The Fiasco of Spartacus

[Vanessa Loney]

I was trying to get an answer from Ms. Loney about whether or not she read John's book.

I mean I could get that answer from John probably , since he keeps track of who orders the book.

I could not disagree more about David and Ms. Loney discussing the book. Because that means you read it.

Now, if you have not read it, and are just following someone else's lead, then I think that will come out in the wash.

I mean, today, I don't want to be represented by anyone else. I would think that is the way most of us here would feel.

Hello Jim

I don't mean to sound rude but I didn't come over to DP to discuss H&L or Mr Armstrong's book. If I'd wanted to do that I would have gone on to the H&L thread or even just stayed at EF and joined the discussion on H&L there. I've never contributed to that thread on EF (except to take David to task about his comments about Australians and me, personally).

The debate on EF and the evidence presented there are convincing to me that there never were two Oswalds as per H&L. Apart from that I really don't believe I have anything to contribute to that debate at all.

I specifically came on to the "The Fiasco at Spartacus" thread because I wanted to raise the issue of a debate between JA and GP as a way to air the issues in a neutral environment. Dawn has taken up that suggestion with JA and he's declined as he is perfectly entitled to do.

Prayer Man is my main area of interest and it's why I got engaged with the online community in the first place.

Obviously, I think the PM research by Sean Murphy is a game changer and I have been increasingly puzzled and dismayed by the lack of comment on it by the major researchers, especially yourself and Jeff Morley. I appreciate you have put links on CTKA to the original discussions on the PM figure. But I haven't seen any commentary by yourself on it.

Can I ask what you think of Sean Murphy's research on PM? And what, if anything, you think should be done to carry it forward?