13-03-2014, 04:59 PM
From Veteran's Today:
Mr Norwood seems to pose himself as a superior academic mind dealing with fresh off the boat newbies needing his guidance. He'll probably find James No-Planes Fetzer and Ralph No-Elbow Cinque receptive company but what is written here is nowhere near the truth. I've read on Brugioni and Horne. Contrary to what Mr Norwood seems to assume, it isn't the first time I've seen it so the context of what he was referring to above, like with Dallek, was I didn't need to see it. I don't think Mr Norwood understands the premise of this site is that the unending discussion over on the Education Forum is regressive and unnecessary so his assumed correction of this site and its members is sort of behind the understood curve. As was already clearly stated in the previous thread, sure one can have read all of Dallek's books thoroughly and have a full academic presentation of them, but that doesn't change the fact discussion of them is regressive and doesn't account for why we should be wasting time on them while DiEugenio's perspective is the cutting edge and saves us the time of cutting through the thick inaccuracy presented by mainstream historians like Dallek and the damage they've done. There is no Deep Political objective in useless discussion of Dallek. That, by the way, is also the problem some people have with Nelson. Frankly I think Mr Norwood is trying to bluster us with superficial form and self-professed instruction while claiming persecution. I think this is evidenced in his false rendering above. All you need to know about Dallek is he was on the mainstream 50th Anniversary programs and DiEugenio wasn't. But, really, I'm not the one whose portrait graces the halls of Ralph Cinque's website - which should really say all anyone needs to know.
Quote:A regular DPF poster named Albert Doyle raised questions on multiple occasions about what CIA photoanalyst Dino Brugioni had to say about the Zapruder film after viewing it multiple times on Saturday, 23 November 1963. One of the forum threads involved discussing a ninety-minute interview with Douglas Horne and Dino Brugioni on Vimeo.com. I alerted Doyle to the Vimeo site, and he wrote back, "What are you trying to do, instruct me?!"
Doyle seems typical of the generic forum poster on DPF. Most frequently, he writes one or two-line commentaries that include spelling and grammatical errors. The only full-length paragraph that I have read by Doyle was a personal rant directed at me. Clearly flustered, Doyle repeatedly drew upon biblical imagery, as if he were an Old Testament prophet who had mistakenly wandered into the New Testament. As far as I could discern in his allusions to the Gospels, he was supposed to be Jesus, and I was Judas! When I sent him a private message in the attempt to avoid a public confrontation, he became even more hostile and offensive.
Mr Norwood seems to pose himself as a superior academic mind dealing with fresh off the boat newbies needing his guidance. He'll probably find James No-Planes Fetzer and Ralph No-Elbow Cinque receptive company but what is written here is nowhere near the truth. I've read on Brugioni and Horne. Contrary to what Mr Norwood seems to assume, it isn't the first time I've seen it so the context of what he was referring to above, like with Dallek, was I didn't need to see it. I don't think Mr Norwood understands the premise of this site is that the unending discussion over on the Education Forum is regressive and unnecessary so his assumed correction of this site and its members is sort of behind the understood curve. As was already clearly stated in the previous thread, sure one can have read all of Dallek's books thoroughly and have a full academic presentation of them, but that doesn't change the fact discussion of them is regressive and doesn't account for why we should be wasting time on them while DiEugenio's perspective is the cutting edge and saves us the time of cutting through the thick inaccuracy presented by mainstream historians like Dallek and the damage they've done. There is no Deep Political objective in useless discussion of Dallek. That, by the way, is also the problem some people have with Nelson. Frankly I think Mr Norwood is trying to bluster us with superficial form and self-professed instruction while claiming persecution. I think this is evidenced in his false rendering above. All you need to know about Dallek is he was on the mainstream 50th Anniversary programs and DiEugenio wasn't. But, really, I'm not the one whose portrait graces the halls of Ralph Cinque's website - which should really say all anyone needs to know.