Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Two Posts Per day
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. Exactly. Repeating what I said earlier in this thread (on page 3, in Feb. 2016).... ---quote on--- "The stuff I save on my site is mainly (as I said in my 2014 post above) for the purpose of archiving MY OWN words and MY OWN Kennedy arguments. And what better place to archive one's own material than at their own site (or blog)? Why on Earth would people want to use up hundreds of hours of their time to write up posts for an Internet forum, only to run the high risk that those posts will vanish into nothingness in just a short time? One year? Two years? Who knows? All Lancer Forum posts are now gone forever, except for perhaps a few that are recoverable via the Wayback Machine at Archive.org. IMO, it's just dumb to take that risk. So, I archive my own material at my site. And if "my material" is in the form of a REPLY to a conspiracy theorist on a JFK forum, then (of course) it makes sense to bring the CTer's words that I'm replying to along for the ride too. And since I'm an "LNer", I naturally am going to think I have outlasted or defeated the CTer I'm battling. Just as you, Jimmy, undoubtedly think YOU have won every single war you've ever waged online. Right? (Have you ever admitted that you've been "defeated" by a lowly LNer like me? Of course you haven't.)"
  2. Thank you very much, Tracy. I appreciate those words of support. I have no desire to leave this forum at all, and I do not consider myself to be a "thief" in the slightest way. In fact, I had never even considered the notion that the act of copying to my website the already-published words of various posts that are freely available on the Internet would be frowned upon so vigorously by anyone. I just never gave that idea a single solitary thought. I truly didn't think it was any kind of a "problem" at all (and I really still don't, particularly since I have never once intentionally misquoted anyone on any of the pages on my website). I guess I was being too naive, huh? But, as I said before, you can bet your last greenback that none of this turmoil would exist in the first place if I had the words "Conspiracy Believer" printed next to my name. I don't think there's even a shred of a doubt about that fact. This is all about "CTers" lashing out against an "LNer" --- and everybody here knows it.
  3. You must be joking with that "being welcome" stuff. That's a real laugh. You think the majority of CTers here have put out the welcome mat for me (or any LNer) at any time in the past, eh? Such as this "welcome" I got from Mr. Kamp earlier this year.... "Go home Von Pein. You have no right to be in here sharing your dross." -- Bart Kamp; February 9, 2019
  4. I have merely copied the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS I have put on the table here over to my own site (for the reasons stated). The arguments that I have archived at my site are NO DIFFERENT than they are here. For some reason, the CTers here seem to think otherwise. But they're wrong.
  5. Not a death wish at all. Just a fact of Internet life. Virtually every forum I've ever posted on is now gone --- e.g., JFK Lancer, Amazon's Discussion Boards, the "old" Duncan MacRae forum (due to a hacker that time), Bob Harris' forum, and Rich DellaRosa's forum. All have died. And it's a shame. Because there was a lot of good stuff on most of those forums. Which is one of the main reasons I make an attempt to archive (i.e., save) my own contributions at my own website. I've provided (i.e., "flaunted", if you will) links to many of my "Assorted Assassination Arguments" dozens of times over the years here at this forum. Never once, prior to yesterday, did anyone ever ask me to remove their content from those pages. (I guess you'll say that nobody ever once clicked on any of them, right? But I know that's not the case.)
  6. Yeah, that's what I figured. For more than three years this thread has been here, and in that whole time not a SINGLE person asked to have their content removed from my site. Now, suddenly, CTers are crawling out of the woodwork with complaints. Even just 3 days ago, Bart Kamp couldn't have cared less about what I did on my rinky-dink little blog. Now, three days later, he's ready to leave the forum and demand that all of his own posts be removed because of MY site that three days ago he didn't care about at all. Unbelievably fickle. And, again, can you just imagine this thread existing if a "CTer" had archived some of his posts at his website (which likely HAS occurred somewhere online)? It never would have been started in the first place, of course. Bye. Enjoy your fickleness until this forum goes belly-up in the near future. And when that happens, you might even find yourself wanting to seach my site for your forum posts that have been lost for all time because of the fact that Internet forums rarely last forever.
  7. No, I never said anything of the kind. And I never said that it was ALL Jim had to say in a particular discussion. Again, the aim is to archive MY OWN WORDS first. And since I choose not to engage CTers on every crackpot idea they post on the forums, then of course there IS going to be "editing". ALL CTers "edit" here as well. They don't respond to each and every comment made by somebody else. And, BTW, that "DiEugenio Part 1" page doesn't concern you or The Education Forum in any way at all. That material did not originate at the EF forum. See my last comments. Of course I haven't responded to every single post on ALL SIX PAGES of a thread. (Who does?) But I've linked to the complete discussion (as mentioned many times before). Again--- I attempt to archive the portions of discussions that I myself have participated in. Nothing more. Nothing less.
  8. Yes I most certainly did. I posted every single word in this Bill Kelly post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15921-robert-harris-and-the-ce399-tom-foolery/?tab=comments#comment-194367 Why on Earth you're saying otherwise is a bigger mystery.
  9. On 8/26/2019.... What a difference three days can make, huh?
  10. Incorrect. I've "changed" neither. With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on (at both this forum and then at my site when I transfer that material over there so that I know my own remarks are in a safe place that won't disappear when this forum goes down the tubes due to a lack of funding), I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on this forum. And that complaint is also untrue, insofar as (again) the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on. There has been no "misrepresentation" on my part with respect to the topics that I have CHOSEN to talk about with the conspiracy theorists here at this forum (and then over at my own site when I copy those exact same discussions there). As for the topics at this forum that I have not chosen to engage the CTers on, I always provide a link (or links) to the full and complete forum discussion on my webpages at my site. So, as I've pointed out numerous times previously, if someone wants to read the full thread, they can easily do so from my site (if such a link is available, that is, which sometimes it is not, but that's beyond my control because the thread was deleted by the moderators, and in such a case, then my site is now the only place to read any part of those deleted threads).
  11. Says the conspiracy fantasist who continues to pretend.... "The second floor lunch room encounter never happened." And yet I'm being told by the author of the above quote that it's my position at this forum (not his) that is "untenable". Ya gotta love it, folks!
  12. The gun in the Reiland film isn't the Tippit murder weapon. It's TIPPIT'S gun, which had just been given back to the police by witness Ted Callaway. http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reiland-film-november-22-1963.html
  13. That's just exactly what I did say above. Can't you read at all? .... "William Kelly is apparently serving as one of James DiEugenio's lapdogs/servants...with Kelly posting this message from DiEugenio on June 2, 2010...." -- DVP What in the heck are you talking about? I just checked that "Part 38" link, and I quoted EVERY single word you wrote in that first post of Kelly's. Every word. So nothing was "edited" out at all. I quoted your words verbatim on each specific point you made, and then I posted my rebuttal. So what's this crap about "Night and day"? Or maybe you didn't notice that the quotes in-between the " >>> <<< " symbols are YOUR quotes. Not mine. 0-for-2 now, Jim. Try again.
  14. Jimmy is hilarious with this supposed "Gotcha" above. The webpage he cites is a discussion from early June of 2010, twenty days BEFORE DiEugenio ever joined The Education Forum for the first time, and two months before I re-joined. So my "source" link to an acj newsgroup post is entirely appropriate and accurate, because that link, in fact, IS the original "source" location for that June 2010 material. I originally posted it at the acj newsgroup. And if Jim would have just looked at the very first paragraph on that "Part 37" webpage, he would have seen this (which even includes a link to the EF post in question by Bill Kelly!).... "At The Education Forum, William Kelly is apparently serving as one of James DiEugenio's lapdogs/servants (since DiEugenio will never lower himself to post on any Internet forums [as of early June 2010 anyway; but I will amend that previous criticism, because DiEugenio did join The Education Forum as an active participant on June 22, 2010]), with Kelly posting this message from DiEugenio on June 2, 2010...." -- DVP; June 2010 Another part of my webpage that I guess Jim D. didn't bother to read (or comprehend) is the part where I said this.... "Allow me to highlight some of DiEugenio's latest blather from the above-linked article:..." So I wasn't even attempting to tackle ALL of the silly things Jim might have written (and which were posted by Bill Kelly by proxy)....hence I wrote the word "some" above. Try again, Jim. This last effort of yours was a definite bust.
  15. Good! Another lie told by Hargrove. (This is becoming a habit with Jim H.). I proved Larsen was wrong about this in my last link I provided.... "I wondered if DVP posted ANYTHING on that page of his website regarding FRB circulars and my proof. What I found is, to say the least, enlightening. .... There is not one single post where I show that the FRB circulars tell bank managers that bank stamps are indeed required on PMOs. Not One!" -- S. Larsen I MYSELF even posted the text of the regulation in question in a follow-up post after Sandy's. I guess Sandy can't read. Nor evidently can Jim Hargrove.
  16. Why are you repeating that crap, Jim H.? I already debunked it on Page 17 ( and Page 8 ) of this insane thread --- HERE.
  17. Oh good! Another outright lie being told by a CTer tonight.
  18. That is an absolute lie. There is nothing "imaginary" about any of the discussions archived at my website. How long will Hargrove will be allowed to tell this blatant lie here? This makes at least three times he's told this outright lie now.
  19. CTers don't like anything an LNer does. So what's new? If I was a "CTer", this thread would not exist....and everybody here knows it. How do you figure that?
  20. Why on Earth do you have a problem with it, Bart? And.... Why the sudden about-face from this stance you took just two days ago?.... "No need to delude yourself any longer. Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway. 😁😝😂 " -- Bart Kamp; 8/23/19 It's obvious from that quoted remark that you couldn't have cared less about this matter on August 23rd. And yet, just two days later, you're acting as if you care very deeply. A most curious quick switch. (But maybe I hit the nail on the head when I used the word "acting" just now. Ya think?)
  • Create New...