James DiEugenio

So there was . a film camera there and the guy left? And there were audio recorders in the room? But there is no audio or video of this today right? Only snippets.

I don't think Biden is going to make it. With all the advantages he has, I just don't think he can do it for the long haul. The guy was in the senate so long, that he comes off as being a member of the club through and through.

Thanks for that clarification James.

Micah: This is a private forum. It is not a public venue. You have to join, be cleared, supply a photo and obey rules. When I slightly objected to what was done to Alex Jones, that is what I was confronted with. According to those rules, we own what we contribute. DVP never asked permission to reprint. Probably because he knew what the reply would be. And now he has chosen to leave. Doesn't that tell you something about why he was here in the first place.

Are you serious Ty? 90 per cent of the MSM is Far Left? Who are you talking about specifically?

That is covered by fair use. Fair use allows for the accurate quoting of another person's material in a brief form. Its the law that allows for critiques of books, plays and film also. But as I noted above, what DVP did was not fair use. No one can say what he did to me was "brief". And in my view it was not accurate either.

BTW, does anyone really think that RFK and MLK were his heroes?

Its hard to pick which one of these guys was the worst. If I had to, it would be Pincus.

This makes me wonder if he is using this issue to reconstruct himself as a change agent.

I had no real problem with DVP being at this site. For the simple reason that you could argue with him under the rules of this site. I am fine with free speech. But man, when he writes over 130 chapters about you on HIS site with EF material, and twists it around to make him look like he won the argument, I just don't think that is proper use of copyright. And the extent to which he did it, that is not fair use. The ones he borrowed from me on Bugliosi were really bad.

It is so ridiculous for him to say that if he was a CTer we would not be doing this. Because no one does what he does, period. If I am wrong, please show me how. This is how bizarre this guy is. He goes through the trouble of generally not reviewing books or films but actually transposing dialogues that he loses into a form where he appears to win. And with me, its over 130 chapters. Who the heck does that? Just him as far as I know. Who else is that solipsistically obsessed?

Again, if you go back to that DVP vs DiEugenio blog post on his site, you will see that Von Pein did not come close to quoting my original postings fully on the subject. He posted a very brief rebuttal to a guy named Mike Williams. My original post on the subject, which I sent to Bill Kelly, was like four times that long, at least. Anyone can see that just by clicking through.

Do not have to try again. What Davy does not say is that Kelly and others WERE posting for me at that time. Here is another example: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-38.html Now with this one you can click through to DVP's post, and then finally to the EF and you will see that Kelly was posting for me. Now compare everything I wrote for Bill to how DVP edited it in his chapter. Night and day. But that is what DVP is about producing darkness.

Here is an example: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-37.html The idea that he was quoting me completely here is nutty. But that is what I think he is saying. But further, go to the link at the bottom which one would think takes to the EF dialogue, click it. It does not take you there. It goes to a post by him. And you have to click again to take you to the EF dialogue. To use on of his cliches, pot calling kettle...

DVP: Oh good! Another outright lie being told by a CTer tonight. I would like to ask the mods why Von Pein is allowed to call me a xxxx when Jim Hargrove just proved that what I said was accurate? (Hargrove was referring to what he wrote not Sandy)

There is a difference between posting material on the web and having it reposted elsewhere and what DVP does. What he does is to change the form of what was posted, and most of the time he changes it, it is for one purpose. To alter the argument in his favor, thereby demeaning the original poster and aggrandizing himself. And the idea he keeps repeating above is really weak. "I want to preserve my posts". 🤧 Give us all a break Davy. The real intent in that series about me is for him to convince the casual reader that he is right and I am wrong. It's the same cherry picking technique that Jean Davison, McAdams and Bugliosi do. The message is: I support the WC, these guys do not, but look how silly they are. He achieves that effect by altering the original form of the poster. PS Note how fast he turned down my deal. And his reasons completely affirm my point about it. The incredible imbalance which makes any comparison (which he tried to make) silly.

This is utterly ridiculous and it shows how far around the bend he is. He calls my article a two parter. It was originally just a one parter. But he replied to it and so the part 2 is my reply to him. If you go ahead and measure how many words are in that article and measure it against his over 100 chapters on me, well, give me a break. As for name calling, DVP wrote the book. But I will propose a deal right now and this will show the difference. If he drops that sub section on me, I will drop that article on him. Deal? I will give you 72 hours to reply.

When someone takes your work, designed for a q and a format for this forum, over to his own forum and then misrepresents it and cuts it up into pieces so that it can look like he has the facts and won the argument--when it was really the opposite, I don't think that's "nonsense" Bruce. DVP has a whole sub section of his site devoted to me with my name on it. As of now it has over 100 chapters to it. There is no moderation over there of course, so there is no referee. And I think we all know what his standards for fairness are about. His ideas about research and scholarship are, well, not exactly out of Cambridge or Oxford. I just wonder if DVP had a subsection titled "Von Pein vs Bruce Fernandez" with 100 chapters of distortion and editing from this forum if you would feel the same way.

But David, even Tom qualified what he said about Whitson to the point that he said it all might have been a red herring. This is why i did not include it in my review.

The very fact that you cannot see the difference in what you are doing, vs what quoting an author in a critique of a book or film shows just how far around the bend you are. Its about as much a state of denial as buying into the Single Bullet Fantasy is today.

There are two issues here. The legal one about copyright, and the ethical one about distortion and giving oneself the last word in an argument you already lost. The idea that I was the only one taken aback by this is simply false. Lee Farley was outraged by it. To transpose an original Q and A argument and then misrepresent that argument to an innocent bystander , well, kind of unethical. But to do it to the extent DVP does it is, well, unprecedented. I wonder if there is a legal remedy to this?

Joe: I wonder if you would actually like to have a regular type spot today. I don't think I would. In that review of Morgan! I mentioned, if you recall, MacDonald quit right after that. Get this. He complained that although he had seen and reviewed films like Breathless, 8 1/2, Jules and Jim, The Four Hundred Blows, L' Avventura, La Notte, and Dr. Strangelove, from 1960-64, he did not think the last couple of years were up to that. What is amazing about that statement is that still to come were Blow-Up, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Z and Persona. Those films were all released right after he quit. And as everyone knows, American films had a wonderful spurt of creativity from about 1967-75. Both Joe and I have written about this in recent books. And we have both then quoted that definitive statement by Susan Sontag about what has happened in the last 20 or so years. I mean if I had to review stuff like Parkland, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and The Avengers, and Us on a regular basis, I would not last long. Like I said in my last book, this country needs films with some kind of political import now more than ever. And what do we get: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. IMO, MacDonald would have never even taken up film reviewing or criticism--he did both--with the condition of the film industry today. (He even had an interest in the JFK case.) In fact, a book of his letters was released a few years ago. The kind of criticism he wrote was so insightful, erudite and illuminating that the reviewers did not even understand it!! That is how far film writing has fallen. So I am glad Joe is still at it. BTW, on this general subject, if you have not seen Cold Case Hammarskjold, please do. That cover story has finally fallen.

I agree. From my understanding, EF has a copyright for the stuff posted here. Would they not have to extend copyright for reprinting at DVP's? And if they did that, would they not have to ask the posters' permission? I do not think fair use would cover it. Fair use only involves using short snippets from a book, a play or film. DVP uses huge quantities of material from this site to transplant to his own site. In fact, I would argue that is the main reason he is here. I might have an attorney look at this for me.

I agree with Michael. They are making a movie about Roger Ailes. Actually two of them. One small screen and one big screen.

Did I say anything to you?