David Von Pein Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) I must be doing something right, in order to provoke the following idiotic comments from conspiracy theorists at other forums and websites. One of the comments came right after the usual CTer bashing of John McAdams when a conspiracy kook named Albert Doyle made this remark at the Deep Politics Forum (where no "LNers" are permitted, btw): "I'm beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein legally prohibited from use of the internet?" -- Albert Doyle; February 6, 2015 deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14566-The-Lies-of-Colby-New-Spartacus-McAdams&p=97284#post97284 =========================================== "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's CIA relationship." -- Ralph Yates; January 31, 2015 (Via Amazon.com; post has been deleted since 1/31/15, but was not deleted by Yates himself; I explain at the link below) amazon.com/MsgID=Mx1LI92AK97RVMT =========================================== How about that, folks? My opinions on the JFK case are evidently so vile and so disturbing to certain conspiracy believers that they now want me completely banished from the entire Internet and/or prosecuted for the dastardly crime of merely believing in something they do not believe in. It would appear as if the kooks quoted above have reached a new zenith in "kookdom". They want my basic right of being able to express an OPINION to be obliterated. The freedoms of man have been turned completely topsy-turvy by those conspiracy clowns. I find it hard to believe that even the wackiest of JFK conspiracists could utter the things that Doyle and Yates uttered in the quotes presented above. How would Albert Doyle like it if someone suggested that his OPINIONS about the JFK case should result in him being prohibited from expressing that opinion anywhere on the Internet? It's nuts. And it's downright offensive. And Doyle acts as if I am advocating something that nobody else on the planet has been advocating since 1963--that Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy and acted alone. But I've got news for Mr. Doyle -- there are many more "LNers" in the world than he suspects. I just happen to be one of them who writes a lot about it on the World Wide Web. Therefore, per Doyle, I should be banned from the Internet entirely. But on the other side of the fence, the folks who have been suggesting, without a stitch of evidence to support such garbage, that Lyndon Johnson and various other "innocent until proven guilty" people were responsible for JFK's demise are given a free pass by kooks like Albert Doyle. According to many conspiracists, those "LBJ Did It" or "Allen Dulles Did It" (etc.) crackpots are to be praised and congratulated for their brilliant research and excellent conclusions. But lone-assassin believers like myself and John McAdams (and many others) are worthy of only scorn and rancor. Has the world gone mad? Based on the above comments by Doyle and Yates, I'm beginning to wonder. David Von Pein February 6, 2015 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-891.html Edited February 7, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I would be grateful to receive information about Oswald's "CIA relationship." What I've got so far is: [1[ A statement not made under oath and not subject to cross exam by Antonio Veciana that he saw DAP with Oswald in Dallas. [2] A CIA report showing the CIA was keeping track of Oswald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The title of this forum is "JFK Assassination Debate." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "debate" as follows: "(1)To discuss a question by considering opposed arguments.(2) To take part in a debate." Therefore, David, as a member of the forum you have a right to put forth an argument on any aspect of the JFK assassination just as do all other members. We are not like a servile Congress such as when the President declared the U.S. must attack Saddam's Iraq because he had weapons of mass destruction and there was no debate and it turned out later there were no weapons of mass destruction. Healthy debate is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Thank you, Douglas. I take it, therefore, from your post above that you do NOT share Ralph Yates' opinion that I should be "prosecuted" to the fullest extent of the law for believing that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, murdered the 35th U.S. Chief Executive in nineteen sixty-three? Whew! What a relief! Edited February 7, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 David, If being wrong were a prosecutable offense no one would be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Thank you, Douglas. I take it, therefore, from your post above that you do NOT share Ralph Yates' opinion that I should be "prosecuted" to the fullest extent of the law for believing that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, murdered the 35th U.S. Chief Executive in nineteen sixty-three? Whew! What a relief! You're in good company. After all, Douglas (whom I admire greatly) defended the rights of E Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and other Watergate criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Doyle's previous hunk of nonsense aimed at me was evidently just a starter course. The main course was served up today. And it's even more bizarre and hilarious than yesterday's appetizer.... deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14566-The-Lies-of-Colby-New-Spartacus-McAdams&p=97332#post97332 My response.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/The-Attacks-From-The-Kook-Continue Edited February 7, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 David, If being wrong were a prosecutable offense[,] no one would be safe. Least of all the JFK conspiracy theorists of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 So why do we need to discuss the goings-on from another forum or two HERE? I agree that David Von Pein retains the right to his own opinions, same as everyone else...even if his opinion is that the WC got it right, and others believe they didn't. That's what discussion forums are for. And in a true debate or discussion, all points of view are open for discussion, as long as they remain on topic. But, if I recall correctly, this IS the JFK Assassination Debate Forum...and not the Discussion Forum Discussion Forum. Maybe the EF needs to START a Discussion Forum Discussion Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Who's afraid of David Von Pein? https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14566-The-Lies-of-Colby-New-Spartacus-McAdams&p=97360#post97360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 {sigh} Making an intelligent argument that "Black" is "White" may be constitutionally and philosophically acceptable.... it still remains pretty foolish looking to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason. You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 8, 2015 Author Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) "Oh, brother. Cliff Varnell thinks those previous comments I made somehow mean I can no longer believe (or in any way support) the SBT. Cliff's middle initial must be D (for "Desperation")." -- DVP; December 12, 2014 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-789.html ------------- Edited February 8, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 8, 2015 Author Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.... David Josephs just described a lot of JFK conspiracy theorists. Thanks, DJ. Edited February 8, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 "Oh, brother. Cliff Varnell thinks those previous comments I made somehow mean I can no longer believe (or in any way support) the SBT. What you "believe" or "support" is irrelevant. No one cares about that, except you. What is important is that you stipulate to the fact that the Dealey Plaza photos show just "a little bit" of jacket bunching. No more questions. The witness is excused. Cliff's middle initial must be D (for "Desperation")." -- DVP; December 12, 2014 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-789.html ------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 8, 2015 Author Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) ...in a true debate or discussion, all points of view are open for discussion, as long as they remain on topic. The people who run the Conspiracy Theorists Only network at DPF don't agree with you, Mark. They like the idea of silencing opposing opinions: "We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; February 20, 2014 Edited February 8, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now