On the 12th November I posted a message about the behaviour of members.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2224

This in itself has been taken over by personal bickering. I have therefore decided to make a new statement about the aims and objectives of this forum and to stress the kind of behaviour that we expect from members.

JFK Forum

The main objective of this forum is to bring together researchers into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is hoped that this forum will enable researchers to share information they have acquired about the case. In this way, the forum will become a major way of communicating information about the assassination to the wider community (we have a far larger number reading the forum than those posting information).

Rules of the JFK Forum

(i) All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature (see below for instructions how to do this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1861

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “liar” is banned from use on the forum.

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

(vi) Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.

(vii) When you start a thread please make sure it is relevant to the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. We have other areas of the forum where you can post about Politics, History, Mass Media, Sociology, etc.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx

(viii) Members should use the quote function of the forum when replying to people’s posts. To do this click the REPLY button. Pressing this button will allow you to reply to a topic, and have the text from a particular reply quoted in your own reply. This can be edited so that only the relevant passage is included. If you want to reply to several postings, copy and paste the relevant comments into your own answer. To make this clear use the colour options to highlight what someone else is saying. Type in the name of the person after the quotation.

(ix) It helps the reader if the text of your posts goes right across the page. If you find this has not happened, use the EDIT button to make sure it does. I do this for you whenever I can but I find it very time-consuming so I would prefer it if you did it yourself.

(x) There is no need to add your own name to postings. The forum software does this automatically.

Please feel free to add your comments about these rules. I welcome suggestions about other rules we might need. However, do not use this thread to reopen disputes with other members. If you do, they will be deleted.

That works for me. I like people having pictures as their avatar, makes it more personal, I think. However, I don't think people should be punished if they don't have a digital picture of themselves available, they should just - not have an avatar.

There are two reasons for this rule. (1) Some members have accused others of not being the people they say they are. A photograph helps to provide evidence that they are really that person. (2) I have found that people with photographs as avatars are less likely to make or receive personal attacks on the forum. I suspect that the reason for this is that the photograph helps to humanize the member. I might be wrong about this, but I thought it was worth a try.

Those members continued doing that even after the pictures were put up.



That is a possibility. What I don't understand is unless you know someone and have seen them - how would you know the photo is really of them?

I agree with Bill on the photo matter. We'll never really know whether the photograph is of them or not. The photo idea should be "struck from the record," to quote many court judges.

]

There are two reasons for this rule. (1) Some members have accused others of not being the people they say they are. A photograph helps to provide evidence that they are really that person. (2) I have found that people with photographs as avatars are less likely to make or receive personal attacks on the forum. I suspect that the reason for this is that the photograph helps to humanize the member. I might be wrong about this, but I thought it was worth a try.

I think I got it... Sixs months agos I cudest spells writter... nows I's are ones".. Thanks John for the information... This was a test. At the tone put you head between your legs and ...... goodby Tosh [COLOR=green]guess it did not work..,sorry.

Hey Tosh,

You don't look like Elvis anymore )))

Dawn

Hey Tosh,

You don't look like Elvis anymore )))

Dawn

[/quote]


[COLOR=blue]Can't sing anymore either. You know he was my 'cusin'. Once at the Cotton Bowl, I doubled for him... he went out the back and I went out the front. It worked for a few min... but then they almost killed me when they found out I was not elvis. I was paid $25. and quickly spent it at the Texas State Fair. Our friend knows the story[COLOR=blue]

I agree, John. I feel you're being very reasonable about this.
I was lucky my friend, Allen sends me the pictures he takes of me, otherwise I don't know how I would've been able to send you mine if I hadn't already had a copy in an e-mail. You've been fair and helpful to me, although I did get a little worried when we couldn't get me logged on again after you'd updated my bio for me. But, Andy figured it out and all is well, now.


And, as you can see in one of the threads, Denis Morrisette thought I was a guy
for the last couple of years I'd been posting over at Lancer. Must be my tomboy
attitude, being the only girl raised with brothers. LOL

Actually, it is your name, Terry, that made me think you were a man. I'm sorry, I'm French and not still used to all the English first names.

Ok Ok Ok I think I got it. Sometimes these computer things can be the most uncoopertive machines in the world . I saying all this just so I can test to see if my ugly mug comes up or not.
later all !!!!!

Mike

Thank you for that.

Mr. Simkin,

What if one's parents have an issue with them giving a photo of oneself, for one's personal safety? What shall be done?

That is a possibility. What I don't understand is unless you know someone and have seen them - how would you know the photo is really of them?

Bill Miller

Agreed, but at the same time, the research community is not so large, and many of us have met many others. Also, some that research together can vouch for the other people. Some people, like Denis, I feel as though I know very well, as we've been emailing and posting for years, even though we have yet to meet.

The issue being addressed is to discourage fake people with fake names from coming in to flame another poster or witness. That just is not fair, and can be very time-consuming to deal with.

Pamela

If you are under age you had been abide by your parents' wishes.

And my parents' wishes are that I stay, as long as no photos, phone number, etc., are requested. And if they are requested, I am to hold out as long as possible until that option is no longer necessary, according to them.

I think the photos we use add to our legitimacy and add a human element which quietly adds substance to our civil discourse, and they also discourage anonymous attacks, deliberate misinformation and reckless disregard for others, which can easily occur if you only see other people online as "cold type."

Once again I support John Simkin in his efforts to maintain our credibility.
I have two suggestions.
Please be very specific when you title a new thread, so it really serves to index that topic.

Also, the long, long, long posts are unbearable and they often relate to some minor argument that is not of general interest.

Please be specific when starting a thread and keep your posts succinct and interesting....people really do turn to us for information, so lets respect them, too.

__________________________________

Gibson

Are you really only 14 and already writing screenplays? I am so glad to see younger people researching this case. This is our job, to leave good solid leads for the next generation of researchers, and attempt to interview every person still alive connected to this case. Never know who just might hold a grain, or wealth of information.

Dawn

Selections and decisions.

Just seeing if I got this picture part to work?

No I didn't get it to work.

I've started using my formal name, Theresa, more these days, to avoid being mistaken again. And, I used to cuss like a sailor, but found that to be a useless form of the English language by which to express oneself.

I have done it for you.

I do appreciate that. Thank you, so much!!!

"And my parents' wishes are that I stay, as long as no photos, phone number, etc., are requested. And if they are requested, I am to hold out as long as possible until that option is no longer necessary, according to them."

Gibson, you and your parents are absolutely correct. Next thing you know, because of some argument on an on line forum, we'll be asked to publicly provide our address and phone number. I'm glad that John did address other situations in the new forum rules. I for one, came under attack from a "researcher" for being CIA and a "disinfo specialist" because I don't believe and completely disproved the James Files story. This "researcher" demanded I supply personal information about myself so he could be assured I was who I said I was. He demanded of other researchers that they post information that they knew me for who I was. Several of my associates(including Bill Miller, Al Carrier, and Allan Eaglesham) did just that. A year later, he is STILL making accusations that I am John Stockwell, simply because I don't buy his untenable position. Ms Meredith asked in another thread that the bickering stop about what went on at another forum a year ago. True to a certain extent, but IMO she should direct her attention to the one who initiated the attacks, as my response was that the Files scenario was totally thrashed at Lancer by solid research, which generated another personal attack. I agree with John in that researchers take their opinions seriously. Some think of their opinions as fact. When they are confronted with information that makes their position less tenable, they respond with personal attacks instead of evidence.

I don't feel the need to post my picture to prove who I am. People will think what they want. Rest assured I will NEVER post my most personal information so that some crackpot can harrass me at home because I don't accept their opinion as fact.

As an aside to this discussion, 2 members have been booted from JFK Lancer for their incredibly ridiculous postings and 2 others have been suspended for their continuous personal attacks on each other.

This is part of the most recent:

RJS: Regarding the legal issues between the two of you, take it to court and off the forum. As for the constant barrage of "liar liar" regarding actual issues in the assassination, state your case and let us determine if it's viable or not. If you're questioned by forum members as to inconsistent statements... answer them clearly and concisely. It's difficult to compare 3 page long statements from several different posts in several different threads. And when we ask questions, don't attack us personally(unless of course we say get coded messages from people on TV and suggest we should hire Kreskin). You only make yourself look worse and do nothing for your case.


Response: "Look forward to it all you want RJS or whatever your name is. I still think you are really JRS (John R. Stockwell) but you might not be. You could be just another dummy with a computer. That’s fairly common in forums and newsgroups."


RJS: Can't deal with facts, so you resort to personal attacks and innuendo.

1. I've never met nor communicated with John Stockwell. You can think whatever you want. You know very well who I am, you had me checked out didn't you?? You posted information on me and where I live on this forum(Lancer) a year ago after 6 months of accusing me of being CIA and/or Stockwell during the Files debate because you couldn't deal with the real facts. You've also seen my bio at The Education Forum. You are the 2nd poorest excuse for a researcher I know of, right above XXXXX XXXXXXX. Al hit the nail on the head with his post about you at John's forum, which I reposted in a thread here.

2. I am no dummy. I simply don't believe your so called "evidence". So 99.999% of the JFK researchers in the world must be dummies also, since they don't believe your Files...crap either.

I could care less about your legal problems with XXX XXXXXX. A judge or jury needs to decide this debacle, not me or the others on this or any other forum. Regarding the legal issues between the two of you, take it to court and off the forum. As for the constant barrage of "liar liar" regarding actual issues in the assassination, state your case and let us determine if it's viable or not. If you're questioned by forum members as to inconsistent statements made by Tosh, Marvin, or each other for that matter, answer them clearly and concisely. It's difficult to compare 3 page long statements from several different posts in several different threads. And when we ask questions, don't attack us personally(unless of course we say get coded messages from people on TV and suggest we should hire Kreskin). You only make yourself look worse and do nothing for your case.


I sincerely hope you run off to John's forum and post the crap you've posted here. Be prepared XXXXXXXX, you'll get the full assault in return. I'm drooling over getting the Files info restored from the forum crash. You looked like such a fool. I'd be happy to do it all over again."


Simply awful on my part wasn't it? But occasionally necessary to respond to condescending, untrue statements that never should have been made in the first place.

RJS

Note: names X'd out by me, not the forum administrators

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

As the old saying goes. Rules are rules.

Maybe, if we see your photo we can know who we are addressing I think is what Mr. Simkin is asking. It is to cut down on those kinds of personal attacks on each other, on the very points you are addressing.

"When in Rome do as the Romans do.

As the old saying goes. Rules are rules.

Maybe, if we see your photo we can know who we are addressing I think is what Mr. Simkin is asking. It is to cut down on those kinds of personal attacks on each other, on the very points you are addressing."

Currently, the photo isn't a rule, it's a suggestion. And I don't think a photo will stop overly aggressive or abusive behavior. Nor will it stop someone from making absurd posts.

If people want to post their photo, great. If they don't, that's OK too. I just don't think it should be a requirement. More than likely, I'll end up putting up a pic. That way you'll be able to see what your nemesis looks like. You can blow it up and throw darts at it.

That is right. It has to be remembered that the JFK Forum is only part of a much larger forum for teachers throughout the world. We have found that people are far less aggressive in their posts when they have a photograph as an avatar. We believe it leads to a more pleasant, comradely atmosphere. I was hoping that the same thing would happen with the JFK Forum. However, it is possible that JFK researchers are a breed apart and will not be influenced by this attempt at “humanizing” the forum.

It should be pointed out that so far only Gibson has refused to have his photograph as an avatar (and he has a good reason to take this view). The reason some people have not posted one yet is that they do not have a scanner. In these cases they are sending me a photograph by post. Others are arranging for digital photographs to be taken. In time, all members of this forum, except Gibson, are likely to have avatars. Let us hope it does lead to a more friendly approach to the subject. Anyway, it is worth a try.

I don't think I saw where the pic has to be a recent one, so maybe a baby photo will suffice.

Bill,
I actually thought of that.
At least they would be saying ah isn't she cute.

I: am laughing hard, now.

For me it works, and it is more enjoyable to see who I am speaking to rather than just words and out into thin air. We are people and should be treated with respect.

I am glad now I have posted mine up.

I did receive one side complement and that makes a person feel good.

After all what do we have to hide?

Yes a photo would be nice. No photo might be nicer.

Also it was great to read Clint Eastwood's posts.

Good to know Dirty Harry is keeping an eye on us all.

"Do ya feel lucky **** .....Well do ya?!"







EBC

Don Roberdeau has emailed me explaining why he cannot show a photograph of himself. His reasons are understandable and is allowed to continue to post. What is your excuse?

What's my excuse?

Sorry John, I have no excuse.

Please ban me now before I post again.



EBC

}I{

You will not get banned for not posting your photograph. If we at a real seminar we could see each other faces. If you feel so strongly about keeping your facial characteristics a secret, then I, and the others will have to live with it.

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

But why no bio Mr Connolly??? Just curious.

And Richard Smith, I encourage honest debate, just did not want to see what looked like boring infighting. Felt it could be done in an email. This is indended to be a serious forum, so the personal attacks re. alteration of the Z film were getting to be too much. We can all read the book and decide for ourselves.

And whether or not you believe the FIles story, this too can be dealt with in an adult manner. As to being accused of being "CIA" or a disinformationist, well you must admit in this case there have been more than a few of those.

John's rule of having a bio and a photo is a good way to encourage trust. If there is one thing that is lacking in the "critical community" it is trust. So any way one can facilate such constitutes good practice, I believe.

Dawn

Dawn
Some people have no biography and have no face: and they are the ones who know the truth about the Kennedy assassination!

Seriously, I am quite proud of the level of discourse here.
The wingnuts have been tamed and the "cream rises to the top..."
Thanks to everyone for participating fully and taking some small risks
by identifying yourselves .... Shanet

They don't get tamed because of photo up. They are the same with it or without it.
Just the more you see and read is the more you learn.

One of these days I will write somethings I have learned in a pattern with them.
Doesn't anyone see that?

I sure have. It shows all to well and they do it the same way.

That is WHY it shows.

They are out of patterns now.
They have no more recourse to turn to or go.
One by one they get figured out as well. We all know them now.

If I am wrong let me know and I do think everyone knows the who's and the what's maybe even better than I do. Probably?

Boy, do they ever have that same pattern.....
IF they tear down every word you say, tear down your learning, provoke situations, get deleted then they won. You don't comment than they got you and if you do comment they then blame you. YEAH they certainly do have a system that works for everyone of them.

They have several spys all of us talk about that. WE KNOW THE WHO'S THERE.
They have the feelers and the torment even to the worst situations you tell that you go though. Then they have the ones that take the cover for them and let them off the hook. YEAH that is the pattern. ONLY NOW they don't have as many of them so it shows up more. Again I say those words the jig is up.

I am not saying any names here. Go to and go by the rules of this and then apply over to the forum. Then we GOT THE PATTERN ON THEM and not the other way around.

NOW This is bound to stir them up more.
SO< hush we won't say anything any more.

Personally I went through the rules and abided fairly well
Just watch and see what happens next.

The other thing wake up.
That is a bit of my humor. Need it - with this.

NOW the best part is they know they are figured out.
Bad for them. Good for us.

We need a plot to get back and keep it recorded.

But why no bio Mr Connolly??? Just curious.


Be just curious...be very just curious.

As I have explained many times, one of the main reasons for this biography is to enable students to use this forum for research in their academic studies. All I can say is that students should treat any information provided by people unwilling to post their biography with great care. In fact, it should be treated as about as useful as graffiti written on a wall.

"As I have explained many times, one of the main reasons for this biography is to enable students to use this forum for research in their academic studies. All I can say is that students should treat any information provided by people unwilling to post their biography with great care. In fact, it should be treated as about as useful as graffiti written on a wall."







John, this is a most extreme, uncharitable, intemperate and splenetic posting. For some reason I expect better from you. This sort of snide undirected innuendo is unhelpful and uncalled for.To assume that the 'biographies' of certain individual 'researchers' are genuine in part or in whole or indeed of any value whatsoever is both naive and myopic. I treat any 'biography/information' given by these people with the suspicion it deserves. Having several University degrees and teaching diplomas I am totally unimpressed by those who think a string of letters after their name gives them some sort of cachet of respectability or of expertise on anything.
We are all learners. We are all amateurs [in both the literal and colloquial sense of the word]. We are all researchers for what is life itself but one long research? Let us have no bogus and spurious hierarchy of 'biographies' in this forum. As for your disdain for graffiti I feel it is unfounded. There is a lot to be said for graffiti which 'scratches' the surface to reveal deeper truths.



EBC

The problems created by people insisting on remaining anonymous can be found here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2433

It seems Gibson was not telling the truth. Your decision not to post your details can only create suspicion about your motives for refusing to abide by forum rules. Maybe you just like playing the role of being a naughty boy. In truth, I could not care less what you do. The rest of the forum do not seem to be influenced by your behaviour and are posting their biographies and photos.

I can understand John wanting people to post a photo and a biography, but his reasoning is flawed for the reasons you have stated. Harold Wiesberg was a chicken farmer and I have yet to meet any Ph.D with Harold's knowledge of the facts surrounding the assassination. Anyone can make up a biography and who'd be the wiser? Some people have careers where they might not want their opinions traced back to them for political reasons. I think the trick to helping the students is to insist that members (bio or no bio) cite as much evidence as possible by referencing where they have gotten their information. Then the students can follow up and see if someone has stated the facts properly. Offering information without references to it is little more than offering an opinion and everyone should always be skeptical of an opinion until there has been reasonable information offered to support it.

I am not interested in someone’s educational qualifications. As you rightly say, it is to “cite as much evidence as possible by referencing where they have gotten their information” that is important. Harold Wiesberg might have been a chicken farmer (he was a State Department intelligence analyst when he wrote Whitewash) but he never attempted to disguise his identify from his readers.

Dawn,

"And Richard Smith, I encourage honest debate, just did not want to see what looked like boring infighting. Felt it could be done in an email. This is indended to be a serious forum, so the personal attacks re. alteration of the Z film were getting to be too much. We can all read the book and decide for ourselves. "

Not sure how Z film alteration fits here, but I don't recall making any personal attacks regarding Mr Fetzer or his book here or anywhere else. I have however, made comments that questioned the veracity of the "evidence" presented regarding Z film alteration. Attacking someone's work is not the same as attacking them personally. As far as reading the book and determining its merit, unless you have an expert explain it, you couldn't decide for yourself by reading it, nor could I. Once it was explained by experts, and after reading the horrible responses by supporters of the alteration theory, I was absolutely convinced the Z film is authentic, and took the side of the anti-alterationists in the debate that was held at Lancer.


"And whether or not you believe the FIles story, this too can be dealt with in an adult manner. As to being accused of being "CIA" or a disinformationist, well you must admit in this case there have been more than a few of those."

With all due respect, it was dealt with in an adult manner from my point of view. It wasn't me who initiated the personal attacks. To be branded CIA in the research community is like the kiss of death. It was unprofessional, spiteful, childish, and intended to divert attention from the discussion at hand.

Let me engage in a hypethetical situation Dawn. I write my opinion on an aspect of the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963 on this forum(or any other). I claim that I have all kinds of facts to back up my statements. You spend 6 months looking into it, and post your findings. You essentially blow my case out of the water. My response to your investigation is that you are nothing more than a CIA plant. I go on to say I don't think you are really Dawn Meredith, and don't believe you when you say you are originally from Nova Scotia and lived in Boston. Furthermore, I tell you I think you're sitting behind a desk at Langley looking for ways to discredit my "true" story. On top of all that, I ask other forum members if they have ever met you, and to vouch for who you say you are. I repeatedly ask you to publicly post personal information about yourself to prove to me who you really are. When you refuse to publicly post personal information, I have YOU investigated, and post your personal information on that public forum, including your age and current sleepy little hometown. I don't think that would go over too well with you, or anyone else for that matter. Would you, under those circumstances, simply say, "oh well, there have been more than a few of those" on the forums? I think not.

Richard

BillM wrote:

[...]

Offering information without references to it is little more than offering an opinion and everyone should always be skeptical of an opinion until there has been reasonable information offered to support it.
==========

Would the entire reference library from the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineering, dating back to 1915 suffice in demonstrating that optical film printing techniques existed in 1963, for that matter, WELL before 1963? A case can be made for alteration, till forensic testing is done, the Z-film will remain a dubious piece of evidence, nice show and tell, but those in the know, K N O W!

Why not run a roll of film through the actual B&H Double8mm camera? Roland Zavada wanted that very test, too.... No soap, so say's the 6th Floor Museum, wonder why?

One could cite volumes -- not to mention, show examples ...

__________________________


Geez, this is getting pretty damn weird. I do not know quite how to take your post mr. Smith. My life is an open book. I have nothing to hide. My bio is 100% accurrate. You are welcome to check me out.

I made the posts I did as an honest effort to stop the friggen infighting. Period. I have had many researcher friends over these many decades and I have seen such an abundance of infighting that it just drives me nuts. So I joined this forum about 5 weeks ago and I asked that it be limited to serious research. Call me an idiot. My husband told me I just "don't understand how forum are, how poeple just flame each other". No I do not. I have kept away from forums.

Ok Richard, I am really agent 69. I have a second comperter hooked up with the company crowd, I just pretend to be an attorney, when really, I was in Cuba last week and behind the scenes Castro and I orcharasted the election to insure Bush would stay in power.

Please....if I have made one mistatke here it is that I have let all this become too personal. I feel like I know the people here when in fact I do not.

I care deeply about the murder of jfk and I believe it was an assassination from the highest levels of this government. So I foolishly got into a forum as I am sick and tired of all the people I know not giving two shits and having zero knowledge about this case. I have talked to judges, other lawyers, district arttorneys... you just get the blank stare and the subject gets changed. THEY DON"t WANT TO KNOW. So I came onto a forum to find like minded people.

If someone wants references on me as to who I am, PM me and I can provide same.

BUT I will not give out my friends' private email and or phone numbers to be harrassed by people with an agenda.

I have been truthfull at all times on this forum. I have one agenda: solving this murder and stopping the infighting between people who say they want the same thing.

If some of you out there have a differnet agenda then you know who and what you truly are. I am not God. Bu there is a GOd and He knows the truth. We mortals are just trying to piece together the pictures of this horrible puzzle, to untalgle the forces behind the theft of our government on 11/22/63.

Dawn Meredith

Dawn,
I would not let the likes of Richard get under your skin. He is the true one that should be ignored. I wish I had stuck to that golden rule a long time ago I would have been better off. Yes, Richard does have a great deal of knowledge ALL FROM BOOKS ONLY mind you. Just don't answer him, unless it has something to do with the real subject you are into.

Greater to be free then the be hackled.

I am sure that your input would be well worth it and more open minded then some that are SO VERY closed minded.

There is faults with the James Files story. I have waved many times on my own to try to believe him as well as disbelieve him.

Right now I am again not sure because of his lack of answering Tosh Plumlee. Maybe there is a reason for this I don't know, Maybe he didn't get the letter. So, I guess I can't say right now.

Here lately, I find myself saying all the time "TIME WILL TELL."

Peace
Nancy

___________________________-

ps I apologise for the typos in above post. Been a VERY long court week, and an all day contin. legal ed. class today, I kinda misread Mr. Smith's irony. One person told me to "have a sense of humor" on this, when in fact I do not have one, guess I need to develop such, where there CAN be irony. I am way overly tired and the irony missed me. I had a phone message "alerting" me that someone had called me "CIA" on the forum, then some calls to return when I got in and quickly responded to the post.

I have been the recipient of some personal bad news recently and that combined with a full work schedule should have caused me to keep off the forum for a bit, but ...easier said than done.

Back to square one for me.

So much for "hypos".

Dawn

"Geez, this is getting pretty damn weird. I do not know quite how to take your post mr. Smith. My life is an open book. I have nothing to hide. My bio is 100% accurrate. You are welcome to check me out.

I made the posts I did as an honest effort to stop the friggen infighting. Period. I have had many researcher friends over these many decades and I have seen such an abundance of infighting that it just drives me nuts. So I joined this forum about 5 weeks ago and I asked that it be limited to serious research. Call me an idiot. My husband told me I just "don't understand how forum are, how poeple just flame each other". No I do not. I have kept away from forums.

Ok Richard, I am really agent 69. I have a second comperter hooked up with the company crowd, I just pretend to be an attorney, when really, I was in Cuba last week and behind the scenes Castro and I orcharasted the election to insure Bush would stay in power.

Please....if I have made one mistatke here it is that I have let all this become too personal. I feel like I know the people here when in fact I do not.

I care deeply about the murder of jfk and I believe it was an assassination from the highest levels of this government. So I foolishly got into a forum as I am sick and tired of all the people I know not giving two shits and having zero knowledge about this case. I have talked to judges, other lawyers, district arttorneys... you just get the blank stare and the subject gets changed. THEY DON"t WANT TO KNOW. So I came onto a forum to find like minded people.

If someone wants references on me as to who I am, PM me and I can provide same.

BUT I will not give out my friends' private email and or phone numbers to be harrassed by people with an agenda.

I have been truthfull at all times on this forum. I have one agenda: solving this murder and stopping the infighting between people who say they want the same thing.

If some of you out there have a differnet agenda then you know who and what you truly are. I am not God. Bu there is a GOd and He knows the truth. We mortals are just trying to piece together the pictures of this horrible puzzle, to untalgle the forces behind the theft of our government on 11/22/63."



Dawn,

Please read my previous post again. When I explained the CIA moniker, you said "there's enough of those here" or words to that effect. I then explained truthfully exactly what happened to me, and used a hypethetical situation as if it had happened between you and me so you would see how ludicrous it was. I DID NOT indicate YOU were not as you seem. It happened to ME exactly the way I described. But you did get rather upset at the pretense. You now understand what it feels like. I am also at a loss as to who would email you and completely screw up the intent of my post. That person either has a complete lack of understanding and has comprehension difficulties, or is deliberately trying to fuel a fire and has "an agenda". Look closely at who sent you that email. Therein lies a problem.

Richard

"I would not let the likes of Richard get under your skin. He is the true one that should be ignored. I wish I had stuck to that golden rule a long time ago I would have been better off. Yes, Richard does have a great deal of knowledge ALL FROM BOOKS ONLY mind you. Just don't answer him, unless it has something to do with the real subject you are into."

John,

I could respond to this moronic attack in kind, but have decided not to do so. Terry Mauro left the forum because of this junk. Ms Eldreth was booted from another forum for ridiculous, self indulging and derogatory posts and it has continued here. It would not surprise me to find that she was the one who sent Dawn the email misrepresenting my previous post. There is no one else on these forums who misunderstands, misstates, and misrepresents as she does. Considering the source, I feel no need to defend my research or my abilities as a researcher.

RJS

YOU GOT IT (ALL WRONG) AGAIN, RICHARD


IT WAS NOT ME> To e mail her in that way.


THIS IS WHAT I MEAN ABOUT YOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Do grow up, get a life, and stop picking on me.

WHOULD YOU?

That I would have to see!!!

I think, I wish to enjoy the hoidays and do the things that require some FUN and leave the forum temporary because of RICHARD and his dowing of me. The break will do me good, get away from this habit forming sessions. Enjoy the holidays and yes I will be back. I need to step back for a while. At least I know that it isn't me alone that Richard has tendacy to pick on. Anyone that seems to names James Files he goes after.


To richard bah hum bug, back - to a judgemental fool.
To the rest of you, Merry Christmas.