the world trade centre. The difference is that Jack White retained his place at the table here at DPF. Not only that he remained on good terms with just about everyone at his passing. In fact JW encouraged me to join up here, lol can you believe it? JW had an enormous amount of respect for other researchers, even those who disagreed with him on the more extreme topics. He also never adopted the attitude he was the be all and end all of JFK and 9/11 research. He also accepted quite readily, that his angles on some of these issues were in the minority. It's this humble attitude of JW's that never overshadowed the more conventional stuff he did. Nor was JW the uber conspiracy individual that in making your point you unintentionally painted him as.
He never stumped for JVB for example (which if you recall caused a huge rift with him and JF for a time). Indeed JW was one of the first to call JF out on the topic. On top of all this JW, was one of the people who inspired me to investigate the JFK case with TMWKK way back in early 90's. You should check out my comments concerning JW on the tribute thread by the way. This details the stuff I thought he did really well. Take note also that Jack was pretty belligerent to myself near the end. However, I never let it bother me. Don, I really don't care what someones religious outlook is. Hell, Jim DiEugenio could be a Scientologist and if his work was good then it still wouldn't bother me much. Hell, I admire the work of Mike Griffith, who was one of the JFK internet pioneers in the mid 90's and he is a Mormon. If you cannot see why there are big differences between a bloke like JW, not to mention the other people you have mentioned, I have to really shake my head.
Your aggressiveness in attacking others may very well come back to haunt you. If anyone ever desired to write an article smearing you, they'd get all the ammunition they needed by merely reviewing your old posts on this forum. You've expressed yourself too often in ways that any opponent could reasonably label as childish, profane, offensive, etc. By dismissing Healy with your inference that he's a "nobody," and thus not worthy of your time, you invite the same attacks upon yourself. You also share your enemy Fetzer's unfortunate tendency to place undue emphasis on titles, degrees, and other visible trappings of "success." If a poster makes a valid point, what difference does it make if you've never heard of him?
Well them's the grapes of wrath I have to deal with. If those grapes of wrath come from the likes of people I have taken down. Then I am not going to lose to much sleep over it. Were all of the people I admire to turn their backs on me like what has happened to JF, then I would know I'm bang out of line. Well maybe not...The sad thing for JF, is that the more people who have turned away from him the more correct he thinks he is. Hence what valid point did Healy really make? That I was A) Jealous of Fetzer B) Obsessed with him? Well I am clearly not jealous of Mr Fetzer. I am also not fixated on Mr Fetzer per se. However, I am drawn to bad research like the proverbial fly to shite. Much of which Mr Fetzer has embraced with gay abandon in recent years, without any type of filtering what so ever. I do admit my 'JF as Ron' on the bridge was pretty zealotus. Nonetheless, it was also really, really funny and rather revealing. A whole bunch of conspiracy people and lone nutters all believed Fetzer more than capable and willing to perform that sort of stunt. That to my mind is more important than myself being right or wrong. Which it appears I was wrong on the latter (I was always prepared to admit too that though lol). The oddest thing is that I have never written any articles about JF, nor do I intend doing so. I've mentioned him a few times in some CTKA articles but all that would amount to is about 3 paragraph's if that. Also I think the only two Fetzer threads I have here were concerning Ron, not to mention a challenge to JF too back up his claims vis a vis Bush. Something, he failed rather miserably to do. Incidentally, I became more interested in Fetzer the more interest he began to take in CTKA, also when 9/11 folk asked me why he was tolerated in JFK circles. My coments concerning JF's possible voyage into the BS world of JFK and MJ-12 have not been made on a whim. Mr Fetzer takes a polar position to anything at CTKA. Thus it wouldn't surprise me if he jumped on the bandwagon.
Further, I hate to repeat myself again and again to you. But, hell I'll say it again. I don't think of myself as some bigshot. There are far better researchers out there than me. I've said that numerous times. Nor do I believe I am the final word on conspiracy, like Mr Fetzer thinks he is. It's a rather huge difference between him and I. Yet, in my line of work dealing with all manner of cranks, one has to have a certain amount of cockiness and confidence in one's research ability. A lot of that confidence comes from being deemed credible enough by many of the best known researchers on this and other forums. To have their ear's and get advice and feeback from them is fantastic. In that regard Mr Healy is something of a 'nobody' in the research I do, lol like I am a 'nobody' in what he calls research obviously.
You discredit yourself every time you appear to be asking other posters to figuratively "step outside and settle this." At least one time, you literally challenged another poster to a physical fight. No matter what you say about Fetzer, Hankey or anyone else, none of them ever did that to my knowledge. Now feel free to turn your acerbic pen in my direction.
I discredit myself...oh reeealllly Don? You still can't get over the fact that you and Mr Cinque got hauled over the coals here by practically everybody else on the forum. I also asked our resident ex-cop GB here if he felt my little challenge to the rather aggressive and abusive Mr Cinque (oh yes that cherub of innocence) could be determind as a threat. While Greg said to myself it wasn't the smartest thing to say (I admit so). He also felt there was nothing to really go on. Nor for that matter did the mods and the admins. Trust me Don, if I was out of order I'd have known about it. Nonetheless, things on the DPF get very heated. But let me say this to you once again. I am pretty tame compared to many of the people you stick up for. Now in backing or defending those individuals, I think you lose far more credibility than I ever will venting my spleen a them. Despite what you think, unlike that horrific wash however, you have the balls to wear it, which is something I really do admire. These people are in many ways cowards who talk tough online, but would melt in the light of day. I also think you give me way to much power. I've seen people taken apart on this forum in every imaginable way. None of it very pleasent by any stretch, hell my debut here (which Magda still gives me shite about) was a lesson in that my god. So Don be a man and quit playing hide the sausage. You can either debate myself about factual issues and analysis about the works of say John Hankey, Alex Jones or anybody else whose works I have written essays on. Or you can run around playing victim for strawmen and blaming me for all manner of ills. Ill's that they cause for themselves on this forum, not to mention outside of it. Many of whom have taken some pretty shite swipes at people like Jan K or Magda. Now I can understand someone getting uppity at CD or even a lesser mortal like me. However, once people cross that line there's no turning back. There are no fairer minded people you will ever meet.
I'm not attacking you, but since you feel free to drop my name in your posts whenever the spirit moves you, I feel free to comment on those posts. You may have the best of intentions, but your style is going to turn off a lot of people
Now, this is where it may get a little weird for you Don. I actually do think despite all of the ill feeling between us, that at heart you are a decent human being. I would also turn a lot of people off even more, were I not humble enough to admit fault in my dealings with people, in particularly you. The sad fact for all the haters out there is that I admit to being all to human. A good example is that recently I feel I made a bit of a balls up in a few posts criticising the Ed Forum. These were concerning Fetzer, Cahalan and Cinque. While I take a different approach to the modding, there are some really great people on that forum. I get on pretty well with Greg Parker (whom you did a very good job of taking on DVP with, I have to say that was exceptional) Pat, BK. KB (sorry about the ferrets love) and I enjoy reading the comments of Hogan and other people. I also have to accept that the EF and you have a very different 'bag' so to speak. You will also see my reply to GB's post just a few minutes ago on the other Fetzer thread. So at the end of the day what do we have? Nope, I am not unduly obsessed with Mr Fetzer. Nor as can clearly be seen to only come on here to post about him. What we have quite clearly is a failure to communicate, due to the two of us having very different personalities. Of course I blame you for yours lol.
Coogs.
I don't "hide behind" the First Amendment, I believe in it. It's not "rubbish," although unfortunately, probably the majority of Americans would agree with you at this point. Re-read your post to David Healy. Healy and I have had exchanges in the past on the Ed Forum, so I'm not instinctively defending him. You come across again as beligerant and bullyish. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you use juvenile lines like "you've screwed with the wrong guy" or warning him against "tangling with the likes of me?"
Do you honestly think I sit here fuming and drooling at the thought of tearing a guy like Healy a new anus? Well, yes I do lol. Do I think about doing the same thing to his pal GB? There's a quick 'nope' to that one. Do I take myself seriously? Well not nearly as much as you seem to take me. You see a few people here have given warnings similar in tone to myself too nefarious individuals. Why do you think all of a sudden that this sort of term damages 'my' credibility. When A) You haven't actually debated with me properly point for point on any issues I have raised in my work at any time. B) You call us all conspiracy theorists and think its a kosher term C) You think the only reason why Pipes book was rejected is simply because it mentioned Israel. D) Because you make comments like the ones below.
It's laughable that you think Healy would be one of the "lets hold hands fraternity." If you read his posts, you'd understand that he's as combative as they come.
Don, while you think I am Leatherface, I think of you as our resident Neville Chamberlain lol. Mr Healy is so 'combatative' he's here sticking up for himself at the moment isn't he? Nope he isn't and once again 'Big Daddy Don' has come out to defend his flock from the 'Big Bad Wolf' me! Thus let's get back to the issue of credibility here. It's not about democracy Don. It's about who or what you tolerate. Your tolerance threshold is obviously higher than mine. Bully to you! If you want to get angry at me for having nothing to do with those in you're 'bum of the month club', then that is your issue. The fact that I'm still here and many of those peeps you defend like Cahalan, Nelson, Boner and Cinque have been given the boot, really should tell you a lot more about this forum than it does myself. Its quite obvious that you don't have the courage to confront the mods and the admins here. Whether I live or die on this platform is at the will of the mod Gods. They'll adjudge my credibilty in research and other matters here. Not you and certainly not myself (oh but to be a god lol).
He does raise a valid point though, which applies to someone like Josiah Thompson as well as you. Tink has appeared to have an obsession about Fetzer for years. He virtually never posts unless it's to challenge Fetzer. Why is it so important to you to try and discredit the Fetzers and the Hankeys?
Have you seen how bad their work is of late? Tell me why someone shouldn't speak up about it. Did you see Fetzer and Hankey's awful attempt at reanimating the corpse that is the 'Bush did it scenario'? I'll answer the silly question of 'obsession' in good time. In the present you are quite lucky here no one has yet found you're questions concerning JW, mildly offensive.
Did you feel the same way about the late Jack White? He was probably even more "extreme" than Fetzer in his views. He was a high profile apollo moon hoax advocate. He also didn't believe in evolution. Shall we smear him, too? After all, these are hardly the views of "creditable" researchers.
The difference between the late JW, Hankey and his pal Fetzer are quite substantial, yet sometimes quite disimilar. You forget that Fetzer himself also believed the moon landing to be a hoax, like Jack he also believed no planes hit the world trade centre. The difference is that Jack White retained his place at the table here at DPF. Not only that he remained on good terms with just about everyone at his passing. In fact JW encouraged me to join up here, lol can you believe it? JW had an enormous amount of respect for other researchers, even those who disagreed with him on the more extreme topics. He also never adopted the attitude he was the be all and end all of JFK and 9/11 research. He also accepted quite readily, that his angles on some of these issues were in the minority. It's this humble attitude of JW's that never overshadowed the more conventional stuff he did. Nor was JW the uber conspiracy individual that in making your point you unintentionally painted him as.
He never stumped for JVB for example (which if you recall caused a huge rift with him and JF for a time). Indeed JW was one of the first to call JF out on the topic. On top of all this JW, was one of the people who inspired me to investigate the JFK case with TMWKK way back in early 90's. You should check out my comments concerning JW on the tribute thread by the way. This details the stuff I thought he did really well. Take note also that Jack was pretty belligerent to myself near the end. However, I never let it bother me. Don, I really don't care what someones religious outlook is. Hell, Jim DiEugenio could be a Scientologist and if his work was good then it still wouldn't bother me much. Hell, I admire the work of Mike Griffith, who was one of the JFK internet pioneers in the mid 90's and he is a Mormon. If you cannot see why there are big differences between a bloke like JW, not to mention the other people you have mentioned, I have to really shake my head.
Your aggressiveness in attacking others may very well come back to haunt you. If anyone ever desired to write an article smearing you, they'd get all the ammunition they needed by merely reviewing your old posts on this forum. You've expressed yourself too often in ways that any opponent could reasonably label as childish, profane, offensive, etc. By dismissing Healy with your inference that he's a "nobody," and thus not worthy of your time, you invite the same attacks upon yourself. You also share your enemy Fetzer's unfortunate tendency to place undue emphasis on titles, degrees, and other visible trappings of "success." If a poster makes a valid point, what difference does it make if you've never heard of him?
Well them's the grapes of wrath I have to deal with. If those grapes of wrath come from the likes of people I have taken down. Then I am not going to lose to much sleep over it. Were all of the people I admire to turn their backs on me like what has happened to JF, then I would know I'm bang out of line. Well maybe not...The sad thing for JF, is that the more people who have turned away from him the more correct he thinks he is. Hence what valid point did Healy really make? That I was A) Jealous of Fetzer B) Obsessed with him? Well I am clearly not jealous of Mr Fetzer. I am also not fixated on Mr Fetzer per se. However, I am drawn to bad research like the proverbial fly to shite. Much of which Mr Fetzer has embraced with gay abandon in recent years, without any type of filtering what so ever. I do admit my 'JF as Ron' on the bridge was pretty zealotus. Nonetheless, it was also really, really funny and rather revealing. A whole bunch of conspiracy people and lone nutters all believed Fetzer more than capable and willing to perform that sort of stunt. That to my mind is more important than myself being right or wrong. Which it appears I was wrong on the latter (I was always prepared to admit too that though lol). The oddest thing is that I have never written any articles about JF, nor do I intend doing so. I've mentioned him a few times in some CTKA articles but all that would amount to is about 3 paragraph's if that. Also I think the only two Fetzer threads I have here were concerning Ron, not to mention a challenge to JF too back up his claims vis a vis Bush. Something, he failed rather miserably to do. Incidentally, I became more interested in Fetzer the more interest he began to take in CTKA, also when 9/11 folk asked me why he was tolerated in JFK circles. My coments concerning JF's possible voyage into the BS world of JFK and MJ-12 have not been made on a whim. Mr Fetzer takes a polar position to anything at CTKA. Thus it wouldn't surprise me if he jumped on the bandwagon.
Further, I hate to repeat myself again and again to you. But, hell I'll say it again. I don't think of myself as some bigshot. There are far better researchers out there than me. I've said that numerous times. Nor do I believe I am the final word on conspiracy, like Mr Fetzer thinks he is. It's a rather huge difference between him and I. Yet, in my line of work dealing with all manner of cranks, one has to have a certain amount of cockiness and confidence in one's research ability. A lot of that confidence comes from being deemed credible enough by many of the best known researchers on this and other forums. To have their ear's and get advice and feeback from them is fantastic. In that regard Mr Healy is something of a 'nobody' in the research I do, lol like I am a 'nobody' in what he calls research obviously.
You discredit yourself every time you appear to be asking other posters to figuratively "step outside and settle this." At least one time, you literally challenged another poster to a physical fight. No matter what you say about Fetzer, Hankey or anyone else, none of them ever did that to my knowledge. Now feel free to turn your acerbic pen in my direction.
I discredit myself...oh reeealllly Don? You still can't get over the fact that you and Mr Cinque got hauled over the coals here by practically everybody else on the forum. I also asked our resident ex-cop GB here if he felt my little challenge to the rather aggressive and abusive Mr Cinque (oh yes that cherub of innocence) could be determind as a threat. While Greg said to myself it wasn't the smartest thing to say (I admit so). He also felt there was nothing to really go on. Nor for that matter did the mods and the admins. Trust me Don, if I was out of order I'd have known about it. Nonetheless, things on the DPF get very heated. But let me say this to you once again. I am pretty tame compared to many of the people you stick up for. Now in backing or defending those individuals, I think you lose far more credibility than I ever will venting my spleen a them. Despite what you think, unlike that horrific wash however, you have the balls to wear it, which is something I really do admire. These people are in many ways cowards who talk tough online, but would melt in the light of day. I also think you give me way to much power. I've seen people taken apart on this forum in every imaginable way. None of it very pleasent by any stretch, hell my debut here (which Magda still gives me shite about) was a lesson in that my god. So Don be a man and quit playing hide the sausage. You can either debate myself about factual issues and analysis about the works of say John Hankey, Alex Jones or anybody else whose works I have written essays on. Or you can run around playing victim for strawmen and blaming me for all manner of ills. Ill's that they cause for themselves on this forum, not to mention outside of it. Many of whom have taken some pretty shite swipes at people like Jan K or Magda. Now I can understand someone getting uppity at CD or even a lesser mortal like me. However, once people cross that line there's no turning back. There are no fairer minded people you will ever meet.
I'm not attacking you, but since you feel free to drop my name in your posts whenever the spirit moves you, I feel free to comment on those posts. You may have the best of intentions, but your style is going to turn off a lot of people
Now, this is where it may get a little weird for you Don. I actually do think despite all of the ill feeling between us, that at heart you are a decent human being. I would also turn a lot of people off even more, were I not humble enough to admit fault in my dealings with people, in particularly you. The sad fact for all the haters out there is that I admit to being all to human. A good example is that recently I feel I made a bit of a balls up in a few posts criticising the Ed Forum. These were concerning Fetzer, Cahalan and Cinque. While I take a different approach to the modding, there are some really great people on that forum. I get on pretty well with Greg Parker (whom you did a very good job of taking on DVP with, I have to say that was exceptional) Pat, BK. KB (sorry about the ferrets love) and I enjoy reading the comments of Hogan and other people. I also have to accept that the EF and you have a very different 'bag' so to speak. You will also see my reply to GB's post just a few minutes ago on the other Fetzer thread. So at the end of the day what do we have? Nope, I am not unduly obsessed with Mr Fetzer. Nor as can clearly be seen to only come on here to post about him. What we have quite clearly is a failure to communicate, due to the two of us having very different personalities. Of course I blame you for yours lol.
Coogs.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992