• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Robin Ramsay

Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

1,654 posts in this topic

why are there no 54-55 grade cards showing the "12" that you added to the "168"...? and if "168" is the attendance... 179 must be his attendance for the 53-54 year.

Who knows about the grade cards. Maybe they got lost in the shuffle? If that's all you've got, you've got nothing. For the thousandth time, the 168 figure is not meant to be the days of attendance. It is the balance of the days in the school year after days absent. That is why it works as also being the total days in attendance -IF- the student has been enrolled the whole school year. If the student has NOT been enrolled for the whole school year, it CANNOT be used as the total attendance days. You need to subtract the total number of says NOT enrolled.

What are you jabbering on about? I posted the grade cards right there... nothing is lost but your mind mate. Quite a number of conditions on that analysis of yours...

IF... THEN... and the tautologies continue (Glenn and Kenneth - I didn't realize it, that really is his entire debating style - create a false premise and then assume if correct to produce the THEN portion of the statement... nice call!)

You've become found of saying "You've got nothing" yet show up at every gunfight without bullets or a pistol ... well done!

Go back to your little ROKC playground where you belong little boy... You've lost at every point along the way and now simply look foolish and desperate with your IF..THEN's and convenient lapses of memory.

:idea

Take Bernie, Tommy and Paul with you... This forum's ave IQ would jump 50 points and the place would become enjoyable once again

rather than having to contend with your ongoing attempts at creating the ROKC's cesspool environment here seeing you seem to miss it so much spending so little time there anymore and all....

You're a disgrace Parker... and riding the coat tails of Armstrong's H&L to get the attention you'd never garner alone is the ultimate in pathetic...

:up

Show where it says that card is for 54-55 and not 53-54.

There is no tautology. Never has been. You need to go and study language some more.

As for looking foolish... throwing barbs is okay - if it is accompanied by actual logical rebuttal... otherwise it's pretty obvious you've got nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have my own reasons for believing there were two youths superficially similar who had the same name.

If those reasons are different to those given by Josephs (and they must be since you say you can't fathom his arguments any more than you can mine), please spit them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack White, Feb 10, 2007 vouching for his bestest bud: "Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty."


My reply:

"Impeccable honesty" is a bit like a virgin birth. Takes a great deal of blind faith to believe anyone capable of it.


But speaking of honesty, since you say above, you were involved in those interviews, should not your friendship with Kudlaty have been disclosed to readers of "School Daze"? Perhaps such disclosure was made in Armstrong's book? If so, it would show Armstrong does have integrity.


I am curious about one thing concerning that friendship. Did Frank tap you on the shoulder during your time at the HSCA and let you know then that he had handed over Oswald files to the FBI and that they were never returned? If not, when did your friend come forward?


White's reply on Feb 11, 2007: I was not present when John interviewed Frank Kudlaty. I don't know where you got that idea. At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew

his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. John's book gives an accurate account of Kudlaty's story. At the time of the interview Frank did not know that John and I knew each other. Kudlaty HAD NO IDEA THAT HIS STORY WAS IMPORTANT TILL JOHN INTERVIEWED HIM. I don't know where you got your wrong information.


Ooops. White's best bud whose integrity and honesty he could swear by has suddenly been relegated to a mere acquaintance who he hadn't actually seen in fifty years. How do you suppose it's possible to swear by the honesty of an acquaintance not seen in 50 years?


My response to White disclaiming being present for the Kudlaty interview and questioning where I got the idea he was in fact present:



I got that idea from you, Jack, when you said, "I was present for many of his interviews given above in example 1". Example 1 included the Kudlaty interview.


-----------------------


This is the way these snake oil salesmen operate. They are as slippery as eels. White knew he was trapped and tried to lie his way out of it, We see the same sneaky slipperiness here here with the refusal to acknowledge the misattribution made with a witness statement and the utter refusal to accept they are wrong about the Beauregard records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Garrett

There was a poignant reunion with a grammar school acquaintance, Richard Garrett. “I remember I had to look down to him, and it seemed strange because he had been the tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school. He looked like he was just lost. He was very different from the way I remembered him. He seemed to have no personality at all. He couldn't express himself well. He just hadn't turned into somebody. He hadn't turned into anybody. I've read where a lot of people say he was a loner. Well, he wasn't in the sixth grade but he sure was in high school.”

--LIFE Magazine, February 21, 1964, p. 72

Richard Garrett met American-born LEE Oswald in the sixth grade, and Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald in high school. Like many people who met both Oswalds, Garrett went to an early grave. On August 10, 1969, while waiting at a stoplight with his fiancee at the intersection of Oakland and East Lancaster in Fort Worth, he was shot five times. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1/10/70)

Like I said, you misattributed the quotes to CE 2221. For some reason, you seem reluctant to actually admit it.

All you've proven once again is that memory is fallible - both by your own misattribution and by Garrrett's recollections for LIFE. Lee's teacher Mrs Livingston correctly remembered Lee exactly as Garrett describes him in High School. Why do you ignore Mrs Livingston? Cherry picking, that's why.

As I did not write the article at harveyandlee.net which states this, but instead found the source of the quote in Harvey and Lee the book, I guess we should thank you so we can now attribute the correct source. It turned out that Garrett grew to be 6'4" and towered over Harvey.

5. The "Tall Lee and Short Harvey" article states "In an FBI report dated June 5, 1964 (CE 2221), SA Earle Haley described his interview with one of Oswald's Ridglea West Elementary School classmates, Richard Warren Garrett. The report indicated that Oswald and Garrett had played together at school, and Garrett had once been in Oswald's home. Garrett described Oswald as "the tallest, most dominant member of our class." But as anyone who bothers to check can see, CE 2221, has no such claim in it.

In fact, that entire quote even adds yet another person noting the difference in Oswald from 6th grade to 9th... hmmm, maybe it was a different boy the 2nd time... ya think?

I have nothing at all against his 4th grade teacher, Mrs Livingston's description of the boy. I even posted her photo and the entire class... wich I'm sure you downloaded and saved since you are not interested in the book or CD themselves... smooth Greg, real smooth.

Why do you feel a 4th grader and a 6th grade who has matured early and grown to be a bigger than average boy is so hard to understand?

Why do you not address your 54" theory and your total misunderstanding of standard deviation and statistics like Fetzer/Cinque and the doorway crap...

As for the grade cards... I'm sitting here watching over a very ill wife who is sleeping on and off entertaining myself by showing the rest of the readers how you, like Von Pien are performing the same task.

I open Photoshop and the image I posted above and create a quick image to illustrate my point. Taught myself Photoshop when it was windows 3.1

anyway, I find it important to illustrate my point even if only for Jon and Glenn and Ken who follow along. While I know many more enjoy my taking the time to deal with you.

Why would I go to all that effort to illustrate the point about the 12 days if I wasn't sure these were from the correct year? Unlike you I prefer my sources match my statements.

So let's ask once again Greg. You've state emphatically that the 180 day school year of 54-55 was divided into 168 and 12 days. 12 being the # of absences which would correspond to the cards for grades the teachers kept - since this was supposedly the "Permanent" record. The aggregate of the individual records. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=92#entry313030is the post above with that link...

So I did this quickly. Open that image in a new tab opens the Photobucket. Then enlarge... kinda obvious if it was something you REALLY wanted to know .

So my wife is up again and I need to go... you take care now Greg... maybe take a few days and collect yourself...

:up

1954-55%20school%20year_zpsmquhd0fr.jpg

Show where it says that card is for 54-55 and not 53-54.

There is no tautology. Never has been. You need to go and study language some more.

As for looking foolish... throwing barbs is okay - if it is accompanied by actual logical rebuttal... otherwise it's pretty obvious you've got nothing.

You were saying....

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you feel a 4th grader and a 6th grade who has matured early and grown to be a bigger than average boy is so hard to understand?

She also taught him music during 5th grade. Her recollections from those 2 years match Garrett's recollections of Lee in High School. He was pretty obviously misremembering or mistaking Lee for someone else in his memory of Lee in the 6th grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were saying....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10530&search=%22re_ad%22#relPageId=10&tab=page

53-54 - days absent 5

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=%22beauregard_junior+high+school%22#relPageId=841&tab=page

53-54 days absent 5

Days present in 53-54 179 less unknown number of days not enrolled

Days present in 54-55 168 less 0 days not enrolled.

Get over it. Your theory of overlap with PS 44 has no legs and never did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Nall,

I don't believe I've ever been disrespectful toward Greg Parker. I do believe there were two Oswalds, but I respect Greg's scholarship and his right to advocate his views.

Being too dense to grasp the core of Greg's and D.J.'s disagreements, I can't say I think Greg is wrong. I just have my own reasons for believing there were two youths superficially similar who had the same name.

Jon Tidd,

I've never even hinted at a concern for which side of H&L Greg comes down on. I've explicitly stated that I dislike unnecessarily mean people, and that he is one.

I don't care whether Greg is wrong or not. I've even stated that he may have some good info.

It's not about H&L. It was in response to yet another rude comment he made.

That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory.

i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ...

missed that too, did ya? of course...

your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.)

that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing.

I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions

do you not see the um, "irony" in that?

do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile.

go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself.

look ma, no hands!

You have a really creepy and very unhealthy obsession with Greg. You do know that don't you?

Why?

You castigate him for being a whiner when he is publicly labelled an anti Semite by Steven Gaal, a mere "slight" according to you, yet here you are with lots of "whining" words on Greg and his... 'rudeness'.

Obviously being 'rude' needs 1,000's of reprimanding words in response.

But defending oneself against baseless trolling accusations of anti Semitism?

Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation.

Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be.

I'll leave it there.

How do you block people?

You conveniently overloooked two of my points:

"How long have i been active in this forum, Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see [these attacks from Steve, et al] you're talking about? do you even know how long (NO, you don't)? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now."

"Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation."

the point is, i've never seen Gaal and his libelous accusation. so STOP with whatever i'm ignoring. I can't ignore it if i haven't seen it.

you're weird. "Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be."

1. Right. it's no big deal to be called names. i kinda grew out of being bothered by it once I became aware of and confident in my own person. I live in Atlanta, GA where caucasians are a minority in public and in government. BY FAR. I'm called a racist ALL THE TIME. I laugh at people who clearly do not know me. If I were not confident in myself, then it would bother me. hmmm...

2. Wrong. first, i'm not labelling Greg rude. I'm describing his behavior and simply stating that i can't stand that kind of behavior, especially when it's directed "downhill." and secondly, I happen to be quite a brash, opinionated and sometimes obstinate person. I'm also called rude quite often, and i cannot typically argue the case. They're often right. so, NO, being called rude is no big deal, either. I know myself. I know when I'm being rude - in FACT, i've admitted it earlier when i said i blocked DVP because he makes me react rudely.

you seemed to miss that, too. don't some people call this 'cherry-picking'...?

the difference in my occasional rudeness and Greg's is that he resorts to and repeats personal insult, often out of context (re his words to Steve) and mine is usually just in response to someone else's crap. also, i'm aware of mine, and i'm not happy with mine. Greg seems to wear his like a medal.

anyway. I'm just defending the forum and its environment, and a few of the people. if they've said anything to justify Greg's words, then (i think i've said this before, which you've again overlooked) i'd say the same thing to them.

this forum is fodder for rabbit-trails and petty, lengthy backbiting. I still get a lot out of it, and i'm just hoping the cancers are eventually excised so the rest of us can get on with the business of joyous intel gathering.

also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made. i'm thoroughly unimpressed with your fair and objective observations in culling my words for your errant assertions. try reading my posts slowly, maybe you'll see where i've been very fair in my comments. you continue to accuse me knowing i'll respond and then accuse me of being obsessed with Greg.

you're way out of your league in your accusations. you're just plain wrong. i know what i've said, and you've overlooked it.

ta ta

also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made.

Sorry I didn't realise I had to somehow "impress" you when addressing your obsession with Greg. I guess I've failed the interview now. Yes, it's Bernie. The clue is in the first name. That is...Bernie. Well done, you now know how to discern someone's name.

"Right. it's no big deal to be called names." Referring to Gaal's libellous accusation of Greg's anti Semitism (not to me being called Bernie!)

Really? Oh I'm sure I could push some buttons to get you to react Glenn. I'm too nice a person though.

But you do seem to be a man of obsessive habits...

i'm saying most people are concerned with some initial civility - its very basic standards of behavior. there are different definitions of the root "impress." my phrase "first impression" is of an obviously different definition than that of "impressing someone." did you not know that?

i just couldn't remember your name. it wasn't a reference to any libelous label that you and Greg are so terrified of. As i said, i'm called racist regularly here in Atlanta. I know better, so it doesn't bother me.

NO. you could not push any buttons to get a bad reaction from me. you're not nearly as complex and tempting as you think. don't flatter yourself.

you've still failed to reply to the points i made and mentioned that you ignored them. how bout that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm saying most people are concerned with some initial civility

And there was. Do a search of the forum where you'll actually find it. If you couldn't be bothered - fine - just stop hinting that none existed.

it wasn't a reference to any libelous label that you and Greg are so terrified of.

And while you're at at it, stop making stuff up. Terrified? Really? Dream on.

This concern about "civility" is touching and all, but it is also an excuse here to go after people who question certain things and call spades something other than an implement for manual excavation. You've now joined that lofty club.

My concern is content and intent - not style and presentation.

You can please yourself. The Three Stooges meanwhile don't care about content, intent OR style and presentation. They're in a League all of their own.

Despite everything though, I do have a soft spot for Curly. I think he is a bit "put upon" by the other pair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Nall,

I don't believe I've ever been disrespectful toward Greg Parker. I do believe there were two Oswalds, but I respect Greg's scholarship and his right to advocate his views.

Being too dense to grasp the core of Greg's and D.J.'s disagreements, I can't say I think Greg is wrong. I just have my own reasons for believing there were two youths superficially similar who had the same name.

Jon Tidd,

I've never even hinted at a concern for which side of H&L Greg comes down on. I've explicitly stated that I dislike unnecessarily mean people, and that he is one.

I don't care whether Greg is wrong or not. I've even stated that he may have some good info.

It's not about H&L. It was in response to yet another rude comment he made.

That's all.

Glenn,

Then you're derailing this thread, aren't you.

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason it wouldn't allow me to attach this to the original thread.

Glenn said: "i'm saying most people are concerned with some initial civility - its very basic standards of behaviour"

See my very first post on this thread, you will see it starts with "Hi Glenn" and ends with "Best regards". I couldn't have been more civil. But because you have an extremely lofty 'impression' of your own puffed up intellectual superiority, you obviously missed that and whined on about being patronised. Another accusation worse than being called an anti Semite in your world.

Why am I not surprised when you admit "i'm called racist regularly here in Atlanta." What a creepy thing to say on a public forum! It's the word "regularly" I find profoundly disturbing. Once again though, they're all wrong because the great oracle of infinite wisdom, you, thinks it not so. And neither does it bother you that people regularly call you a racist. Get a grip man! Either, you are the victim of a constant and 'regular' on-going malicious injustice by having a totally unwarranted label of being a racist thrown at you. Or...well you fill in the blanks eh?

You're an angry man aren't you?

I don't want to be complicit in seeing this topic deliberately derailed any further, so if your addictive obsession demands that you repeatedly talk and post about Greg's 'rudeness' I suggest you start your own topic on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason it wouldn't allow me to attach this to the original thread.

Glenn said: "i'm saying most people are concerned with some initial civility - its very basic standards of behaviour"

See my very first post on this thread, you will see it starts with "Hi Glenn" and ends with "Best regards". I couldn't have been more civil. But because you have an extremely lofty 'impression' of your own puffed up intellectual superiority, you obviously missed that and whined on about being patronised. Another accusation worse than being called an anti Semite in your world.

Why am I not surprised when you admit "i'm called racist regularly here in Atlanta." What a creepy thing to say on a public forum! It's the word "regularly" I find profoundly disturbing. Once again though, they're all wrong because the great oracle of infinite wisdom, you, thinks it not so. And neither does it bother you that people regularly call you a racist. Get a grip man! Either, you are the victim of a constant and 'regular' on-going malicious injustice by having a totally unwarranted label of being a racist thrown at you. Or...well you fill in the blanks eh?

You're an angry man aren't you?

I don't want to be complicit in seeing this topic deliberately derailed any further, so if your addictive obsession demands that you repeatedly talk and post about Greg's 'rudeness' I suggest you start your own topic on him.

Bernie,

Another creepy thing about him is that he evidently feels so ashamed of being so egotistical that he constantly refers to himself as "i", as in "i'm called racist regularly here in Atlanta."

I suggest that he start a new thread called "Although I Don't Necessarily Disagree With Him, Greg Parker Is A Very Rude Person and I Don't Like Him Very Much."

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were saying....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10530&search=%22re_ad%22#relPageId=10&tab=page

53-54 - days absent 5

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=%22beauregard_junior+high+school%22#relPageId=841&tab=page

53-54 days absent 5

Days present in 53-54 179 less unknown number of days not enrolled

Days present in 54-55 168 less 0 days not enrolled.

Get over it. Your theory of overlap with PS 44 has no legs and never did.

54-55 Parker... concentrate.

12 absences - You've only posted this 100 times

Grade cards do not show 12 for that year. Why doesn't the source material for this record match the Perm record?

Simple... right? (I think your tapdancing shoes are a little too tight, cutting circulation off to your head)

Why are you pretending to be a complete moron when we both know you're just not that lost... or are you?

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason it wouldn't allow me to attach this to the original thread.

Glenn said: "i'm saying most people are concerned with some initial civility - its very basic standards of behaviour"

See my very first post on this thread, you will see it starts with "Hi Glenn" and ends with "Best regards". I couldn't have been more civil. But because you have an extremely lofty 'impression' of your own puffed up intellectual superiority, you obviously missed that and whined on about being patronised. Another accusation worse than being called an anti Semite in your world.

Why am I not surprised when you admit "i'm called racist regularly here in Atlanta." What a creepy thing to say on a public forum! It's the word "regularly" I find profoundly disturbing. Once again though, they're all wrong because the great oracle of infinite wisdom, you, thinks it not so. And neither does it bother you that people regularly call you a racist. Get a grip man! Either, you are the victim of a constant and 'regular' on-going malicious injustice by having a totally unwarranted label of being a racist thrown at you. Or...well you fill in the blanks eh?

You're an angry man aren't you?

I don't want to be complicit in seeing this topic deliberately derailed any further, so if your addictive obsession demands that you repeatedly talk and post about Greg's 'rudeness' I suggest you start your own topic on him.

like someone did on DVP...

i'm surprised it hasn't already been done - one for him, one for you...

you're right. you did say Hi Glenn. but it quickly changed.

ya'll are boring. You say something, I respond, and Thomas blames me for derailing. how interesting. and boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were saying....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10530&search=%22re_ad%22#relPageId=10&tab=page

53-54 - days absent 5

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=%22beauregard_junior+high+school%22#relPageId=841&tab=page

53-54 days absent 5

Days present in 53-54 179 less unknown number of days not enrolled

Days present in 54-55 168 less 0 days not enrolled.

Get over it. Your theory of overlap with PS 44 has no legs and never did.

54-55 Parker... concentrate.

12 absences - You've only posted this 100 times

Grade cards do not show 12 for that year. Why doesn't the source material for this record match the Perm record?

Simple... right? (I think your tapdancing shoes are a little too tight, cutting circulation off to your head)

Why are you pretending to be a complete moron when we both know you're just not that lost... or are you?

According to YOU, Kurian accurately guessed "Harvey" to be about 4' 8" (or 56") which puts "Harvey" inside the 2.5% of the population you claim to be so unlikely. That's fine with me. Except there was NO "Harvey" - it was Lee.

As for the cards -- the 5 days absence matches the absences for 53-54 and that is also what the FBI reported. You know - the same FBI who you stick by religiously when they write something that suits YOUR arguement - like the 200 days BS you rabbit on and on about every time you're trapped.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.