24-10-2012, 05:46 PM
Unfortunately Dawn is offering her usual two cents in a subject that probably requires a lot more pocket change than she inputted. Geesh, considering the information, I'm not sure that "No one is reading it and most disagree"...as well as "It is beginning to look like the Education Forum" is credible vs the credibility of the information itself. With all due respect I ask anyone to view Dawn's total input in this subject vs those who defend it. Honestly, I'd like to see where this subject had been intellectually defeated to the point where it can be dismissed by such quick means. if anything, David's input strengthens its credibility.
If you look at the offerings of both sides, gee, I'm kind of confused where exactly those who dislike this debate feel they have a right to condemn it from a position of authority or credibility vs the content of the posts? It's also nice to know that you are now referred to as "these two" lol. If I may be so bold I think Dawn stepped-in because David was losing the argument so pathetically.
If we were to refer to a Deep Political perspective and analyze the actual subject matter and information in Piper's material I'm afraid it would win any contest over its merit. Especially when the challenge is presented in such a limited form as it is above. If we called upon the dictates of Deep Political analysis and inputted Piper's information we would see it would pass muster as far as deep political validity. And because of this I protest that efforts to censor discussion of the subject matter on such a demeaning and self-contradictory political basis is a violation of deep political practice itself. Anyone with a respectful appreciation of Deep Political Science would realize that Piper's information has serious deep political value and may very well represent some of the deepest deep political information associated with the Assassination. To call for its censorship in such a shallow manner is a gross violation of deep political practices and is what should be shunned here and not those who seek to pursue it.
One the worse things you can do in this business is approach it as if you yourself embodied some sort of precedent or judicial license where you or your person represented an automatic opinion that needed no scrutiny or justification. That in itself is a violation of the carefully designed principles of democracy. The founding fathers designed a check and balance system that made each and every person, no matter how powerful or popularly entrenched, earn their credibility by having to justify, by a universal standard of truth, that which they practiced or believed. No person or cause could come in and automatically dictate the validity or acceptability of anything without having to pass this standard. This would be borne out by the protection of free speech so persons who fought for politically unpopular truths would have a safe democratic playing field on which to do that.
I'm afraid the problem here is that, by the material itself, it is more than light travesty to suggest that Mark or I represent the "LN" side. David makes that jump when he compares me to Belin. Belin was on the Lone Nut side. Since Mark and myself are arguing evidence that clearly constitutes the conspiracy side, and very definitely a side that Belin himself, not to mention his personal biases, would have fought bitterly against, just as Dawn and David do, it is kind of a ridiculous flip to pose us on the Lone Nut/Belin side while posing themselves on the conspiracy-exposing side. Any objective view would see automatically how wrong a comparison that is and how they themselves are the ones practicing the LN intolerance and methods (censorship and intimidation being one of their worst methods). And how that contradiction serves as proof of the validity of Piper's material through its ability to force it.
No, this subject is one that has proven to be very risky for those who defend it. I dare suggest that some people who don't like it are doing so because of their awareness that their personal careers could be crushed by those who guard the politic. Any objective view of the actual material itself would show that there is nothing outrageous or uncredible about it. It's just politically unpopular. So, in my opinion, the undeserved reaction towards it speaks louder than words and exposes why the material is credible, albeit in an indirect way. I'm disappointed that any group that claims to honor a deep political perspective as its main focus would treat this obviously credible material with such self-indicting scorn. I would also suggest that the reluctance to even discuss that material proves its validity. We're not talking mobile forgery labs here. We're talking proven main credible members of the assassination cabal, their loyalties, and agendas. There's real and credible evidence in Piper's material that deserves more than these blunt dismissals as do those deep political followers who defend it. I'm afraid Dawn needs to expand her deep political understanding and realize that majorities don't always possess the credible viewpoint. Nor is such an outcome necessarily a loss for those who defend it. I myself am quite happy with this debate because we have won this in spades as is evidenced by the input and behavior of the opposition. You don't always need agreement to win.
There are some things that can't be ignored with silence and substance-devoid dismissal. This is one of them I'm afraid.
If you look at the offerings of both sides, gee, I'm kind of confused where exactly those who dislike this debate feel they have a right to condemn it from a position of authority or credibility vs the content of the posts? It's also nice to know that you are now referred to as "these two" lol. If I may be so bold I think Dawn stepped-in because David was losing the argument so pathetically.
If we were to refer to a Deep Political perspective and analyze the actual subject matter and information in Piper's material I'm afraid it would win any contest over its merit. Especially when the challenge is presented in such a limited form as it is above. If we called upon the dictates of Deep Political analysis and inputted Piper's information we would see it would pass muster as far as deep political validity. And because of this I protest that efforts to censor discussion of the subject matter on such a demeaning and self-contradictory political basis is a violation of deep political practice itself. Anyone with a respectful appreciation of Deep Political Science would realize that Piper's information has serious deep political value and may very well represent some of the deepest deep political information associated with the Assassination. To call for its censorship in such a shallow manner is a gross violation of deep political practices and is what should be shunned here and not those who seek to pursue it.
One the worse things you can do in this business is approach it as if you yourself embodied some sort of precedent or judicial license where you or your person represented an automatic opinion that needed no scrutiny or justification. That in itself is a violation of the carefully designed principles of democracy. The founding fathers designed a check and balance system that made each and every person, no matter how powerful or popularly entrenched, earn their credibility by having to justify, by a universal standard of truth, that which they practiced or believed. No person or cause could come in and automatically dictate the validity or acceptability of anything without having to pass this standard. This would be borne out by the protection of free speech so persons who fought for politically unpopular truths would have a safe democratic playing field on which to do that.
I'm afraid the problem here is that, by the material itself, it is more than light travesty to suggest that Mark or I represent the "LN" side. David makes that jump when he compares me to Belin. Belin was on the Lone Nut side. Since Mark and myself are arguing evidence that clearly constitutes the conspiracy side, and very definitely a side that Belin himself, not to mention his personal biases, would have fought bitterly against, just as Dawn and David do, it is kind of a ridiculous flip to pose us on the Lone Nut/Belin side while posing themselves on the conspiracy-exposing side. Any objective view would see automatically how wrong a comparison that is and how they themselves are the ones practicing the LN intolerance and methods (censorship and intimidation being one of their worst methods). And how that contradiction serves as proof of the validity of Piper's material through its ability to force it.
No, this subject is one that has proven to be very risky for those who defend it. I dare suggest that some people who don't like it are doing so because of their awareness that their personal careers could be crushed by those who guard the politic. Any objective view of the actual material itself would show that there is nothing outrageous or uncredible about it. It's just politically unpopular. So, in my opinion, the undeserved reaction towards it speaks louder than words and exposes why the material is credible, albeit in an indirect way. I'm disappointed that any group that claims to honor a deep political perspective as its main focus would treat this obviously credible material with such self-indicting scorn. I would also suggest that the reluctance to even discuss that material proves its validity. We're not talking mobile forgery labs here. We're talking proven main credible members of the assassination cabal, their loyalties, and agendas. There's real and credible evidence in Piper's material that deserves more than these blunt dismissals as do those deep political followers who defend it. I'm afraid Dawn needs to expand her deep political understanding and realize that majorities don't always possess the credible viewpoint. Nor is such an outcome necessarily a loss for those who defend it. I myself am quite happy with this debate because we have won this in spades as is evidenced by the input and behavior of the opposition. You don't always need agreement to win.
There are some things that can't be ignored with silence and substance-devoid dismissal. This is one of them I'm afraid.