Best Spokespersons for the Truth for 50th Anniversary

[Jim Hackett II]

Assassination Porn?!! What a disgusting, cheapening term.

What a cheap concept. Backed by Ad Hominem Slander. And by like chump's conduct, but to no purpose. Save disruption.

Yep, that is the mode of communication I want at DPF too. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

The absence of that junk is a part of what sets DPF apart!!!!!

I ignore this junk, like assassination porn and the attending :mistress:

I commend the DPF members on the standard of conduct spelled out in this forum's "rules of engagement" and shown by the forum posts. I know it is mostly personal choice of conduct self enforced in this location. The self discipline thing.

Best to Jim DiEugenio. Looking forward to the moderated discussion of DB 2nd Ed.

Jim

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks Peter and Mr. Hackett.

The problem with Varnell is that he thinks that every time one makes a comment with his name in it, then that comment is about him and/or his ideas.

This is a real problem one encounters much too often in this field, but especially at Spartacus. Where people have a tendency to map out their narrowly defined fiefdoms and then spend months--sometimes years--magnifying and defending them.

If I brought Cliff over here, that was not my intent. As I have noted, my point, which I think others here probably understand, was much broader.

[Jim Hackett II]

I know we have never met, but still...
Mr. Hackett was my Pop.:lol:

Although "Mr." beats the heck out of a DOD rank prefix to a name - IMHO.

One of these days I am gonna get the Probe optical disc. Keep it available until Spring please - when the heat bills relent I'll buy it.

Thank You for your work. I don't agree with all, but I don't agree 100% with any one researcher. Also I am still absorbing DB 2 Ed, concepts evolve. So time will tell.
Thanks for working the Radio Free America outlet with Len Osanic at BOR.
(Excellent turn of phrase Phil it sticks in the mind as a turn about psyop)

Keep up the good work all.

[Cliff Varnell]

Assassination Porn?!! What a disgusting, cheapening term.

Some people think it's disgusting to argue with LNers back and forth over every point.

Some people think the false equivalency produced by such back and forth is inherently obfuscatory.

When the rhetoric heats up and people start insulting each other it turns into something quite cheap -- Assassination Porn. People are titillated by the conflict but it has no redeeming value.

Jim DiEugenio bragged about the lurker following he developed beating up on David Von Pein over dozens of different points of evidence for 3 years. People were titillated by the conflict, but it generates false equivalency to posit that the other side has anything to say at all.

What a cheap concept. Backed by Ad Hominem Slander.

Do you think Jim DiEugenio is above ad hominem slander? It was his slander I first ignored, and then responded to.

And by like chump's conduct, but to no purpose. Save disruption.

You denounce ad hominem and then call me a chump. That's elementary Assassination Porn.

Well done on your first attempt, Jim.

As to my purpose here (and please get used to my presence, I have friends over here and I plan to stick around) is to discuss contrary views of the case with CTs only. An Assassination Porn free-zone!

When it comes to the fact of conspiracy -- I'm a Jacobin. So is Charles Drago. Conspiracy is an unchallenged historical fact, the prima facie case for which precludes rebuttal. I'm St. Just to Charles' Robespierre on this issue...But if I ever see Charles Drago open a science book to debunk the SBT he'll be Danton to my Robespierre.mileymad:mileymad:

That at least two shooters fired on JFK is not a point to be argued over but a fact to be simply observed -- the holes in the back of his jacket and shirt are too low to have been associated with the throat wound. Vincent Salandria once wrote that you'd have to be a "vegetable" not to be able to see it.

That's the root fact of the JFK assassination.

To argue the case for conspiracy on grounds other than the prima facie case is to concede Lone Nut talking points concerning the SBT trajectory.

The trajectory of the SBT fails. Conspiracy proven. It's that simple. Why argue the fact of conspiracy on highly technical grounds, as does Jim DiEugenio?

Jim DiEugenio and I have opposite -- and now hostile -- approaches to the case.

Jim refers to the JFK assassination as "super-humanly complex."

I regard the case as "scandalously simple."

It would be nice if these two opposing views could be discussed without ad hominem...

Yep, that is the mode of communication I want at DPF too. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

The absence of that junk is a part of what sets DPF apart!!!!!

Yes, there are no LNers here. I spent going on 7 years at the EF and although I did indulge a lot of Assassination Porn with Craig Lamson I got him to make a crucial admission that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position when he was shot.

I had two brief discussions over there with David Von Pein and he gave up the store right away -- he admits that JFK's jacket wasn't significantly elevated at the corner of Houston and Main and after that the jacket collar dropped.

He stipulated to that! Discussion over.

Now those days are behind me. I can argue the prima facie case for conspiracy at the DPF without being attacked or insulted.

[Cliff Varnell]

Thanks Peter and Mr. Hackett.

The problem with Varnell is that he thinks that every time one makes a comment with his name in it, then that comment is about him and/or his ideas.

I don't see where that is a problem. You mention my name in conjunction with two LNers and insinuate some deeper meaning. That you were making a comparison seems like a reasonable inference.

This is a real problem one encounters much too often in this field, but especially at Spartacus. Where people have a tendency to map out their narrowly defined fiefdoms and then spend months--sometimes years--magnifying and defending them.

I reject this framing of my work. Pointing out the obvious is a subversive act. I thrive on contrary rhetorical engagement. Let's see who can keep their temper going forward...

If I brought Cliff over here, that was not my intent. As I have noted, my point, which I think others here probably understand, was much broader.

I'm over here now because my work is done on the EF. Frankly Jim, I achieved with Von Pein in two brief discussions what you couldn't wring out of the guy in 3 years -- a stipulation to the physical facts of conspiracy.

[Cliff Varnell]

Assassination Porn

....a concept new to me.....:mistress:

Hi Peter,

Assassination Porn is defined as "excessive, heated discussions between CTs and LNers." Titallating, but with no redeeming social value.

I confess to have produced more than my share of AP in my day...but now that I'm over here those days are over!:iluvu:

[Keith Millea]

Gawd I hate Punk Rock.But,Oh how I love rebel music........:rocker:

[Jim Hackett II]

Yawn ...

[Jim DiEugenio]

And we are supposed to believe that his work over there ended at the precise moment that I mentioned here his name on a thread that had devolved into something it was never supposed to be? And then he jumps over here to contest me on grounds I did not mention or mean?

Yuk, yuk Cliff.

[Charles Drago]

Assassination Porn

....a concept new to me.....:mistress:

Hi Peter,

Assassination Porn is defined as "excessive, heated discussions between CTs and LNers." Titallating, but with no redeeming social value.

I confess to have produced more than my share of AP in my day...but now that I'm over here those days are over!:iluvu:

Hi Cliff,

I'm glad you're here. Long ago, you and I thought of ourselves as allies at EF.

That being noted, a caveat seems in order: Accessories after the fact (in my Constitutionally protected, deeply informed opinion) to regicide the likes of Von Pein and Lamson are not welcome here. Nor are one-sided debates with them.

In other words, please vent your spleen elsewhere.

All they're looking for is engagement -- and with it, the continuation of a cover-up designed not to win an argument, but rather to prolong it.

No one at DPF will be permitted to aid and abet the bastards.

As for your quarrel with Jim DiEugenio: You are attempting to transplant it from the EF to DPF, and we will have none of it here.

Repeat: None of it.

If you wish to challenge Jim on any salient points, then by all means do so.

Jim, I encourage you to engage Cliff in a similar fashion.

And before anyone points out that, given past public indiscretions on my part, I am now playing the role of The Pot to others' portrayals of The Kettle ... Well, no one knows sin as intimately as a sinner knows it.

I'm making my best effort to restore intellectual discipline and perhaps even a touch of class to my contributions here. I shall expect nothing less from DPF correspondents.

Thanks.