Cahalan and the sorrow of Morrow. Quality Versus Quantity?

[Seamus Coogan]

Indeed, Albert.

Although talking about Morrow's "positions" may prove problematic.

He did have a fascination for the more homosexual aspects of scandalous interractions.

[Jan Klimkowski]

An Ode to Bob the Boner:

[Seamus Coogan]

Indeed, Albert.

Although talking about Morrow's "positions" may prove problematic.

Originally Posted by Keith Millea
BONER just told Tom Skully that he shouldn't be a moderator because of his bias toward him.Then offered up himself to be the new mod.C'mon EF,do the world a favor and just boot the prick!!!!
Keith - I'm delighted you've found an occasional home here at DPF.

However, personally I wouldn't be advocating "booting the prick".

Such a course would give "Bob the Boner" rather too much pleasure...

__________________________


CD and Jan in a tie for the laugh of the day. Thanks guys.

Dawn

I agree. On the laugh I double that with having Keef around. I can't believe he thinks he's moderator material lordy lord.

[Seamus Coogan]

An Ode to Bob the Boner:

Excellent nothing beats a little PIL. Bob the Boner ROFL.

[Seamus Coogan]

Here we go folks it's Bob the Boners JFK Book Bizarre.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/peddlin...00515.html

Here's just a smidgen of his quotes.

"I'm a truth seeker and a truth teller."

After endorsing Phil Nelson. I mean who is this dude?

But folks the next line is even better.

Reporter: "And he does not like to be associated with conspiracy theories."

Boner: "I don't really call it conspiracy theories. I'm a researcher and go where the truth takes me," he said.

Im going to franchise a TV show (I blame Jan).

[Don Jeffries]

The problem with determining who is too "far out" or who might be a "disinfo" agent is that, depending upon who's setting the boundaries, a lot of us who are JFK assassination researchers could easily be placed in either category.

Like most everyone who has read his posts, it's simple for me to conclude that Robert Morrow is too obsessed with sex. It obviously detracts from any information he includes in his posts, and when he refrains from throwing in sexual references, his reputation has become such that many will still place little credence in anything he says.

The most eye-opening thing for me has been, in communicating with so many of you via forums and emails, to recognize how bombastic and difficult personalities seem to naturally gravitate to this subject. I include most of the "name" critics whom I've come to "know" in a cyber sense in this category. I think these personality conflicts, battles between huge egos, is what causes most of the fierce debates on internet forums. I have maintained to anyone who will listen that it is also what fuels interest in these forums. If you want to see what a strictly moderated, no "nonsense" forum is like, go to Lancer. It was very good at one time, but now it's become pretty boring, imho.

It takes a powerful personality to put yourself out there, where untold numbers of people will read your thoughts, and know that others, just as confident as you are, are waiting to tear them apart and tell you how wrong you are. It takes a lot of self-confidence to post regularly on these subjects. I'm confident, and I think it's obvious that most of you are, too. That makes for sometimes nasty arguments, but again, it's stimulating debate and even good theater.

I have found virtually no other JFK assassination researcher on the internet that I agree with all the time (but Jack White comes close). That being said, I believe in everyone's right to be heard, and will defend that right even when I disagree with them. That's hardly original, but I think Voltaire and Patrick Henry had it right.

As for JFK, Jr., I've been doing my own research for a potential non-fiction book I'm putting together (on a variety of subjects). I have become completely convinced that his plane was sabotaged, and he was killed. Maybe that's why I defend Hankey, because I think on that subject, he gets it right.

[Jan Klimkowski]

That being said, I believe in everyone's right to be heard, and will defend that right even when I disagree with them. That's hardly original, but I think Voltaire and Patrick Henry had it right.

Don - as you say, we're strong personalities on these forums.

Let's take this a step further.

"Colby" at the EF.

Do his interjections further the process of research?

I answer No.

Does he harass and troll researchers of talent and integrity over the tiniest matter, usually completely irrelevant to the bigger picture, and thus disrupt meaningful research?

I answer Yes.

Does "Colby" make literate, and borderline illiterate, posts, and adopt vastly different speech patterns in different posts, not for effect but rather highly suggestive of different posters using the "Colby" moniker?

I answer Yes.

Voltaire's fine principles were murdered by Mockingbird and Cointelpro.

Agents provocateurs routinely infiltrate protest movements, and are occasionally exposed - see Mark "Flash" Kennedy in 2012 Britain.

The Volkland Security cyber spooks openly fund entities to penetrate and disrupt any site that challenges officially sanctioned reality.

The founders of Deep Politics Forum make carefully considered, democratically agreed, decisions appropriate for the age in which we live.

[Greg Burnham]

As for Morrow, I do not agree with you at all, Don. I do agree with the general principles you espouse here. However, when those very principles are undermined by the behavior of an individual who feels entitled to protection under the same system that he abuses, then the rules of engagement must be amended for exceptions to the established guidelines.

Freedom of speech, like any other freedom, is not absolute. Just as "One's freedom to go anywhere" is limited by another's right to privacy, so too: "One's right to free speech" is limited by another's right to not be disrupted by that speech when in pursuit of a commonly agreed upon endeavor. Where such agreement is compromised by an offending party, then that offending party has, in effect, acted in breach of contract and is therefore no longer protected from censure or censor.

The key to moderating this type of issue resides squarely on the deleterious effect that the offending party's "free speech" has on the overall agreed upon endeavor. Disagreement is not the reason for moderation, Don. We all know that. Disruptive behavior, however, is just cause for moderation. It is disruptive for an individual to continuously hijack threads and write off topic, almost exclusively sexually emphasized, posts.

(At this stage there should really be no doubt in anyone's mind who has seriously studied the evidence that JFK Jr's Piper Saratoga did not crash as the result of pilot error nor due to innocuous mechanical failure.)

[Albert Doyle]

(At this stage there should really be no doubt in anyone's mind who has seriously studied the evidence that JFK Jr's Piper Saratoga did not crash as the result of pilot error nor due to innocuous mechanical failure.)

I'm not sure it was ever declared to be a mechanical failure. I think they claimed a graveyard spiral after JFK jr lost the horizon in twilight and pushed the yoke in the wrong direction causing an unrecoverable spin.

[Phil Dragoo]

Regarding Team Colby: see also McDill AFB request for software to create plausible artificial online personae.

Merely eccentric or disruptive by design: was that not the mission assigned one Lee Harvey Oswald in re Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

John F. Kennedy, Jr. Plane crash. 1999. It is perfect. Prove it is not.

Then prove Ron Brown and The Holey Skull.

Putin's opponent Lebed.

Dag Hammarskjold.

Dorothy Hunt.

Hale Boggs.

TWA 800.

Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or this helpful CIA cartoon.

Moral equivalence allowing the predictable monomania of the agenda-driven sex-obsessed or the Ministry of Truth's Terminator v.2.0 is the frog relaxing in the bath.