Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum

[Charles Drago]

I join you in your call, Keith.

An APOLOGY is in order.

This guy is DEMEANING the DPF.

[The Moderators]

Fred Foster has been placed on moderation pending a final decision by all DPF moderators.

[Jan Klimkowski]

You want me to get deep and meaningful about the rorschachiness of an icon? Don't have time. I'm watching The Big Leibowsky.

Beyond in the living room a young Chinese man unzips his fly
and walks over to a rug.

CHINESE MAN
Ever thus to deadbeats, Lebowski.

He starts peeing on the rug.

The Dude's hand comes out of the toilet bowl with his
sunglasses.

DUDE
Oh, man. Don't do--

BLOND MAN
You see what happens? You see what
happens, Lebowski?

The Dude puts on his dripping sunglasses.

DUDE
Look, nobody calls me Lebowski. You
got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude,
man.

BLOND MAN
Your name is Lebowski. Your wife is
Bunny.

DUDE
Bunny? Look, moron.

He holds up his hands.

DUDE
You see a wedding ring? Does this
place look like I'm fucking married?
All my plants are dead!

The blond man stoops to unzip the satchel. He pulls out a
bowling ball and examines it in the manner of a superstitious
native.

BLOND MAN
The fuck is this?

The Dude pats at his pockets, takes out a joint and lights
it.

DUDE
Obviously you're not a golfer.

The blond man drops the ball which pulverizes more tile.

BLOND MAN
Woo?

The Chinese man is zipping his fly.

WOO
Yeah?

BLOND MAN
Wasn't this guy supposed to be a
millionaire?

WOO
Uh?

They both look around.

WOO
Fuck.

BLOND MAN
What do you think?

WOO
He looks like a fuckin' loser.

The Dude pulls his sunglasses down his nose with one finger
and peeks over them.

DUDE
Hey. At least I'm housebroken.

[Jack White]

About as believable as your 'analysis' of 'Bowling Ball Man' :hahaha:

No analysis involved Fred. Jack is talking about an event that happened to him. If you don't believe it, so be it but I do hope you have something better to contribute here than this.

Personally, I'm also in love with Jack's photo. He's a hot looking man there. :dancing:

I wish to state FOR THE RECORD that I do not consider
Magda's comment sexual harassment! Thanks for the nice
compliment, Magda...but remember, that photo was shot
one nice day on the roof of a client building FIFTY YEARS
AGO!

Jack

Edited for bad math. The photo was taken in 1959. I have
never been good at math.

[Magda Hassan]

Damn! My timing is always off. Well, Mrs White was very lucky.

[Mark Stapleton]

To me ingrained vileness and pomposity seems more to be the underlying attitude there.

This comment strikes a chord for me, particularly regarding the pomposity.

I don't regard John Simkin as pompous, and he certainly didn't strike me as pompous when I met him in 06. I think Andy Walker's actions have dragged him into a bad place, once again.

However, the JFK forum on the EF, which is still larger than the one here, has its share of pompous exclusivity. It always struck me as strange and downright rude, that some pompous assholes would never bother to reply, despite my directly addressing their arguments and often politely requesting a response, they would merely continue their discourse with their 'serious' fellow pompous assholes--I mean 'researchers'. Fortunately for the EF, they also have many great researchers, and I hope some of them consider dual membership.

I think their political conspiracies forum will die on the vine without Peter's input. That forum is basically anti-conspiratorial, except for a few brave souls.

[Peter Lemkin]

To me ingrained vileness and pomposity seems more to be the underlying attitude there.

This comment strikes a chord for me, particularly regarding the pomposity.

I don't regard John Simkin as pompous, and he certainly didn't strike me as pompous when I met him in 06. I think Andy Walker's actions have dragged him into a bad place, once again.

However, the JFK forum on the EF, which is still larger than the one here, has its share of pompous exclusivity. It always struck me as strange and downright rude, that some pompous assholes would never bother to reply, despite my directly addressing their arguments and often politely requesting a response. they would merely continue their discourse with their 'serious' fellow pompous assholes--I mean 'researchers'. Fortunately for the EF, they also have many great researchers, and I hope some of them consider dual membership.

I think their political conspiracies forum will die on the vine without Peter's input. That forum is basically anti-conspiratorial, except for a few brave souls.

For AW all conspiracies are off limits [except those he is involved in - oh, and assassination of Caesar - last recorded conspiracy in his book - and even that may just be hearsay to him]; for JS there are 'approved' conspiracies, such as JFK and ancillary to JFK - a few others. There are also a whole long list of disapproved - 911 being top of the no-no list. As I said there - 11/22/63 + 9/11/01 = termination 000. New math. [maths for the Brits]

I want my posts back; our common history; my sweat equity - years of work on important things - even MOSTLY on the approved conspiracies such as Dallas! I feel the one violated - along with History and Truth! I;m not trying to inflate my importance, but I did know and interact with many of the other better researchers; did my own research; met or interacted with some of the covert operatives thought to be involved including one brush with the Blond Ghost; had unique documents and photos; met many of the witnesses and posted about all this - and more - now having the history distorted by its disappearance! It feels like a death and theft.
Never expected better from AW, but must admit to felling a deep stab in the back by JS. Et tu JS?! Obviously, YES!!!

[Peter Lemkin]

New attacks, new lies and/or spin to turn a half truth into a complete mis-directional lie. Meanwhile the dragging of me behind a truck until dead through their detritus and lies continues unabated. Blame the victim is their basic sense of 'fair play'. Those who hated me politically are all venting their spleen and even allowed to break Forum rules on posting personal information on members - as I'm no longer one. I feel sick at heart.

[Bernice Moore]

Peter now that you have made up your mind and said you will not post any emails in your defence, how else can you prove such.??..just wondering...thanks b

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter now that you have made up your mind and said you will not post any emails in your defence, how else can you prove such.??..just wondering...thanks b

I'm not sure how/where I made such a global statement of not posting in my defense - but where. There, I find out what is posted 24 hours after the fact, can hardly get a fair shake with all those hateful people attacking and now inventing new falsehoods [I have a friend, unnamed, who said X and Y, unproven - and all this done on a public forum]. Here, I've just about used up all of the good will of some of the PTB in posting here to defend their slander there, I fear. Meanwhile, truths and lies both can just drag my private life and private information about my life that any of us would prefer kept private, unless we chose to make it public into the open. People who hate me and agents will be doing new research looking for new dirt. Where will it end?! All of this from the beginning should have been done in private. Now, more and more I think if it need be in public, it should be in the public forum of a court - and some members now may be as liable as the administrators. I've not yet made that step....but how else to defend myself. If I put up one email they will cry for more...all. Then they will propose the emails are invented and other such trickster tricks...it is a slippery slope to my demise almost any which way. All I can ask is those who know me and about me to come to my defense in The Great Dismal Swamp. My mood it sinking at new lies from there. Another agent provocateur has
spoken untruths, mistruths, twisted truths, half-truths and things private dragged out in public. It continues to be a lynching and a McCarthyite show trial 'I have here a list'.