The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum

[Peter Lemkin]

Interestingly, one of my posts about Colby has been made
"invisible" by Burton because I called him the "Colby entity".

Also, as a nuisance factor, I am now required to log in every day.

Jack

That happened to me too, having to log in every day. It was right after DPF was formed. Never had that problem before. So just one more reason I don't post there. To do so requires obtaining a new password to log on. They are so long and a few times I wrote it down a a piece of paper, but just the act of having to type in so many characters to log on was too much of a hassle.
Sure don't miss the attack dogs and posers. I agree with the others here, Peter. They will just weigh you down, my friend. Minds will not be changed
Dawn

Don't forget [though I don't dispute most of what you say] that there are still some very good regular posters and a huge number of spectacular members who rarely to no-longer post....were they all suduced over here, that would be great...but they are still over 'there' with the troublemakers and a few just plain nutcases....

[Peter Presland]

Don't forget [though I don't dispute most of what you say] that there are still some very good regular posters and a huge number of spectacular members who rarely to no-longer post....were they all suduced over here, that would be great...but they are still over 'there' with the troublemakes and a few just plane nutcases....

I agree that POV has merit. Though my judgement is that, if one's motive is to get unpalatable, hidden truths to as large an audience as possible - and in a credible (ie not counter-productive) fashion - then there are probably better ways of doing so than engaging disinfo-agents on largely their own terms. The problem is that you inevitably get bogged down in distracting minuteae which goes over the heads of the non-experts you want reach and leaves the big picture issue clouded in obfuscation - in fact that's largely the DA's intention I guess.

Not a black and white issue I agree but personally I have an aversion to repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall - even if I do have a thick skull which one day might demolish a badly built, lacking foundations, creaking, tottering wall with a spectacular 'Glasgow Kiss' :banghead:

[Charles Drago]

Peter, et al,

I cannot overstate the importance of these basic truths regarding the enemy's most significant strategic goal:

Their targets are the future and all its unborn fodder.

As for their tactics:

They do not seek to win arguments, but merely to prolong them.

They do not endeavor to take the fields, but merely to create the illusion that they are level.

They understand that to characterize long-settled issues as eternally beyond any reasonable settlement is to win the day.

So when you choose to engage them on these terms, by definition you lose.

Before the first shot is fired.

The alternative is not silence.

We win by exposing their game.

Hence the deepest meaning of my oft-repeated mantra:

Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy took the president's life is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

You may remove "JFK assassination" and substitute "RFK assassination" or "MLK assassination" or "9-11".

"Colby" and "Burton" and their ilk, like Posner and Bugliosi and theirs, are to be treated not with respect or collegiality, but with contempt, derision, and simple, eloquent exposures of their games.

The facts are on our side.

History is on our side.

The truth is on our side.

And the arc of the universe bends toward justice.

[Myra Bronstein]

...
"Colby" and "Burton" and their ilk, like Posner and Bugliosi and theirs, ...

I find it more succinct to just say "the borg."

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter, et al,

I cannot overstate the importance of these basic truths regarding the enemy's most significant strategic goal:

Their targets are the future and all its unborn fodder.

As for their tactics:

They do not seek to win arguments, but merely to prolong them.

They do not endeavor to take the fields, but merely to create the illusion that they are level.

They understand that to characterize long-settled issues as eternally beyond any reasonable settlement is to win the day.

So when you choose to engage them on these terms, by definition you lose.

Before the first shot is fired.

The alternative is not silence.

We win by exposing their game.

Hence the deepest meaning of my oft-repeated mantra:

Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy took the president's life is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

You may remove "JFK assassination" and substitute "RFK assassination" or "MLK assassination" or "9-11".

"Colby" and "Burton" and their ilk, like Posner and Bugliosi and theirs, are to be treated not with respect or collegiality, but with contempt, derision, and simple, eloquent exposures of their games.

The facts are on our side.

History is on our side.

The truth is on our side.

And the arc of the universe bends toward justice.

Eloquently stated and no part I disagree with - with the possible exception of an unstated, but implied part, that the only place to expose or post in opposition is here - or at least not there......Here is fine. There, as well, will get to more persons not yet aware - I realize ALL the problems with the structure and even Admin attitudes there....not naive, at all. I also realize some of you have had your cup runeth over there...and accept that. Jack, Nataniel, I and a few others post on both.....What worries me is that to leave them to rule the roost, gives the impression that they 'won' the day and scared the opposition away - their MO.

[Myra Bronstein]

Eloquently stated and no part I disagree with - with the possible exception of an unstated, but implied part, that the only place to expose or post in opposition is here - or at least not there...

I did not infer that from what he wrote.

...Here is fine. There, as well, will get to more persons not yet aware...

The other forum is older and more established. We've existed less than a year. Given more time many more unaware people will discover us.

...What worries me is that to leave them to rule the roost, gives the impression that they 'won' the day and scared the opposition away - their MO.

They own the roost; we don't. We own this roost. They set the rules and created the climate that I personally find antithetical to disclosure of the truth. We are attempting to create a climate conducive to disclosure of the truth. I will not waste my time there and if that means they "won" then so be it.

[Ed Jewett]

The disinformation entity is actually like a rash.

A form of venereal disease. It's nasty. It's unsightly. It gets everywhere.

It has a "Me Me Me" mentality, always demanding that one's attention is turned away from the important to the irrelevant. The troll construct asks for proof that it is a troll. Maybe it isn't a troll. Maybe, like the crab louse, pthirus pubis, it is in fact a parasite.

I'm new to this forum (DPF), still not sure what "the other forum" is or was, but I'm a whizzened veteran of other places and, I've got to say that Jan's piece here is as good a description of the process as any. I see something similar underway at a different forum.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I'm new to this forum (DPF), still not sure what "the other forum" is or was, but I'm a whizzened veteran of other places and, I've got to say that Jan's piece here is as good a description of the process as any. I see something similar underway at a different forum.

Ed - your contributions are frequently illuminating, and you are a most welcome addition to our community.

It is always important to analyze information oneself, and not rely on the opinion of others. So, I would in no way discourage you from looking at the other place.

That said, the extant record there is partial and distorted. For instance, I insisted that my account and all my posts were deleted, so I exist purely as an echo in the posts of others.

Those are my views on the other place. Following is why I believe the DPF may have some value, now and in the future.

I fundamentally believe in the power of dialogue, of hypothesis testing, of the journey of research inch by inch towards the truth.

So, I may put forward certain facts and propose an interpretation of those facts. If another researcher then produces a bona fide fact or piece of information which contradicts an element of that analysis then, to my mind, that is a good thing. The new information needs to be incorporated into that long and dangerous journey towards truth.

I believe it is important that researchers have a space in which a hypothesis can be shared, tested, refined. In which elements can be added and incorporated. Or rejected.

An arena which is strict and rigorous, but illuminated by the common search for the deepest layers of truth.

I believe such a purpose to be the primary justification of a forum such as the DPF.

The problem with disinformation entities is that, like pthirus pubis, they are not part of some shared dialectic journey towards truth. They are, rather, parasites.

Saboteurs.

They are as sterile and destructive as a veneral disease.

I will not waste my time with them.

[Ed Jewett]

Well said again, Jan. I was just curious. I have enough "places" to be present in without worrying about "other" places. Reminds me of that old quote: "There is no place just like this place anywhere near this place... so this must be THE place."

Or, as Freddie Hubbard said in concert in Warsaw once, "I like this place... I like the sound here."

[Dawn Meredith]

Peter, et al,

I cannot overstate the importance of these basic truths regarding the enemy's most significant strategic goal:

Their targets are the future and all its unborn fodder.

As for their tactics:

They do not seek to win arguments, but merely to prolong them.

They do not endeavor to take the fields, but merely to create the illusion that they are level.

They understand that to characterize long-settled issues as eternally beyond any reasonable settlement is to win the day.

So when you choose to engage them on these terms, by definition you lose.

Before the first shot is fired.

The alternative is not silence.

We win by exposing their game.

Hence the deepest meaning of my oft-repeated mantra:

Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy took the president's life is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

You may remove "JFK assassination" and substitute "RFK assassination" or "MLK assassination" or "9-11".

"Colby" and "Burton" and their ilk, like Posner and Bugliosi and theirs, are to be treated not with respect or collegiality, but with contempt, derision, and simple, eloquent exposures of their games.

The facts are on our side.

History is on our side.

The truth is on our side.

And the arc of the universe bends toward justice.

Brilliant CD, you should write for a living
My last thought on the subject is that there are still a couple of very good people over there who are diligent forces for truth, Bill Kelly being very prominent in a most diminished group. I wonder if he ever wonders over here. I can see why someone might not wish to be on more than one conspiracy forum, time consuming, and we all have to allocate our time, stealing time for the cause of truth, trying to encourage/enlighten others who seem to exist happily sans any thought of how the world truly is run.

I am proud of our site, we seem to lack agent provocateurs, although I know they are watching. Our limit on "free speech" is akin to the famous "sensible" limit: yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Dawn, wishing us a happy one year anniversary.