Civil discourse

Jack White · August 27, 2005

It is astonishing how many inhabit this forum who write

vile personal attacks...saying things that they would not

dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting. The

anonymity of identity on the internet transforms some

otherwise nice people into assholes. I do not have

personal real conversations with assholes...so why should

I endure them here? Please cease demanding that I

respond to ill-informed and abusive questions and comments.

Jack

David Heagney · August 27, 2005

This a a great case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Mr. White, I have tried to discuss things wwith you rationally. Yet it was you who resorted to name calling (calling me a phony). Furthermore, I do not know how my questions are "ill-informed" and "abusive". Do you consider it impossible for you to have ever made an error in your photographic analysis that any evidence shown to be contrary to your work beyond your consideration? I have a picture here:

That directly refutes two assertions you have made in your Apollo work:

1) That my shadow should go down to the center of the picture

2) It is not possible to have shadows seemingly pointing in different directions from only a single light source.

How is asking you to explain this "abusive" and "ill informed"? I'd really like to know.

Evan Burton · August 27, 2005

It is astonishing how many inhabit this forum who write
vile personal attacks...saying things that they would not

dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting. The

anonymity of identity on the internet transforms some

otherwise nice people into assholes. I do not have

personal real conversations with assholes...so why should

I endure them here? Please cease demanding that I

respond to ill-informed and abusive questions and comments.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like David, I'm simply try to get a straight answer to a straight question:

Now, to diverge for a moment. The "wrecker". I say it's misuse of Photoshop. You say it's evidence of a wrecker. Leaving all other arguements aside for the moment, if the makers of Photoshop examined the same image you worked with and determined you had not used it correctly and that the "object" you say is in the image was a direct result of that misuse, would you then agree that a claim of that particular image being faked (because of the presence of a "wrecker") was incorrect?

That is not an "ill-informed and abusive" question. It's a very relevent question, actually.

You use Photoshop in a lot of your analysis. I'm asking: if the makers of Photoshop, who are third-party, have no axe to grind, and are the subject matter experts (Photoshop) say they believe that some of your analysis is incorrect because of misuse of Photoshop, would you then agree that your claims - based on the use of Photoshop - were incorrect?

To say 'yes' means that the makers of Photoshop would then have to offer an opinion before more could be said about your use of Photoshop.

To say 'no' would indicate that you believe you know more about Photoshop than the creators of it, or have some other yet unstated reason for disagreeing with the statement.

There is nothing abusive or ill-informed about that. It is NOT a personal attack. It is something I would ask you face-to-face if I had the opportunity to meet you. It is a fair question, directly related to an issue which you raised (the wrecker).

Edited August 27, 2005 by Evan Burton

David G. Healy · September 1, 2005

It is astonishing how many inhabit this forum who write
vile personal attacks...saying things that they would not

dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting. The

anonymity of identity on the internet transforms some

otherwise nice people into assholes. I do not have

personal real conversations with assholes...so why should

I endure them here? Please cease demanding that I

respond to ill-informed and abusive questions and comments.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

Question, are either of these two guys 'offical NASA spokespersons', capable of speaking to and of NASA photo library? I'm not sure about Evan, hell he may be a pilot or a baggage handler, who knows -- this Heagney from San Mateo (a nice place, I lived there for 10 years, grew up 10 miles north of there) he collects and sells hubcaps, I expect he's a amateur photg at best - I'd questioning anyone sanity that cruises Hwy 101 looking for hubcaps -- so my question is: why bother with them?

They certainly don't know the difference between EVIDENCE and a STUDY... :blink: For what its worth I wouldn't bother answering ANYTHING from those camps...

Evan Burton · September 1, 2005

It is astonishing how many inhabit this forum who write
vile personal attacks...saying things that they would not

dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting. The

anonymity of identity on the internet transforms some

otherwise nice people into assholes. I do not have

personal real conversations with assholes...so why should

I endure them here? Please cease demanding that I

respond to ill-informed and abusive questions and comments.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

Question, are either of these two guys 'offical NASA spokespersons', capable of speaking to and of NASA photo library? I'm not sure about Evan, hell he may be a pilot or a baggage handler, who knows -- this Heagney from San Mateo (a nice place, I lived there for 10 years, grew up 10 miles north of there) he collects and sells hubcaps, I expect he's a amateur photg at best - I'd questioning anyone sanity that cruises Hwy 101 looking for hubcaps -- so my question is: why bother with them?

They certainly don't know the difference between EVIDENCE and a STUDY... For what its worth I wouldn't bother answering ANYTHING from those camps...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, you can't answer the questions either.

If there were problems with my refuting of Jack's work, it would be an easy matter to highlight them and show where I am wrong.

If the problem lay in my "analysis" of an image, then it would be an easy matter for Jack or yourself to show the errors I might have made. But Jack doesn't. He can't because he knows that opening discussion on his work means that he risks being proven wrong - and he cannot accept that. He has already stated in this forum, quite clearly, that he will not accept ANY evidence that contradicts his work.

And you David - you just like posting in the forum. You don't seem to add anything to the topic being discussed, and you never take a position on any of the points questioned.

David Heagney · September 1, 2005

It is astonishing how many inhabit this forum who write
vile personal attacks...saying things that they would not

dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting. The

anonymity of identity on the internet transforms some

otherwise nice people into assholes. I do not have

personal real conversations with assholes...so why should

I endure them here? Please cease demanding that I

respond to ill-informed and abusive questions and comments.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

Question, are either of these two guys 'offical NASA spokespersons', capable of speaking to and of NASA photo library? I'm not sure about Evan, hell he may be a pilot or a baggage handler, who knows -- this Heagney from San Mateo (a nice place, I lived there for 10 years, grew up 10 miles north of there) he collects and sells hubcaps, I expect he's a amateur photg at best - I'd questioning anyone sanity that cruises Hwy 101 looking for hubcaps -- so my question is: why bother with them?

They certainly don't know the difference between EVIDENCE and a STUDY... For what its worth I wouldn't bother answering ANYTHING from those camps...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL! I leave the trolling of 101 for hubcaps to CalTrans and the people helping with the adopt-a-highway plan. As for my photography skills, yeah, I'm an amatuer when it comes to photography. That doesn't mean I am stupid. When someone tells me that it is impossible to take a photo a certain way, I am quite capable of testing that assertion empirically to determine if it is true. When someone tells me that a piece of something in a photograph shouldn't be there, and that the explanation given for what it is is "ludicrous", but does nothing to actually prove what the piece actually is, that doesn't mean I have to believe him simply because he has claimed he's an expert in analyzing pictures. Particularly when I can do a simple google search and determine that the official explanation for what it is is very logical.

But let's flip this around for a second, shall we? If Mr. White is the expert he claims to be, then how is it I, amateur that I am, am able to take a picture that he claims is impossible to take on two different grounds?

What do you mean the difference between evidence and a study? Mr. White uses his "studies" AS evidence!

September 7, 2005

"I do not have personal real conversations with assholes." by JACK

"...saying things that they would not dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting." also by JACK

I would have thought the above to be an attempt at satire or irony if I hadn't known better by experiencing the speed bumps that Jack's exquisite prose places in the way of cogency. But this is so often what we get. Here's a guy using the 'a' word and decrying a lack of civility at the same time. Then he says things he wouldn't dare say face-to-face while at the same time accusing others of saying things they wouldn't dare say face-to...well, I think you get the picture.

The Progressives are good (great, actually) at the double standard. They're also good at getting angry at you real quickly (but it's SOOO righteous, you see, and YOU are to blame) and to get personal and nasty, as above. I refer you to any of the more recent Nic postings. Once these people have exposed themselves they hate you even more because of their own self-loathing and because they know you're on to them.

So, AHEM! That's about the extent of expletory spillage you'll get outta ME, guys.

"And you David - you just like posting in the forum. You don't seem to add anything to the topic being discussed..." by Evan

Good call, Ev Man! This place reeks of THAT sort of thing as well. Touche. I still like perusing the topics but one has to wade through way too many Davids, Jacks, Nics, Pamelas et al - those who , literally, have never done anything meaningful outside the womb of academia and have absolutely NOTHING to offer but a continous stream of nonsense not worthy of teenage girl chatlines; the trading of drivel full of sound and fury and signifying...you guessed it.

Yesterday I saw perhaps the most outrageous and gratuitous speculation that I have yet encountered. It was on the Tippitt slaying sub-topic of the JFK assassination "debate", posted in January by something called Dixie Dea.

Mr. Dale Myers wrote a very admirable book on this subject - one of the best investigative works I have ever read - entitled "With Malice." Originally, I thought that those placing messages in the wake of the Dea posting would have cringed had they read that book. But then, obviously they WOULDN'T have read the book. They got just what they wanted (Earlene Roberts And The Amazing Honking Horn, among other things..incredible, simply beyond belief!)...after all, sometimes a great notion.

Hey, progressives, listen up! An FBI report (I'll get you the specifics tomorrow) revealed that fibers from the discarded jacket matched fibers from LHO's shirt worn at the time of his arrest. Try this and be done with it: Oswald didn't kill JFK but he DID kill Tippitt. I would have, too, under the circumstances. It was the smart thing to do. Being unable or unwilling to accept that notion tells me there may be an agenda at work. Just a wild guess.

Check out the Dixie Dea thing, Evman. It is symptomatic of what one must scroll (what a euphemism, that) through: declarative statements absolutely shot from the hip for no other reason than the posters simply WANT to believe them and feel good in the process; those who think they have some sort of license to dispense garbage as if it were wisdom, a la Jack; wild theory put out for its own sake and a bizarre insistence by the practitioner that he or she somehow has a voice to be heard on serious matters. They're up past their bedtimes.

Ok. I'm starting a new topic on Jonestown at this junction. If you haven't read what I am going to attach, then you are in for an enlightened ride (Jim Hougan on that trail).

You go, guys.

John A. Gillespie

Edited September 7, 2005 by John Gillespie

September 8, 2005

Wow JG, nothing like a personal attack on those of a liberal bent from you then. I have had nothing but curtious dealings with yourself and Evan, but I think its a bit rich to call ALL us poor lefties self haters, you seem to think we arrived at our political beliefs just to spite you, let me assure you that SOME of us are just as honest as the best Conservative. I happen to agree with you about Tippet, Oswald knew which way the game was going, and did what he had to do. There are truth seekers on either side of the political divide,just as there are decievers, got you down as the former, lets work together we may solve this damn thing yet..Steve.

David G. Healy · September 8, 2005

Gillespie dronned on:

"I do not have personal real conversations with assholes." by JACK

"...saying things that they would not dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting." also by JACK

I would have thought the above to be an attempt at satire or irony if I hadn't known better by experiencing the speed bumps that Jack's exquisite prose places in the way of cogency.

But this is so often what we get. Here's a guy using the 'a' word and decrying a lack of civility at the same time. Then he says things he wouldn't dare say face-to-face while at the same time accusing others of saying things they wouldn't dare say face-to...well, I think you get the picture.

dgh01: NO, I for one don't get YOUR picture -- the term asshole would be considered 'civil' (in some circles) when it comes to what JWhite has suffered from his 'research' critics -- assholes like you haven't a clue. Attempts, not just threats have been made on his LIFE... getting the picture, newcomer?

The Progressives are good (great, actually) at the double standard. They're also good at getting angry at you real quickly (but it's SOOO righteous, you see, and YOU are to blame) and to get personal and nasty, as above. I refer you to any of the more recent Nic postings. Once these people have exposed themselves they hate you even more because of their own self-loathing and because they know you're on to them.

So, AHEM! That's about the extent of expletory spillage you'll get outta ME, guys.

dgh01: if you got anything worthwhile JG, were 'a waitin...

"And you David - you just like posting in the forum. You don't seem to add anything to the topic being discussed..." by Evan

Good call, Ev Man! This place reeks of THAT sort of thing as well. Touche. I still like perusing the topics but one has to wade through way too many Davids, Jacks, Nics, Pamelas et al - those who , literally, have never done anything meaningful outside the womb of academia and have absolutely NOTHING to offer but a continous stream of nonsense not worthy of teenage girl chatlines; the trading of drivel full of sound and fury and signifying...you guessed it.

dgh01: I anxiously await your first publication JG and remember 3 page coloring books DON'T count - btw, you forgot Ev's pal, you know, the hubcap collector from San Mateo, whats up with that?

Yesterday I saw perhaps the most outrageous and gratuitous speculation that I have yet encountered. It was on the Tippitt slaying sub-topic of the JFK assassination "debate", posted in January by something called Dixie Dea.

dgh01: Dixie has probably forgot more than you'll ever know about the investigation, for an old fart, you show no signs of wisdom - you don't have a clue about who is who in the research community...

Mr. Dale Myers wrote a very admirable book on this subject - one of the best investigative works I have ever read - entitled "With Malice." Originally, I thought that those placing messages in the wake of the Dea posting would have cringed had they read that book. But then, obviously they WOULDN'T have read the book. They got just what they wanted (Earlene Roberts And The Amazing Honking Horn, among other things..incredible, simply beyond belief!)...after all, sometimes a great notion.

dgh01: JG for your benefit most of us have had dealings with Mr. Myers and his work, especially over the last 10 years, his animations are the source of contention, hardly anyone pays much attention to the Tippit killing -- you need to ask questions before you show ignorance

Hey, progressives, listen up! An FBI report (I'll get you the specifics tomorrow) revealed that fibers from the discarded jacket matched fibers from LHO's shirt worn at the time of his arrest. Try this and be done with it: Oswald didn't kill JFK but he DID kill Tippitt. I would have, too, under the circumstances. It was the smart thing to do. Being unable or unwilling to accept that notion tells me there may be an agenda at work. Just a wild guess.

Check out the Dixie Dea thing, Evman. It is symptomatic of what one must scroll (what a euphemism, that) through: declarative statements absolutely shot from the hip for no other reason than the posters simply WANT to believe them and feel good in the process; those who think they have some sort of license to dispense garbage as if it were wisdom, a la Jack; wild theory put out for its own sake and a bizarre insistence by the practitioner that he or she somehow has a voice to be heard on serious matters. They're up past their bedtimes.

Ok. I'm starting a new topic on Jonestown at this junction. If you haven't read what I am going to attach, then you are in for an enlightened ride (Jim Hougan on that trail).

dgh01: with the uninformed posting this kinda nonsense, its no wonder why TGratz appears intelligent --so, JSimkin you can remove my response or edit it at your will - I certainly don't want to offend uninformed reich-wing sensibilities around here, roflmao

You go, guys.

dgh01: go where, they're already here? Oops! Maybe your the bench warming watercarrier for the varsity team?

Edited September 8, 2005 by David G. Healy

David G. Healy · September 8, 2005

Post your original research/studies to a website (please provide the url) Evan. I'm sure the hubcap collector will participate. Official statements might go a long way, too -- then we'll discuss the merits of you and your teams efforts, PRO and CON -- till then, noise, nothing but noise..

Evan Burton · September 9, 2005

Post your original research/studies to a website (please provide the url) Evan. I'm sure the hubcap collector will participate. Official statements might go a long way, too -- then we'll discuss the merits of you and your teams efforts, PRO and CON -- till then, noise, nothing but noise..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do find it so funny how those who feel threatened react so predictibly: if you are not with me, you are against me. The friend of my enemy is MY enemy.

It'd be so sad if it weren't so pathetically repetative.

In regards to my own work, once again if you had BOTHERED TO LOOK you'd find an entire thread of thirteen pages on this very forum, under this very topic heading, devoted to showing where Jack has gone wrong.

I understand you are a little slow so, as you requested, here is the URL:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3589

I'd welcome discussion about any errors you (or anyone else) believe I have made.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Evan Burton

Pat Speer · September 9, 2005

And the name of this thread is......(drum roll)........Civil Discourse...?????!!!!!.

Come on people, we're capable of better.

Evan Burton · September 9, 2005

And the name of this thread is......(drum roll)........Civil Discourse...?????!!!!!.
Come on people, we're capable of better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, I understand your feeling but what am I supposed to do?

I've asked questions which receive no reply.

A poster asked for my work and I have (albeit with some snideness) pointed to it.

I'm happy for people to point out where I may have made mistakes, and discuss them.

Is it so unreasonable for Jack to do the same?

Edited September 9, 2005 by Evan Burton

Bernice Moore · September 10, 2005

Gillespie, I am not as nice as Dixie Dea is, when riled..and do not take it lightly when you insult any woman, for no reason on this Forum in any thread...I call a spade a spade,you get back what you give out......

and an asshole is an asshole..and YOU are a one...I never mince words..and you have shown yourself to be a Big one...

Gillespie: Quote: "Yesterday I saw perhaps the most outrageous and gratuitous speculation that I have yet encountered. It was on the Tippitt slaying sub-topic of the JFK assassination "debate", posted in January by something called Dixie Dea.

Mr. Dale Myers wrote a very admirable book on this subject - one of the best investigative works I have ever read - entitled "With Malice." Originally, I thought that those placing messages in the wake of the Dea posting would have cringed had they read that book. But then, obviously they WOULDN'T have read the book. They got just what they wanted (Earlene Roberts And The Amazing Honking Horn, among other things..incredible, simply beyond belief!)...after all, sometimes a great notion.

Hey, progressives, listen up! An FBI report (I'll get you the specifics tomorrow) revealed that fibers from the discarded jacket matched fibers from LHO's shirt worn at the time of his arrest. Try this and be done with it: Oswald didn't kill JFK but he DID kill Tippitt. I would have, too, under the circumstances. It was the smart thing to do. Being unable or unwilling to accept that notion tells me there may be an agenda at work. Just a wild guess.

Bernice Moore Today, 07:02 AM Post #14

Experienced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 166

Joined: 12-April 04

Member No.: 632

Gillespie, I am not as nice as Dixie Dea is, when riled..I call a spade a spade,

and an asshole an asshole..I never mince words..and you have shown yourself to be a big one...

Gillespie: Quote: "Yesterday I saw perhaps the most outrageous and gratuitous speculation that I have yet encountered. It was on the Tippitt slaying sub-topic of the JFK assassination "debate", posted in January by something called Dixie Dea.

Mr. Dale Myers wrote a very admirable book on this subject - one of the best investigative works I have ever read - entitled "With Malice." Originally, I thought that those placing messages in the wake of the Dea posting would have cringed had they read that book. But then, obviously they WOULDN'T have read the book. They got just what they wanted (Earlene Roberts And The Amazing Honking Horn, among other things..incredible, simply beyond belief!)...after all, sometimes a great notion.

Hey, progressives, listen up! An FBI report (I'll get you the specifics tomorrow) revealed that fibers from the discarded jacket matched fibers from LHO's shirt worn at the time of his arrest. Try this and be done with it: Oswald didn't kill JFK but he DID kill Tippitt. I would have, too, under the circumstances. It was the smart thing to do. Being unable or unwilling to accept that notion tells me there may be an agenda at work. Just a wild guess.

Check out the Dixie Dea thing, Evman. It is symptomatic of what one must scroll (what a euphemism, that) through: declarative statements absolutely shot from the hip for no other reason than the posters simply WANT to believe them and feel good in the process; those who think they have some sort of license to dispense garbage as if it were wisdom, a la Jack; wild theory put out for its own sake and a bizarre insistence by the practitioner that he or she somehow has a voice to be heard on serious matters. They're up past their bedtimes. "

***************************************

" By something called Dixie Dea."

Quote from your Bio:" My interest in this site lies in respect for those members whose names are known to me and appreciation of the mature approach on the part of the membership as a whole.."........

So, it is so obvious that you have no respect for others whose names are not

known to you.. ?????

Gillespie: Quote "Mr. Dale Myers wrote a very admirable book on this subject - one of the best investigative works I have ever read - entitled "With Malice." "

That is Simply, YOUR opinion...One of a zillion around here...yours is nothing special..keep that in mind..

Gillespie:Quote "Originally, I thought that those placing messages in the wake of the Dea posting would have cringed had they read that book. But then, obviously they WOULDN'T have read the book"..

How do you know that ,They have not read the book, ?? have you asked.them...Mr.Gillespie ??

Also from your Bio."Finally, I believe I have some opinions of substance as well as facts to share. My opinions and facts easily will be discernible in my correspondence.."

If this is a prelude to your opinions,and postings of subtance ...whatever you call it, it is IMO not worth further pursuing any of your posts..as..It is also obvious that you have no respect for others opinions..by attacking such..

Bernice Moore Today, 07:02 AM Post #14

Experienced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 166

Joined: 12-April 04

Member No.: 632

Gillespie, I am not as nice as Dixie Dea is, when riled..I call a spade a spade,

and an asshole an asshole..I never mince words..and you have shown yourself to be a big one...

Gillespie: Quote: "Yesterday I saw perhaps the most outrageous and gratuitous speculation that I have yet encountered. It was on the Tippitt slaying sub-topic of the JFK assassination "debate", posted in January by something called Dixie Dea.

Mr. Dale Myers wrote a very admirable book on this subject - one of the best investigative works I have ever read - entitled "With Malice." Originally, I thought that those placing messages in the wake of the Dea posting would have cringed had they read that book. But then, obviously they WOULDN'T have read the book. They got just what they wanted (Earlene Roberts And The Amazing Honking Horn, among other things..incredible, simply beyond belief!)...after all, sometimes a great notion.

Hey, progressives, listen up! An FBI report (I'll get you the specifics tomorrow) revealed that fibers from the discarded jacket matched fibers from LHO's shirt worn at the time of his arrest. Try this and be done with it: Oswald didn't kill JFK but he DID kill Tippitt. I would have, too, under the circumstances. It was the smart thing to do. Being unable or unwilling to accept that notion tells me there may be an agenda at work. Just a wild guess.

Check out the Dixie Dea thing, Evman. It is symptomatic of what one must scroll (what a euphemism, that) through: declarative statements absolutely shot from the hip for no other reason than the posters simply WANT to believe them and feel good in the process; those who think they have some sort of license to dispense garbage as if it were wisdom, a la Jack; wild theory put out for its own sake and a bizarre insistence by the practitioner that he or she somehow has a voice to be heard on serious matters. They're up past their bedtimes. "

***************************************

Gillespie: "" By something called Dixie Dea."" "" The Dixie Dea thing""

Quote from your Bio:" My interest in this site lies in respect for those members whose names are known to me and appreciation of the mature approach on the part of the membership as a whole.."........

So, it is so obvious that you have no respect for others whose names are not

known to you.. ?????

Gillespie: Quote "Mr. Dale Myers wrote a very admirable book on this subject - one of the best investigative works I have ever read - entitled "With Malice." "

That is Simply, YOUR opinion...One of a zillion around here...yours is nothing special..keep that in mind..

Gillespie:Quote "Originally, I thought that those placing messages in the wake of the Dea posting would have cringed had they read that book. But then, obviously they WOULDN'T have read the book"..

How do you know that ,They have not read the book, ?? have you asked.them...Mr.Gillespie ??

Also from your Bio."Finally, I believe I have some opinions of substance as well as facts to share. My opinions and facts easily will be discernible in my correspondence.."

If this is a prelude to your opinions,and postings of subtance ...whatever you call it, it is IMO not worth further pursuing any of your posts..as..It is also obvious that you have no respect for others opinions..by attacking such..

Who are you ?, may I ask, to imply that according to your standards, they do

not have that right.??? Perhaps the years you spent amongst the CIA, have

corrupted your outlook of that given right, and why have you not given this opinion on that thread, to those that did..Mr.Gillespie?? instead if being hidden away on this one..??..Perhaps where you thought you were safe..??

For your small minded approach please read the following.....it just may enlighten

you and also may I recommend, that at the first opportunity you obtain reading

glasses, so that you see all of what you read, and also attend school so that you will also be taught to read and comprehend all of what is written, not just what you choose to..and also a course from in Manners, would certainly do you no harm.

Ms.Dixie Dea, is not a SOMETHING, Mr. Gillespie. She is a better person, than you are that is so obvious,and she has the same feelings as perhaps on occasion that you may, though after your performance,I greatly doubt that....

I take great offense at the injustice of you calling HER, (and I am not the only one), or and any member of this Forum, a SOMETHING.....In plain language Gillespie, where the hell do you get off, in posting such and INSULT..just who the hell do you think you are...??

You are certainly not a Gentleman, Ha!! That is soooooo obvious , as you do not know the meaning of the word.....

There is an old saying on the Forums, Gillespie..

Do NOT Piss Off The Women.......and that is PLURAL.....

Read and try to comprehend the following, if your small mind will enable you...

Goodbye Gillespie....you are an Asshole..and have proven so...by your posting.....

You owe Ms. Dixie and apology.....a BIG ONE....and David is correct she has

more than likely forgotten much more than you will ever know or be able to

cram into that small mind of yours....Shame on you...your type disgust women on a forum ...You must learn not to ever talk down to them...EVER...

This is you and these are being thrown at you, you insfufferable ass... ..and do not bother

wiping the egg off your face along with them, on you it looks good..

Now pay attention and try ,Gillespie to comprehend...

Bernice Moore...

I am posting the following for Dixie, for all to read, as she has not be able to post messages to the Forum for some time now, she does not know the whys ??

______________________________________

Mr Gillespie...

Sneaky dude aren't you? I do not recall ever posting in this specific

forum, so why would you attempt to malign me here, from a post I did way

back in Jan, on another forum?

The real biggie is that you don't even know what you are talking about.

In fact, it appears that you are intent on descrediting me, because what

I posted didn't go along with Dale Myers.

I reread my Tippit post and do not see where I indicated that any of the

info was my own theory. I also indicated at several points where the

info was obtained.

I am offended by your accusation as well as your apparent desire to bash

me among my peers! Did you actually not see how I began the post and

how I ended it? As a matter of fact, all the information I posted was

new info to me too. Plus, I did not and do not know what part of the

info is true or not. This was intended more in the order of a book

review of Harry Livingstone's latest book. I began by saying:

"According to the Dallas Underground, by several reserchers"

and I ended it by saying:

"Compiled from information in Harrison Livingstone's, The Radical Right

and the Murder of John F. Kennedy....(2004)"

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

Dixie Dea