28-08-2012, 06:46 AM
Charles and the other leading members of this forum,
Mark Prior is a seemingly sincere guy who has been met with inexplicable vitriol from most of you. His post a bit earlier, where he very politely took you to task for being so cliquish and arrogant to outsiders was reasonable and well argued. So what if he wants everyone to hold up four fingers, or their middle fingers? Why does that warrant such scorn? He's posting on an internet forum, not appearing on national television advocating this.
I've been posting on internet forums devoted to this subject since the late 1990s. I've been researching this case since the mid-1970s. It's been very disillusioning to me to discover that most of the best and brighest critics of the official fairy tale have such bombastic egos. That's the primary reason why the research community is always fractured; someone is always feuding with someone else, and most appear more concerned with being right about every minute detail than they do with finding the ultimate truth about who killed JFK. Something about this case just attracts difficult personalities.
Mark is exactly right about how new posters are greeted here. The inner sanctum of this forum resembles an overblown fraternity, only the hazing period for initiates doesn't seem to end. Statements are met with esoteric and/or acerbic responses, intimating that Charles and his followers alone possess the answers, only they aren't willing to share their wisdom. Instead, the unwary must guess, and pretend they too understand everything or risk incurring the wrath of Charles. Or they can follow the often undecipherable poetry of Phil Dragoo. Like Mark, I don't get most of what he writes, but people here seem to think it's consistently brilliant. I do, however, love the pre-accident lyrics of Dylan.
I would like to ask Charles (and Jan, Monk, whoever)- exactly what do you think we should be talking about here, or on any other JFK assassination forum? What should we be doing? You are full of ideas about what we should not be doing or saying-which appears to be just about anything that doesn't originate from the mind of Charles-but I can't determine where you think individuals interested in this subject ought to be focusing their attention. People come here to discuss this subject, but as Mark notes, the vast majority of members of this forum post little or not at all. When one sees how new posters are treated, one can see how people might be reluctant to have themselves castigated publicly, accused of being disinfo agents or merely the new pseudonym for some previously ousted poster. Why aren't you welcoming new converts to the cause?
Mark is certainly being naive to think that members of the research community would agree on anything, let alone hold their hands up in a unanimous gesture. I've tried to reason with the most bellicose personalities on the EF forum, to simply read their posts and understand how unreasonable they come across. They aren't willing to do that, and I'm confident neither Charles nor most of the other inner members here will be willing to do that, either. Whether it's intentional or not, the way the most regular contributors here express themselves seems elitist in tone, almost snobbish. Mark put it perfectly when he described it as saying to newbies, "Get outa here son, you bother me."
If you wish to reserve this forum as an exclusive debating society, but one in which no real debate is permitted, then by all means it's your right to do so. Kick me out for questioning you. I'm simply telling you that, as someone who doesn't post here that often but checks in fairly regularly to read the threads that interest me, I'm rather amazed at the way Mark Prior has been treated by virtually all of you. He tried to share his new article here initially, and Charles reacted as if he'd been the victim of a violent physical assault. Referencing his own work, and how Mark's was derivitave of that, was fine. However, it was done in such a nasty, childish manner that it just made Charles look even more egotistical than usual. Still, in spite of this, Mark actually apologized! That wasn't enough, however, as he has continued to be lambasted reguarly whenever he posts.
I know I'm fond of trying to get people to come together- something about the "Blessed are the peacemakers" thing, I guess. I'm not claiming to be perfect, and can display some of the traits I'm taking you all to task for. But I have never been uncivil on these forums. I have never resorted to name calling or mean-spirited personal ridicule. I don't know Mark Prior from Adam. But I do know right from wrong, and the way he's been treated here has been wrong.
Understand that I respect the views of everyone here, and agree strongly with Charles Drago on most poliltical issues. My old friend Greg "Monk" Burnham and I go back to the early days of the Dellarosa forum, and we certainly agree on most things. So I hope you don't attack me personally and take this for what it is; constructive criticism for people I consider my confederates.
Mark Prior is a seemingly sincere guy who has been met with inexplicable vitriol from most of you. His post a bit earlier, where he very politely took you to task for being so cliquish and arrogant to outsiders was reasonable and well argued. So what if he wants everyone to hold up four fingers, or their middle fingers? Why does that warrant such scorn? He's posting on an internet forum, not appearing on national television advocating this.
I've been posting on internet forums devoted to this subject since the late 1990s. I've been researching this case since the mid-1970s. It's been very disillusioning to me to discover that most of the best and brighest critics of the official fairy tale have such bombastic egos. That's the primary reason why the research community is always fractured; someone is always feuding with someone else, and most appear more concerned with being right about every minute detail than they do with finding the ultimate truth about who killed JFK. Something about this case just attracts difficult personalities.
Mark is exactly right about how new posters are greeted here. The inner sanctum of this forum resembles an overblown fraternity, only the hazing period for initiates doesn't seem to end. Statements are met with esoteric and/or acerbic responses, intimating that Charles and his followers alone possess the answers, only they aren't willing to share their wisdom. Instead, the unwary must guess, and pretend they too understand everything or risk incurring the wrath of Charles. Or they can follow the often undecipherable poetry of Phil Dragoo. Like Mark, I don't get most of what he writes, but people here seem to think it's consistently brilliant. I do, however, love the pre-accident lyrics of Dylan.
I would like to ask Charles (and Jan, Monk, whoever)- exactly what do you think we should be talking about here, or on any other JFK assassination forum? What should we be doing? You are full of ideas about what we should not be doing or saying-which appears to be just about anything that doesn't originate from the mind of Charles-but I can't determine where you think individuals interested in this subject ought to be focusing their attention. People come here to discuss this subject, but as Mark notes, the vast majority of members of this forum post little or not at all. When one sees how new posters are treated, one can see how people might be reluctant to have themselves castigated publicly, accused of being disinfo agents or merely the new pseudonym for some previously ousted poster. Why aren't you welcoming new converts to the cause?
Mark is certainly being naive to think that members of the research community would agree on anything, let alone hold their hands up in a unanimous gesture. I've tried to reason with the most bellicose personalities on the EF forum, to simply read their posts and understand how unreasonable they come across. They aren't willing to do that, and I'm confident neither Charles nor most of the other inner members here will be willing to do that, either. Whether it's intentional or not, the way the most regular contributors here express themselves seems elitist in tone, almost snobbish. Mark put it perfectly when he described it as saying to newbies, "Get outa here son, you bother me."
If you wish to reserve this forum as an exclusive debating society, but one in which no real debate is permitted, then by all means it's your right to do so. Kick me out for questioning you. I'm simply telling you that, as someone who doesn't post here that often but checks in fairly regularly to read the threads that interest me, I'm rather amazed at the way Mark Prior has been treated by virtually all of you. He tried to share his new article here initially, and Charles reacted as if he'd been the victim of a violent physical assault. Referencing his own work, and how Mark's was derivitave of that, was fine. However, it was done in such a nasty, childish manner that it just made Charles look even more egotistical than usual. Still, in spite of this, Mark actually apologized! That wasn't enough, however, as he has continued to be lambasted reguarly whenever he posts.
I know I'm fond of trying to get people to come together- something about the "Blessed are the peacemakers" thing, I guess. I'm not claiming to be perfect, and can display some of the traits I'm taking you all to task for. But I have never been uncivil on these forums. I have never resorted to name calling or mean-spirited personal ridicule. I don't know Mark Prior from Adam. But I do know right from wrong, and the way he's been treated here has been wrong.
Understand that I respect the views of everyone here, and agree strongly with Charles Drago on most poliltical issues. My old friend Greg "Monk" Burnham and I go back to the early days of the Dellarosa forum, and we certainly agree on most things. So I hope you don't attack me personally and take this for what it is; constructive criticism for people I consider my confederates.