23-02-2013, 02:52 AM
On another "forum," Pamela Brown -- a researcher with whom I sometimes find common ground -- wrote the following within the context of JFK assassination scholarship:
"Nobody has the right to claim without a doubt that their position is correct. They can attempt to persuade others that it is.
If two sides are unable to come to an agreement, they can agree-to-disagree and move forward.
"All of this can be done with respect. Why not?"
To which I would respond:
1. Are you prepared to "agree to disagree" with proponents of the LN lie?
2. I not only have the "right," but the MORAL OBLIGATION to proclaim that conspiracy in the death of JFK is established fact.
3. Would you have me "respect" the accessories-after-the-fact to JFK's assassination?
What are we engaged in, a game of "Clue"?
"Nobody has the right to claim without a doubt that their position is correct. They can attempt to persuade others that it is.
If two sides are unable to come to an agreement, they can agree-to-disagree and move forward.
"All of this can be done with respect. Why not?"
To which I would respond:
1. Are you prepared to "agree to disagree" with proponents of the LN lie?
2. I not only have the "right," but the MORAL OBLIGATION to proclaim that conspiracy in the death of JFK is established fact.
3. Would you have me "respect" the accessories-after-the-fact to JFK's assassination?
What are we engaged in, a game of "Clue"?