28-03-2014, 12:05 AM
David Josephs, please focus your commentary on Greg's arguments rather than dragging the discussion into 'is he cointelpro?' territory. The DPF has more cause than most to be wary of disruptors and agitators - Greg is neither - he simply disagrees with some (most?) of the Harvey and Lee evidence. His recent book argues for, not against, a conspiracy, and arguments for and against the subject of this thread should be able to stand on their own merits. I get that some here dispute or disagree with some of his arguments (his book is nuanced, well-argued and the first volume doesn't really go near much of the Harvey and Lee stuff for much of its length) but reducing this somewhat blustery back-and-forth argument to a simple accusation of cointelpro does no-one any favours here. I get that you guys have a serious ongoing disagreement here, but he's not cointelpro. I'll jump back in if anyone thinks I'm putting up a rogue smokescreen or something to protect a fellow Aussie researcher.