My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Joseph McBride]

Charles:

The intensification of the LBJ-as-mastermind operation has been noted for some months now and is openly scheduled to continue through the fall. The work of one of its prime Facilitators, "author" Phillip Nelson (prime exponent of the "mastermind" characterization), recently was referenced on this forum and prompted a generally admirable JFK assassination author to note that we are obliged by the dictates of professional courtesy not to challenge the motives of our fellow correspondents, but rather to bow from the waist (my description) and politely "agree to disagree" with them when necessary.

Where does such courtesy end?

I presume you are referring to McBride here. I found this call for a polite disengagement to be disappointing on his part. Saying we must 'agree to disagree' should only come after every effort has been expended to be understand the argument of the other. But when the concern is to promote a book, one would never want to engage in a genuine dialogue which would expose its weaknesses. It would hurt business.

Lauren Johnson,

You probably have heard the quote attributed to Henry Kissinger that academic "disputes are so bitter because the stakes are so small." I see that happening too often in my other field, film studies. In the field of assassination research, one could say that disputes sometimes become so bitter because the stakes are so large.

But I don't think personal attacks advance the scholarly discussion or the cause of understanding the truth about the assassination and related events. Richard Hofstadter in November 1963ff helped pioneer the deployment of ad hominem attacks on critics who hold "conspiracy theories," a method furthered by the infamous 1967 CIA memo ("Countering Criticism of the Warren Report") that laid out the playbook followed by many in the mainstream media ever since, i.e., to use pseudo-psychiatric diagnoses (made by persons unqualified to do so) and to otherwise impugn the personal motives of critics (such as by accusing them of being "politically interested" or "financially interested") as a way of avoiding engagement with the issues. I analyze all this MO in considerable detail in INTO THE NIGHTMARE in studying how the coverup works.

So when I call for civility rather than abuse and for people listening to each other's arguments and then agreeing
to disagree if they can't reach a consensus, I don't think I am trying not to engage in a genuine dialogue. I think
that I am doing exactly the opposite. I am trying to keep the discussion on the facts of the case and what they
mean. The case is too important to descend into name-calling and mudslinging. I find personal abuse directed at me or other researchers, whatever their beliefs and arguments may be, simply tiresome and at worst a calculated distraction from issues. Such abuse has ruined many a forum. I try to avoid engaging with such people in both fields in which I work. Also unhelpful is criticizing a book without reading it. That
is simply absurd, as well as unscholarly, and it's hard for an author to respond to someone who is ignorant of the book's contents
and in some cases refuses to read what the author has written but prefers to keep a closed mind. I am always happy to entertain reasoned
criticism of what I write, or to take into account additional information or new insights, but simple uninformed invective serves no real purpose.