13-11-2012, 07:32 AM
Charles,
It doesn't take very "deep" thought to recognize the huge differences in tone and style between Albert Doyle's posts and Jim Fetzer's myriad of posts and articles that are widely available on the internet. I'm quite familiar with the way Jim posts, and his posts don't deviate much from a particular style. I don't have your confidence that Albert Doyle is now allowing someone else to post under his name, but whoever this Doyle is, I am quite certain it isn't Jim Fetzer.
Again, my argument isn't so much with you declaring that Doyle isn't Doyle, it's that you are now stating as a fact that Jim Fetzer is posting under Doyle's name. Deep thinking would require that you factor in Fetzer's past eagerness in being a minority of one; everything about him would indicate he would not shy away from promoting Piper any more than he has backed down from siding with Baker, Cinque, etc.
I believe Jim Fetzer is now about 70 years old. Unless you are willing to postulate that he has always been a disinfo agent, why would he now, at such an age, decide to become one? Why would he choose someone like Albert Doyle, who was vehemently opposed to his Cinque arguments about Oswald in the doorway, for this mysterious, seemingly pointless bit of impersonation? Why would Doyle permit someone he disagreed with to post under his name? Yes, you can urge me to read all the past posts in this thread, but your thesis here is mind boggling. You are inferring that both Fetzer and Doyle never were mere posters on a forum, but in fact some kind of intel assets. How are you comfortable with putting out that kind of allegation publicly under your name?
You are the one who is not thinking deeply here. You are lashing out at Albert because you object to the fact he thinks Israel was a primary mover behind the assassination. Then you further attempt to tie him in with someone else you have recently had a fallout with, primarily over his association with Cinque. You're letting your personal bias cause you to forumate theories that are, to use your own term, laughable.
It doesn't take very "deep" thought to recognize the huge differences in tone and style between Albert Doyle's posts and Jim Fetzer's myriad of posts and articles that are widely available on the internet. I'm quite familiar with the way Jim posts, and his posts don't deviate much from a particular style. I don't have your confidence that Albert Doyle is now allowing someone else to post under his name, but whoever this Doyle is, I am quite certain it isn't Jim Fetzer.
Again, my argument isn't so much with you declaring that Doyle isn't Doyle, it's that you are now stating as a fact that Jim Fetzer is posting under Doyle's name. Deep thinking would require that you factor in Fetzer's past eagerness in being a minority of one; everything about him would indicate he would not shy away from promoting Piper any more than he has backed down from siding with Baker, Cinque, etc.
I believe Jim Fetzer is now about 70 years old. Unless you are willing to postulate that he has always been a disinfo agent, why would he now, at such an age, decide to become one? Why would he choose someone like Albert Doyle, who was vehemently opposed to his Cinque arguments about Oswald in the doorway, for this mysterious, seemingly pointless bit of impersonation? Why would Doyle permit someone he disagreed with to post under his name? Yes, you can urge me to read all the past posts in this thread, but your thesis here is mind boggling. You are inferring that both Fetzer and Doyle never were mere posters on a forum, but in fact some kind of intel assets. How are you comfortable with putting out that kind of allegation publicly under your name?
You are the one who is not thinking deeply here. You are lashing out at Albert because you object to the fact he thinks Israel was a primary mover behind the assassination. Then you further attempt to tie him in with someone else you have recently had a fallout with, primarily over his association with Cinque. You're letting your personal bias cause you to forumate theories that are, to use your own term, laughable.