Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

Recommended Posts

Kirk Gallaway said:

But what I really want to talk with you about is your chicken.

I'll let the Colonel himself do the talking....

Coincidentally, with a "JFK" connection (sort of)....the first "What's My Line?" aired after the assassination; but it's not a live show; it was pre-recorded in early November '63....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/game-shows-with-colonel-sanders.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... the recent verification that Oswald's money order is legit and genuine (via the File Locator Number) was a real bummer for the LN side, wasn't it?

I picked up a package from the Post Office the other day. While the postal worker was in the back getting it, I swiped a postal money order. Afterward I visited the local university and bought a rubber stamp for ten bucks. I stamped a File Locator Number on the money order.

Now that I have a "legit and genuine" money order, I'm pondering what to do with my pretend gain.

Oh, I know! I'm gonna buy one of these books for DVP:

forging_money_orders_for_dummies_zpsoxjf

Maybe he'll learn how easily a File Locator Number can be forged. And thus how the presence of one means diddly squat.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"BTW, I asked a bank supervisor about postal money orders a few days ago."

Most moving companies will ask for a "postal money order" vs a cashier's check or any other form of payment, it assures payment, a postal money order is no difference then cash.

And a forged postal money order is no better than counterfeit money.

Though the two are treated differently legally, depending upon the endorsements or lack thereof on the back.

This is an important point because Lance the Lawyer used the "same as cash" argument to "prove" that he was right, that Federal Reserve Banks don't require bank stamps. It's funny how quickly he claimed victory and disappeared once he could see that the hole in his his argument was about to be exposed. (imo)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy:

The real point, which Davey wants to dodge, is that my bank supervisor, Craig, said PMO's are treated no differently than checks or money orders.

Which means that the whole unbelievable "segregation scheme"--sort of like Jim Crow in the south-- that he and Lance the Lawyer dreamed up to dodge the fact that there is no evidence that the PMO went through the system, is now negated. (That was really the wildest piece of nuttiness Davey dreamed up since he said the post office kept payments for REA in a drawer and then delivered them to that private competitor.)

And BTW, on the BOR show that Davey never listened to, John did the same with another bank supervisor; she did a double take when John showed her the money order. Davey can't accept that either.

But alas, see, that is Davey. Like Rawhide, with him, its "Roll'em, roll 'em, roll 'em", as in keep the BS moving. He has as much interest in facts and truth and the real world as Allen Dulles did on the WC.

Maybe he has Dulles' picture on the wall, right next to Colonel Sanders.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove started this ridiculous thread merely because of my status as a Lone Nutter -- and for NO other possible reason.

...

I rest my case.

...

No, Mr. Von Pein, I started this thread because you posted three links to the imaginary conversations on your website in your post #105 on my "John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle 'evidence'" thread.

I followed those links that you posted, read a bit of your material... and was appalled!

The links to your website I put at the top of this thread are the very same links you first posted in the John Armstrong rifle evidence thread.

And that's why I started this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what I really want to talk with you about is your chicken.

I'll let the Colonel himself do the talking....

Coincidentally, with a "JFK" connection (sort of)....the first "What's My Line?" aired after the assassination; but it's not a live show; it was pre-recorded in early November '63....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGaT7FJ4ZY

"But what I really want to talk with you about is your chicken."

​I hope the next question that pops through his head isn't asking you how you choke it, I'd be getting a bit worried.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the imaginary conversations on your website...

Why are you telling the blatant falsehood about the stuff on my site being "imaginary conversations"? That's an outright falsehood. Please stop saying such crap. OK? There's nothing "imaginary" about a single conversation I have archived at my site.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its not a blatant (or outright) falsehood.

Anyone can see that, in many cases, after you heist the exchange, you yourself add to these dialogues--sometimes at very long length.

In some cases you have disguised the names of people you quote, and then you add in information provided by you to attack their arguments. Thereby setting up a paradigm: "See how stupid this guy is? All critics are just as dumb."

Always giving yourself the last word.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you know all that, Jimmy? You hardly ever go to my site. Right?

"​The idea that I am familiar with Davey's site is loony tunes. I have been there

maybe four times since its [sic] been up." -- J. DiEugenio

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In some cases you have disguised the names of people you quote.

Wrong again.

If the person I'm quoting has decided to remain anonymous on the Internet (by using an obvious fake name or just a series of numbers or letters as their username), then I will identify that person on my site as simply "A Conspiracy Theorist" (or "CTer"). But I'm not "disguising" them. They've already disguised themselves by using an alias.

I await your next silly and childish complaint.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, Davey, why do you have to act like a kindergarten teacher?

I just said yesterday that I had been at your site then. That was one of the four times.

Is this your way of trying to show that hey, I am right and DiEugenio is wrong?

Because it does not. Only in your solipsistic world does that happen.

Which is made more solipsistic by the techniques you use on your site to "win" arguments against people who are not there anymore.

Which is one definition of "imaginary".

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was silly about it?

Its your site. Jim Hargrove pointed this all out and I am glad he did.

Because now it shows you are even in denial about your own site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was silly about it?

Its [sic] your site. Jim Hargrove pointed this all out and I am glad he did.

Because now it shows you are even in denial about your own site.

Yeah. I should be locked up for life for the dastardly crime of voluntarily posting a lot of comments written by CTers on a site run by an LNer, thereby providing an additional Internet location where many many conspiracy arguments can now be viewed. (And providing links to the original full discussions, if anyone wants to view them.)

Yes, I get the "last word" in those arguments after I transfer the portions of the arguments that I have been involved in (which is the only part of the discussions I have any interest in archiving on my website). But since I'm an LNer who thinks all conspiracy theories are bunk, what in the heck would you expect, Jimmy? It's my site. Get real.

I should be getting an "Attaboy!" from CTers for voluntarily posting on my site hundreds of different arguments presented by the "other side" (which I certainly don't have to do).

Instead, I'm treated like a dirty thief who robs people blind and skips town with everybody's money and jewelry.

Geez Louise. Ridiculous.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"BTW, I asked a bank supervisor about postal money orders a few days ago."

Most moving companies will ask for a "postal money order" vs a cashier's check or any other form of payment, it assures payment, a postal money order is no difference then cash.

And a forged postal money order is no better than counterfeit money.

Though the two are treated differently legally, depending upon the endorsements or lack thereof on the back.

This is an important point because Lance the Lawyer used the "same as cash" argument to "prove" that he was right, that Federal Reserve Banks don't require bank stamps. It's funny how quickly he claimed victory and disappeared once he could see that the hole in his his argument was about to be exposed. (imo)

While a money order and a postal order are often considered to be the same type of financial instrument, there are a few subtle differences between the two. Those differences focus on where the instruments are obtained, where they may be tendered for cash, and who will accept each as a form of payment. In some nations, the level of risk associated with them also creates an additional distinction between the two.
One of the chief differences between a money order and a postal order has to do with where the instruments may be purchased. A postal order is purchased directly from a national postal system, such as the US Postal Service or the Post Office in the United Kingdom. By contrast, a money order is produced by an independent financial service provider and may be purchased at any number of retail outlets, including supermarkets or drugstores.
Another key difference is the reputation of the two instruments. While there are exceptions, creditors are usually more willing to accept a postal money order over a money order issued by an independent financial services provider. One of the reasons for this is the perception that postal orders are more difficult to forge than money orders issued by other entities. In addition, there are providers who tend to be somewhat slow with honoring payment, a factor that may lead some creditors to not credit customer accounts until the funds are actually received. In contrast, the face value of the postal orders may be posted immediately, since the chances of forgery or some other issue are relatively low.
Cashing the financial instrument is another difference between a money order and a postal order. Many banks, along with most post offices, will honor a postal order immediately by providing cash to the individual presenting it. In contrast, a money order may not be eligible for immediate cashing. Instead, the presenter would need to deposit the order into a bank account, and allow the bank time to clear it. This is another reason why many creditors will accept postal orders but may decline payment tendered in the form of a money order.
I hope this is understood between a "postal money order" which clearly identifies the currency as being equal and having accessibility to "quick cash" vs a money order that would require a deposit.
My hole suddenly shrank to a golf size... :)
Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...