Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
Myra wrote:
so in the late 70's the House Sub Committee on Assassinations tried another cover story: the mob dunnit.
That's what I love, a person who refuses to let the facts interfere with her preconceived POV!
Now, lessee, whose payroll was Jack Ruby on, Joe Civello's, or Richard Helms'?
Nice reply Tim.
...
- lee
The "mob dunnit" is very different from "the mob participated"--Lee.
Blakey pretty much claimed the mob did it alone. They didn't do it alone. And that's the point you seem to have missed.
-
Good update Francesca; thanks for the link.
Somewhere in a posted interview the book author said Blackwater was (I paraphrase) the military industrial complex incarnate.
Very true.
Hi Myra, you're welcome. I'd say that description of Blackwater seems very accurate. Out of interest, is this being covered a lot over there? Here it has got quite a lot of coverage on the main news programmes.
It's being covered moderately I'd say Francesca. It's not being reported at length in depth, but it's not being ignored either.
Then again if they reported on it extensively it'd become more apparent that Iraq is a largely privatized occupation.
It's not something the corporate owned media is eager to spotlight.
You say it's getting a lot of coverage there.
Are they focusing on the aspect of privatization? And on the fact that by using mercenaries the US bypasses all sorts of pesky laws and regulations and rules of engagement?
-
Hi folks
It's been a long time and I'm far away from being up to date concerning your work here.
So therefore I hope you will forgive me if my question might seems a little obsolete. I was just watching a program last night that dealt with the JFK assassination and to my very surprise, the documentation ended very unusual. They claim that there is proof that Carlos Marcellos has given the order to kill JFK and that this statement was recorded 1985, witnessed by a FBI agent (Seemed somehow familiar). The other thing they said was that there is no question that JFK was killed in a crossfire and that at least 5 bullets were fired. LHO was one of them the other(s) are still unknown.
Earl Warren did not want to accept the single bullet theory but gave in after LBJ had drawn a picture, that in case ties to cuba or a conspiracy including cuba was found it could end with up to 40 million death americans.
Even if the story is cold coffee the bottomline is that there was a conspiracy and this has never been, as far as I remember, stressed out that way in a tv-program. (ZDF is one of the german national tv stations.)
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/6/0,1872,7001670,00.html
I think that's enough bothering you
George
George,
In 1964 the Warren Commission cover story was that a lone nut dunnit. That failed to convince people so in the late 70's the House Sub Committee on Assassinations tried another cover story: the mob dunnit.
I hope you see the relevance to your question.
-
Thanks Jack for posting that info. Much in there of interest on those other firms. Peter - I just read this on the BBC site:
Good update Francesca; thanks for the link.
Somewhere in a posted interview the book author said Blackwater was (I paraphrase) the military industrial complex incarnate.
Very true.
-
The downside, of course, is those "expert editors". Who selects the, who pays them etc. Will it just become another slanted propaganda outlet where real news is razored out in place of nonsense. I have always found wikipedia useful - not becuase I intend to rely on it'scontent - but it provides a starting point for research.
Basically the whole sheebang of Citizendium - including it's name (a misnomer if ever there was one) shouts ALARM.
David
Well we really won't know until we try.
And given the fact that they're promoting themselves as the un-Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is slanted to the right, there's no place for them to go un-Wiki unless they go left, or go neutral--which is exactly where they claim to be.
I ain't lettin' this opportunity slip away.
I agree that time will tell, Myra. Neutral would be fine. That's where it should be.
Just my cynacism showing is all. That plus my inherent suspicions about promotional spin usually being at a distinct variance with eventaul reality.
David
And cynicism generally dovetails with reality David.
So if this venture ends up being yet another propaganda outlet or time sink then we won't be terribly surprised or caught off guard. I don't mean to come off as some kinda deluded optimist.
But there's that slim chance that they are exactly what they advertise. And if so it'd be nice to get in early and write some good ol' neutral fact-based prose, which inherently gives most of us the advantage since we don't have to get all creative like the propagandists.
Worst case scenario we get practice at writing things that need to be written and recorded anyway. If our contributions prove to be unwelcome at Citizendium then there's always the forums, websites, books, magazines, carrier pigeons...
-
The downside, of course, is those "expert editors". Who selects the, who pays them etc. Will it just become another slanted propaganda outlet where real news is razored out in place of nonsense. I have always found wikipedia useful - not becuase I intend to rely on it'scontent - but it provides a starting point for research.
Basically the whole sheebang of Citizendium - including it's name (a misnomer if ever there was one) shouts ALARM.
David
Well we really won't know until we try.
And given the fact that they're promoting themselves as the un-Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is slanted to the right, there's no place for them to go un-Wiki unless they go left, or go neutral--which is exactly where they claim to be.
I ain't lettin' this opportunity slip away.
-
Article in today's Times:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle2409783.ece
A project has been set up with the aim of usurping Wikipedia as the web’s leading reference work.
Like its rival, the Citizendium site will solicit input from the public. But in a departure from the standard “wiki” model, it will be directed by expert editors, and contributors will be expected to use their real names.
The changes are designed to stamp out the inaccuracies and mischief-making that have blighted Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia that “anybody can edit”.
The venture reflects a general revolt against unchecked user-generated online content, amid fears that efforts to tap the wisdom of crowds have unleashed a tyranny of the masses.
The movement’s champion is Andrew Keen, who argues in his book The Cult of the Amateur that free but substandard online content risks destroying entire industries. The idea that open collaborative projects can replace the work of professional individuals, he argues, represents an “extraordinary popular delusion”. Citizendium is led by Larry Sanger , a co-founder of Wikipedia, who left that website to become one of its most vocal critics.
“Wikipedia has accomplished great things, but the world can do even better,” Dr Sanger said. “By engaging expert editors, eliminating anonymous contribution and launching a more mature community under a new charter, a much broader and more influential group of people and institutions will be able to improve upon Wikipedia’s extremely useful, but often uneven work. The result will be not only enormous and free, but reliable.”
The pilot Citizendium project is invitation-only. A vetted group of editors, called “constables”, is developing a set of rules for contributors.
Gareth Leng, Professor of Experimental Physiology of the University of Edinburgh, has agreed to serve as a constable. “Public understanding of science needs scientists to help to explain, clearly and objectively, what science can do and what it can’t,” he said.
“At the Citizendium, our role will not be to tell readers what opinions they should hold, but to give them the means to decide for themselves.”
If it succeeds Citizendium may owe a large debt to Wikipedia, which was founded in 2001 and now has more than eight million articles in 253 languages – from Afrikaans to Zazaki.
It was proposed that the new project will begin life by “mirroring” – or reproducing – Wikipedia’s content, a process allowed under the site’s copyright conditions. “Contributors [to Citizendium] will then be able to edit articles,” a spokesman said. “The eventual goal will be to either improve or replace all Wikipedia-sourced content.”
Citizendium’s expert editors will then “bless” versions of articles as “approved” or trustworthy.
The aim is to stamp out the anonymous and sometimes malicious edits that have undermined Wikipedia’s reputation. In 2005 John Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today, discovered that he had been linked to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by a Wikipedia article. Attacking the site he called it an irresponsible haven for “volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects”.
Last month it emerged that computers linked to politicians and large companies had made sweeping edits of Wikipedia to rewrite or erase embarrassing entries. Jimmy Wales, the site’s founder, has acknowledged Wikipedia’s limitations. “If what you are after is ‘Who won the World Cup in 1984’, Wikipedia is going to be fine,” he said. “If you want to know something more esoteric, or something controversial, you should probably use a second reference – at least.”
He told The Timesat the time of Seigenthaler’s attack that while he “worries a lot about how to make sure that articles on Wikipedia are right”, generally the site “is actually pretty good”.
That judgement was later backed up by Nature, the scientific journal, which reported that Wikipedia was as reliable as Encyclopaedia Britannica – the standard to which it aspires.
An online wonder
— 8.2 million articles have been contributed to Wikipedia since 2001, a total of 1.4 billion words
— The English-language version of Wikipedia has about two million entries – about 15 times as many as the largest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the standard to which it aspires
— Specialist sites based on the “wiki” model include Wikible (the Bible) and Wookiepeedia (on Star Wars)
— Last month it emerged that many embarrassing Wikipedia entries had been edited by organisations mentioned in them. The Chinese Government erased information about China blocking Wikipedia inside its borders. The CIA tweaked entries on Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon
— The term “wiki” is derived from the wiki wiki or “quick” buses found in Hawaii
Currently, Citizendium does not have an entry for the JFK Assassination. Maybe one of our members should contribute one.
Excellent news!
I hope the Citizendium has some integrity and standards, unlike the Propagandapedia, but I'll wait and see.
At least Wiki's richly earned bad reputation is starting to have repercussions.
And I agree that we should submit an entry on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States...
-
Based on the quotes here this book looks like a big ol' smear.
http://www.assassinationofjfkin22days.com/...dy_excerpts.htm
Myra, it's self-published, which doesn't say it's bad. Sometimes it's hard to get certain subject matters published. I belong to 2 writer's workshops and they all self-publish like mad -- I don't and won't -- and walk around happy. The books are printed but not edited. Sometimes you can get a decent paperback cover. They give you a small amount of author copies and you have to pay half-price for every other book you want. I've seen novels costing $30 bucks. They don't promote you or your book. I don't even think they pay you. You pay them. I'm talking about Publish America, i Universe, ex libris.
Kathy
Ah, interesting info Kathy, thank you.
I wonder what percentage of books on the assassination of President Kennedy are self-published.
-
It's time to give the owners of the other JFK channels on Youtube a
plug in appreciation of their hard work:
http://www.youtube.com/10garmonbozia01
http://www.youtube.com/noisivision
http://www.youtube.com/dankbaar
http://www.youtube.com/celshader
and, of course, my own:
Thanks Gil! This is really useful info.
In fact I'd like to see it in the index if John agrees.
-
Based on the quotes here this book looks like a big ol' smear.
http://www.assassinationofjfkin22days.com/...dy_excerpts.htm
-
"I heard a sound like a balloon popping", she said. "Jack grabbed his throat and said: "I'm hit!" ..."
http://www.assassinationofjfkin22days.com/...dy_excerpts.htm
I wonder what convinced Dorff to use that iffy "quote."
Wasn't it Kellerman that claimed he heard President Kennedy say it?
-
“Dorff not only includes everything, meaning every piece of valid evidence and character in the world of JFK research, he sculptures it into an incredible and quite plausible plot. It may be the first book in the case, fiction or non, that develops JFK as a solidly structured character. It’s hard to find fault with a creative work so original.” Gaeton Fonzi
Author's website: http://www.assassinationofjfkin22days.com/...obert_dorff.htm
YouTube interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVuWttX6V2w
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Days-Hath-November-R...5674&sr=1-1
Good find Mike.
Has anyone here read it yet?
And here's an interesting link on the author's site:
http://www.assassinationofjfkin22days.com/...s_gangsters.htm
Is he really listing Sylvia Odio and the Castros as conspirators?
Or is that just a poorly arranged page?
I hope...
-
BK wrote:
Why would you want a new official government investigation, when we can now, with the release of additional documents and with the sworn testimony of new witnesses, solve the crime without asking anybody to take an interest in something they've already shown no inclination to do?
I don't know why we have to keep going over this, Bill. How pray tell do you take sworn testimony of witnesses without a new investigation?
Congressional hearings take sworn testimony.
Preliminary hearings in civil cases take sworn testimony.
Depositions take sworn testimony.
You don't need anybody's permission to take sworn testimony.
Why ask for something that you can't get and don't really want because if there is an official investigation, and grand jury, then everything is done in secret and records are withheld.
All I want is Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act and all good things will flow from that.
BK
I agree BK.
Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act is an achievable goal, and a request so modest that there is no reasonable way for them to refuse. We're just asking for congress to enforce and obey an existing law.
When we get our act together with the newspaper ad I think that should be our stated goal.
And urge people to write their congress reps.
By contrast, it's unlikely we could get another investigation.
And if we did it would be a cover up like the other two.
At this point they have to cover up their previous cover ups.
It's a house of cards.
-
"By Jen Wainwright
Published: 01 September 2007
Newly released documents show that FBI agents spied on the widow of Martin Luther King for several years after he was shot dead in 1968.
The documents, which include an intercepted letter written by Coretta Scott King and various memos sent to FBI headquarters, reveal federal agents' fears that Ms Scott King would continue the work of her late husband. That she could try "to tie the anti-Vietnam movement to the civil rights movement" was of particular concern.
After tailing her movements for four years, the government closed its file on Coretta Scott King with a statement that "no information has come to the attention of Atlanta which indicates a propensity for violence or affiliation of subversive elements."
For those closely connected with Martin Luther King, the leading light of the civil rights movement, the close surveillance of his widow comes as no great shock. The Rev Joseph Lowery, former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (which he co-founded with King in 1957), said: "The FBI kept a microphone everywhere they could where the SCLC was concerned."
J Edgar Hoover, the FBI director at the time, "hated Martin Luther King and everything that the SCLC stood for," Mr Lowery added.
A lieutenant of King's, Andrew Young, has expressed rather more surprise at the actions of the government agency, saying that Coretta Scott King had "the makings of a saint". "I don't know what they were expecting to find," he said."
-
Whilst we are on the subject, I doubt that the underlying state of Britains economy is much healthier. One and a half trillion in personal debt, much of it unsecured, a completely decimated manufactoring sector, and a vastly overheated housing market means you dont have to be casandra to see big trouble ahead. No wonder they place so much stock in the next generation of mobile phones, plasma screens, ipods and DVD players, they are the only things keeping us afloat.
And land mines...
-
Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:
Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.
If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing. Add some catchy modifiers such as ''biased', "immoderate", etc.
I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.
And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?
I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.
Kathy Beckett
That seems a fairly accurate account of what happens. Like Andy I have been on holiday (we did not advertise the fact as that usually results in a "denial of service" attack). As I have fairly strong views on the subjects we discuss, I have tried to withdraw myself from the role of moderator. In my opinion they do a great job. They were selected for this thankless task because of the way they have conducted themselves on the forum. So far, I have had no difficulty in agreeing with the decisions that they have made.
John's back! Welcome back.
-
This article is absurd.
"Lunsford says Ruby confessed to her that he helped plan the assassination and stood next Lee Harvey Oswald in the window of the Texas Book Depository while Oswald fired one shot that struck the President in the head."
“He did get to talk to Washington correspondent Dorothy Kilgallen, but she died at here desk while writing the story."
And so on.
-
Dawn,
I don't see a conflict in our positions.
I found Kerry to be intelligent, compassionate, and well-informed. But I simply can't imagine her going public on matters directly related to the assassination without the family's sanction.
Charles
Who is Kerry McCarthy?
Please and thank you.
-
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?
I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one
banishment (unannounced).
This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.
Next will be torture.
I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not
to criticize the moderators.
The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.
The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.
Jack
Absurd nonsense.
Jack White is an interesting case. He spends half his time here demanding we delete posts and banish members he disagrees with, and the other half complaining about the very gentle and entirely justified moderation of the forum which does occur. He would make a very brutal censor indeed if ever given the chance.
I have just returned from an extended holiday. I am pleased to see the forum has been moderated and maintained effectively in my absence.
I am extremely disappointed but not suprised however to be faced with so many virtual "reams" of arrant bickering in lieu of something worth reading - heigh ho
Welcome back Andy.
-
Greer is guilty.
Guilty of breaking SS protocol.
He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!
He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.
Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?
Of course it is natural to think he may of paniced & give him the benefit of the doubt, it also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compasion in there questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man.
Slowing down to let Hill on the back of the limo.
Now isn't it strange he never used that as an excuse in his testimony?
How could he have not thought of that one?
A classic mistake.
It is as obvious as seeing the head-shot itself that the last thing Greer wanted was Clint Hill on the back of his vehicle.
It was not Greer's responsibility anyway for allowing agents on the back of the limo it was Roberts & he told all the agents in the follow-up car to remain where they were at the start of the shooting.
I mean, with the motorcycles pulled back, all the pressmen out of the way & the bubbletop off after all these warnings of threats the SS received doesn't that suggest to you that there was some amount of inside planning for this murder?
Anyway, Greer was much more than a limo driver that day & you only have to read Vince Palamara's detailed research to know that.
Common sense cannot prove his guilt or innocence.
I think it's common sense that the Secret Service were greatly involved that day & if they really were, then Greer became essential & him hitting the brakes at that time makes him as guilty as hell.
I bet Kellerman wanted to strangle him.
***************************************************************************
"Greer is guilty.
Guilty of breaking SS protocol.
He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!
He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.
Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?
Of course it is natural to think he may of panicked & give him the benefit of the doubt, it's also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compassion in their questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man."
There should be nothing "natural" about protecting a chief of state such as the POTUS. Anything "natural" about it, might leave a large margin of error for a likely catastrophe to occur. In this case specifically, men such as Greer were "supposed" to be have been trained, at least on the equivalent level of what SWAT Teams, or DELTA Force teams were trained to do, wouldn't you think? There should have been no quarter for something such as "panic" to have been booked as an excuse for having left the POTUS at risk for having his head blown off, while one slowed to a stop to look over his shoulder. What the hell was Kellerman supposed to be riding shot-gun for, if not the specific purpose of taking in a 360 degree perimeter of everything going on around that limo for a minimum of 100 yards within eye shot. Greer's job was to drive, and peel out of there the minute he even heard so much as a firecracker go off. This should have been instinctual, on his part. He should have been well-trained and well-versed in diversionary tactics, as part of the qualifications required to drive a presidential limousine.
Shoulda', woulda', coulda'...
Amen sister.
-
Some time ago I shared my experience of Beverly Oliver's (hereinafter B.O.) claim that Ruby had contacted her, through an intermediary, from his oversees sanctuary.
B.O. let this cat out of the bag at the JFK Lancer conference at which Judge Tunheim was a featured speaker. Her method of doing so is most interesting.
She initially told a very small group of attendees the following:
In the recent past she received what purported to be a message from the alive-and-well Ruby. In it he acknowledged that she likely would dismiss his overture as some sort of provocation. So he challenged her to come up with a dozen or so questions that only B.O. and Ruby could answer: real personal sorts of things.
B.O. complied, and reported that Ruby correctly answered all but one question. And even the wrong answer, she claimed, could be understood in terms of simple semantic differences (what she called a "runway," he called a "ramp," or vice-versa).
Well, you know what they say about secrets. Within hours of B.O.'s original spinning of the yarn, the entire conference was abuzz with news that Ruby lives! B.O. was claiming to be angry and scared, but somehow managed to keep herself squarely in the spotlight -- almost as if the leak was exactly what she had planned for.
Perhaps Jack White and/or Larry Hancock know more about this little drama.
Charles
Well... I sure as heck don't think Kenny (Boy) Lay is dead.
-
I stumbled across this last night re-reading Twyman's Blodddy Treason. Page 545. Amazing!
Twyman states it is from an article (apparently) by the American Security Council dated March 16, 1964, NARA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A political murder instigated by an intelligence service will be planned to approximate the "perfect crime." Every suitable deception and concealment technique will be used. If "imperceptible murder" is not feasible or desirable, one of the following methods is to be used:
a) The assassin is given a cover story or "legend." The assassin, unless he can be reliably hidden, will be destroyed, preferably in such a way that his second murder cannot be traced back to the organizations (for example, he will be slugged by an infuriated cell mate.) c) The assassin will be described as a "loner" and a "psychopath" whose deed was not politically motivated; perhaps he was seeking personal revenge. In many of these undertakings, including the fabrication of "legends" and the manipulation of operatives, the murderer himself may be unaware that he is being maneuvered."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone in contact with Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko who may well have located this at NARA?!
(talk about a 'smoking gun'!).....what kind of paper/article could this have been from?! Please someone near NARA or in contact with Kuhns-Walko help re-locate this....this could be a very important document.
Alternately, if anyone is in contact with Noel Twyman, kindly ask him if he has the full document!
Yes, by all means let's stay on this.
Tho' the date--March 16, 1964--is after the assassination of President Kennedy. Do you think they were slyly describing what already occurred, or describing the next assassination?
I'm not too worried about the date. Could be misdated [even on purpose] or originally written earlier and then redated on copy later or many other things....besides there were other assassinations after that.
Given the importance John and others have brought forward about theh ASC and its
MEMBERSHIP!, this [if it is indeed something they produced at anytime] quite a 'coup' [pun intended]
This quote is a quote at the header of a chapter and is not well referenced. It is defined as I presented it...but really need to know if an ASC document or agency report of ASC or other.
Almost any which way it is stunning...as an obvious plan to do an assassination and hide it. Further, it bears an uncanny resemblance to a historical assassination - or two.
Well if you find out ANYTHING more about this, to help give it context and authentication, please let us know Peter.
-
Kathy, I have no problem with how you reacted. I know you and the other moderators are not reading all post nor even as long on the forum as some others.
Some of us are well beyond debating whether the JFK, RFK, MLK, and at least the basic thesis of 911 - and a host of other things were conspiracies [except for the details]...we know they were 101% and part of one whole...and are seeking to move on to answers and solutions. Others are either very naive, very new to this, or working with the darker forces to obscure, obstruct and delay. [iMO]
There are certain people who never post without a put-down; withhout a negatively worded challenge; without an attempt to slow the thread - if not halt it.
It would be like Germany 1936-7 discussing if the Jews and Gypsy's are really being mistreated or in danger; whether there is a danger of war and loss of civil liberties. War is happening a
l around us...
outside and against the American people, inside. Civil liberties have eroded almost to the ponit of vanishing. These are perilous times and almost a time to declare it a 'war'. Those who think it just a simple intellectual or historical discussion are either deluding themselves, very new or naiive, or complicit. IMO
I'll follow the rules scrupulously, but I also intend to defend humanity, history and what remains of our tatered democracy and world civilizati
n by whatever means necessary from those who would destroy it. One method is to talk it to death questioning the issues resolved decades ago...and some I sense are intent on just that. Details and refinements are always needed and review of assumptions, if in good will.
I've said my piece. I'm movin' on....toward solutions.
I'm glad you've said your piece Peter.
'Cause these threads have to end somewhere.
And if everyone demands the last word they simply don't end.
-
Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:
Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.
If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing. Add some catchy modifiers such as ''biased', "immoderate", etc.
I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.
And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?
I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.
Kathy Beckett
Zing!
Nicely said Kathy.
FWIW I think you're a great mod.
Winston Churchill and the death of Prince George, Duke of Kent
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
Hi John,
I still have the same questions:
Who was the 15th person killed in the S-25 Sunderland Mk III crash that killed the Duke of Kent if not Hess?
And why wasn't Hess on board if the purpose of the trip was to negotiate with him?
Do you think Churchill wanted Hess to be killed in the crash?
Also, did they use the flying boat because they had to land at the lake to pick up passengers?
I'm unclear on why all those skilled navigators would agree to fly the craft over land given that it was unsuitable for that purpose.
Do you know how the aircraft was sabotaged?
Interesting stuff.
Thanks.