Sandy Larsen Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 57 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Exactly right. And the funniest thing of all, it seems like all Hardly Lee believers DO NOT buy into anything the government wrote. In other words, they think EVERYTHING is fake in the Warren Report. Richly ironic. But when it suits them, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll start reciting chapter and verse ANYTHING in that so-called fake record to suit their fun-and-games HARDLY LEE story. LOL, indeed. What you do Mike is generalize about everything you hate and place it all at the feet of H&L folks, whether it is justified or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 5, 2017 Author Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: I could also provide many examples of typos and the like. Some of these have been confirmed and commented on by Jim Hargrove who is a professional writer and would know. Oh, puh-leeze! Your endless misrepresentations of John’s work and my “comments” could fill a book. You have no idea what typos are in the print version of Harvey and Lee because you only have a pirated PDF version of the book. Although the three unofficial PDF versions of Harvey and Lee that I’ve seen were all prepared with great care, many OCR errors were introduced during the scanning process in all of them. The bound book was researched, written, and set by a man with no previous publishing experience. It is remarkable how few typos or other errors of any sort can be found in a book that is nearly half a million words long. There are thousands of footnotes and document citations in Harvey and Lee. All of them, as well as the full text, available to anyone without cost. John has even made all of the documents he used to write Harvey and Lee available to everyone without charge at the online John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. The database is fully searchable without restrictions of any kind and is available here: John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: What you do Mike is generalize about everything you hate and place it all at the feet of H&L folks, whether it is justified or not. No I don't because that's what all of you do. Just go back to all of the times you and others have copied chapter and verse from the WR to fit bits and pieces of the testimony into the Hardly story. Then you all turn around and say the WR is fake and cannot be trusted. You cannot have it both ways - it's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Oh, puh-leeze! Your endless misrepresentations of John’s work and my “comments” could fill a book. You have no idea what typos are in the print version of Harvey and Lee because you only have a pirated PDF version of the book. Although the three unofficial PDF versions of Harvey and Lee that I’ve seen were all prepared with great care, many OCR errors were introduced during the scanning process in all of them. The bound book was researched, written, and set by a man with no previous publishing experience. It is remarkable how few typos or other errors of any sort can be found in a book that is nearly half a million words long. There are thousands of footnotes and document citations in Harvey and Lee. All of them, as well as the full text, available to anyone without cost. John has even made all of the documents he used to write Harvey and Lee available to everyone without charge at the online John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. The database is fully searchable without restrictions of any kind and is available here: John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University Let me ask you this. Were the severe misrepresentations I presented evidence of earlier in this thread (Armstrong's misuse of citations) the result of OCR errors as well? Now you are a professional writer and I doubt you would resort to that type of misinformation and still get any work. But every time you guys are called out you just ignore it. Do you agree or not that Armstrong's citations were not always correct and/or non existent? Edited December 5, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 50 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: And no, I'm not a member there. In reference to the ROKC On 11/15/2017 at 7:17 AM, Michael Walton said: Who runs that forum? Is there anything good there? In reference to the JFKassassinationfurum Why does Michael keep offering these onsolicited didbits. It's kind of odd that he claims to know no nothing about Duncan's Forum when no-one asks. It's kind of odd that he says he's not a member at ROKC, when no one asks him the question. And "Michael Walton" appears to have no other presence on the Internet, in relation the JFK, or anything else. I think I am going to try to track this guy down and see if he has any clues. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/6325-mark-henceroth/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) It's just really disappointing that we can't have a decent discussion about a decent article without the same three hooligans throwing sucker punches, and kiscks to the head, like rabid dogs, thugs or vermin. This article stood clear of the the larger Harvey and Lee work, but a hurt-child and dedicated ramshackle couldn't leave it be. lay dome some straight-up criticism, find fault with references citations or arguments, that's fine. Waltons hurt and despondency over his works bending ignored has created a disturbed child who needs to be removed from tha class of normal students. Walton has whined about no one paying attention to his garbage before, and we all have to pay for his delinquent, childish acting out. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/7252-michael-walton/?do=content&type=forums_topic&change_section=1 Edited December 5, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 28 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: 34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: What you do Mike is generalize about everything you hate and place it all at the feet of H&L folks, whether it is justified or not. No I don't because that's what all of you do. Just go back to all of the times you and others have copied chapter and verse from the WR to fit bits and pieces of the testimony into the Hardly story. Then you all turn around and say the WR is fake and cannot be trusted. You cannot have it both ways - it's as simple as that. You are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) On 5/20/2017 at 8:32 AM, Michael Walton said: .............. Mike Clark ......... I made a thread months ago and it got zilch views. I put a lot of effort into it, not making up some pie-in-the-sky story like this. Why don't you bring it up again and discuss it? I mean really look at it and think it through and see if it has any interesting debate to it instead of this nonsensical thread here? You probably won't though because I know you think I'm the playground bully here. ........ Thu hurt is strong in this one..... Edited December 5, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: In reference to the ROKC In reference to the JFKassassinationfurum Why does Michael keep offering these onsolicited didbits. It's kind of odd that he claims to know no nothing about Duncan's Forum when no-one asks. It's kind of odd that he says he's not a member at ROKC, when no one asks him the question. And "Michael Walton" appears to have no other presence on the Internet, in relation the JFK, or anything else. I think I am going to try to track this guy down and see if he has any clues. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/6325-mark-henceroth/ Michael C., What Mike W. said was in response to something I wrote. As is typical with him, he spewed some hateful things, probably against Armstrong or Hargrove. I replied by asking if he was a member of ROKC yet, because he was emulating the way certain ROKC member do with their anti-H&L venom. Though surprisingly he did go on and on in his reply as though I really was wondering about his ROKC membership. No.... I just want him to recognize his hateful attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Michael C., What Mike W. said was in response to something I wrote. As is typical with him, he spewed some hateful things, probably against Armstrong or Hargrove. I replied by asking if he was a member of ROKC yet, because he was emulating the way certain ROKC member do with their anti-H&L venom. Though surprisingly he did go on and on in his reply as though I really was wondering about his ROKC membership. No.... I just want him to recognize his hateful attitude. Thanks Sandy, I looked for it and missed it. Still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: ....find fault with references citations or arguments, that's fine. Yes, but don't just generalize and say that Armstrong doesn't cite references or does a bad job of citing things. I know it's a lot of work checking somebody's citations. But if you don't do that you shouldn't be criticizing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: Thanks Sandy, I looked for it and missed it. Still... Yeah, for some reason the search function misses things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Yes, but don't just generalize and say that Armstrong doesn't cite references or does a bad job of citing things. I know it's a lot of work checking somebody's citations. But if you don't do that you shouldn't be criticizing it. Agreed, it took me five minutes to trace the quote in the article to the book, find the footnote and discover the larger quote and context in the trove of information that is the Nassau Conference. What an incredibly valuable five minutes. Edited December 5, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 5, 2017 Author Share Posted December 5, 2017 Transcript of the Nassau Conference (1995) from the Armstrong Collection at Baylor University.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 5, 2017 Author Share Posted December 5, 2017 And here's John's write-up of THE PATSY... THE PATSY 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