29-07-2012, 05:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 29-07-2012, 04:35 PM by Seamus Coogan.)
1) I don't accept I'll get a retraction or an apology from CD lol. But here's the reality mate. My piece on Hankey was the very first Bush article on CTKA. Further, that Jim never coaxed me to write anything on him. THAT'S A FACT! Jim's explained this point countless times on BOR and on the EF. Jim and I have also had some big disagreements lol. Jim doesn't take everything I suggest or write either. Sure I have Jim's back but we all have our mates don't we? Help if I am such a dupe I wouldn't have taken him to task for the EF call would I? Further, we all have our research totems GME was yours and Jim is mine. You're also someone whose opinions I value. Though you choose to take a my way or the high way attitude towards it all. I think our passions for our mentors work is about the same as well, this can be for good or ill.
Anyhow, the sad thing is you've obviously never read anything of mine at CTKA to the best of my knowledge. The only thing you have read is the Diana stuff. Jim had nothing at all to do with that by the way.
This leads to another matter here. While I do my best to follow you, there is nothing the other way. While no one in their right mind would doubt your long years of activism on the case. I've Googled and Yahoo'd I've even asked where I can get more of your stuff. But outside one or two pieces there is really nothing, bar in house forum stuff to be frank. Surely after all this time CD and all these years, there really should be a far more substantial amount of ones own written and published stuff outside of your forums. There isn't by any stretch...in fact its the opposite really isn't it? Lets be honest hence this is kinda sad. If people like yourself and others were writing some nuts and bolts reviews or putting in some of their own shop floor research or opinions, I think research would be all the better for it...even if you I or Jim would knock heads from time to time.
In saying all this I appreciate that it's very, very hard to actually get stuff out anymore. Very few JFK websites offer fresh articles nowadays. CTKA funnily enough, would welcome any extensions to say the MPM issue from yourself. The cooool post a few days back placing Meyer inside a framework was for the most part bloody intriguing. It'd be good to see that kind of thing expanded upon. Why? Well I'll get to that soon.
2) As for Mr Bush that's another shame. I assumed from you're backing myself up over Fetzers bollocks reply to my Hankey piece that you had no time for his take (at they very least) on the GWB angle. Your coming to my assistance publicly on that thread was a fantasy I and a whole bunch of people here conjured up. Thanks for clearing up the fact you believe GWB could have been involved. I bare no malice lol.
3) Jim was wrong in his comparison with the Ed Forum. Nonetheless CD I feel there is no false paradigm Jim is offering, or allowing himself to get sucked into here. Janney's the individual that if this was a 'steel cage match' would be the sort of pulp, you regularly turn some poor souls into. I really don't think picking a side here is thus making a false choice. Though I want to make it clear, as I have stated before, a better alternative to Janney I.E That's someone like you kind sir, would help take the debate away from any potential entrapment. You of course may disagree, but I think CD you kick Janney's ass? How dare I say that! Boy that's a really low blow what an asshole I am for suggesting such blasphemy? By not engaging more fully, you are creating a paradigm (at least in you're own mind) that's untested and potentially unfair. Would Jim reach some form of compromise with Janney? I severely doubt it. Would Jim and you (with all due respect shown to each other) give people two possible alternate points that no one really loses out on? I think the answer to that between your two big brains is a unanimous 'yes! '
This isn't about me and my take. Nor about my crap 4:AM in the morning grammar. In reality it's about you. The offer is on the table anyhow, your presence is sorely missed in the wider debate.
Anyhow, the sad thing is you've obviously never read anything of mine at CTKA to the best of my knowledge. The only thing you have read is the Diana stuff. Jim had nothing at all to do with that by the way.
This leads to another matter here. While I do my best to follow you, there is nothing the other way. While no one in their right mind would doubt your long years of activism on the case. I've Googled and Yahoo'd I've even asked where I can get more of your stuff. But outside one or two pieces there is really nothing, bar in house forum stuff to be frank. Surely after all this time CD and all these years, there really should be a far more substantial amount of ones own written and published stuff outside of your forums. There isn't by any stretch...in fact its the opposite really isn't it? Lets be honest hence this is kinda sad. If people like yourself and others were writing some nuts and bolts reviews or putting in some of their own shop floor research or opinions, I think research would be all the better for it...even if you I or Jim would knock heads from time to time.
In saying all this I appreciate that it's very, very hard to actually get stuff out anymore. Very few JFK websites offer fresh articles nowadays. CTKA funnily enough, would welcome any extensions to say the MPM issue from yourself. The cooool post a few days back placing Meyer inside a framework was for the most part bloody intriguing. It'd be good to see that kind of thing expanded upon. Why? Well I'll get to that soon.
2) As for Mr Bush that's another shame. I assumed from you're backing myself up over Fetzers bollocks reply to my Hankey piece that you had no time for his take (at they very least) on the GWB angle. Your coming to my assistance publicly on that thread was a fantasy I and a whole bunch of people here conjured up. Thanks for clearing up the fact you believe GWB could have been involved. I bare no malice lol.
3) Jim was wrong in his comparison with the Ed Forum. Nonetheless CD I feel there is no false paradigm Jim is offering, or allowing himself to get sucked into here. Janney's the individual that if this was a 'steel cage match' would be the sort of pulp, you regularly turn some poor souls into. I really don't think picking a side here is thus making a false choice. Though I want to make it clear, as I have stated before, a better alternative to Janney I.E That's someone like you kind sir, would help take the debate away from any potential entrapment. You of course may disagree, but I think CD you kick Janney's ass? How dare I say that! Boy that's a really low blow what an asshole I am for suggesting such blasphemy? By not engaging more fully, you are creating a paradigm (at least in you're own mind) that's untested and potentially unfair. Would Jim reach some form of compromise with Janney? I severely doubt it. Would Jim and you (with all due respect shown to each other) give people two possible alternate points that no one really loses out on? I think the answer to that between your two big brains is a unanimous 'yes! '
This isn't about me and my take. Nor about my crap 4:AM in the morning grammar. In reality it's about you. The offer is on the table anyhow, your presence is sorely missed in the wider debate.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992