Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
...
You do realize that the Dems also posted their own "hit list" complete with bullseyes and the Daily Kos did the same and included Giffords?
Can you please point me to these other hit lists? Especially the Dem one you say has bulleseyes.
Not that I'm a Dem. And not that this is a strictly Dem vs Rep issue. Its a broader issue than that. Even people outside of the one major US DemRep party should be aware of possible consequences from such lists.
-
The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite.
Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer.
Whats an "assualt rifle"? And we can't purchase "automatic" pistols. Its not the GUNS that cause the problems, its PEOPLE.
Yet people with guns kill other people much much much faster. Assassin boy was able to kill 5 or 6 people, and injure 12, in a matter of seconds. Explain how he could have done that with another weapon like a knife or a sling shot.
-
I posted the below elsewhere in the forum because I didn't see this thread. John pointed out this thread so I'm moving my post here.
Bulleyes, Hit Lists, Responsibility and Consequences
“I think it's important for all leaders... community leaders... to say we can't stand for this...
People really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up--for example we're on Sarah Palin's 'Targeted List' but...
the way she has it depicted is that she has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district.
When people do that they've got to realize there are consequences to that action.”
--US Representative Gabrielle Giffords on MSNBC March 25, 2010
US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head on January 8, 2011. In the same shooting rampage six people were shot dead and twelve were wounded. I don't know if it's big news world wide; it is big news in the US.
One of the reasons it's big news is the fact that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin previously put the map, shown by Evan in this thread, since scrubbed from Palin's site, of Democratic targets on her website. The US map, put on Palin's website March 23, had images of cross hairs over targeted congressional districts, including Gabrielle Giffords' district. Accompanying text included the phrase “We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo....” Palin also tweeted, on March 23, “Commensense Conservatives & lovers of America: Don't Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”
Two days later Gabrielle Giffords spoke out against the bullseye map on MSNBC, quoted above.
Eight months later Giffords was narrowly reelected. Of the 20 districts targeted by Palin, Giffords and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) were the only two candidates to win over her Palin's chosen Republicans.
Palin sent this post election Tweet: “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)”
Ten months later Gabrielle Giffords was shot through the head in a massacre.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo had the following to say on the January 8 episode of Countdown with Keith Olberman, also on MSNBC:
“This is like the way an epidemic disease breaks out is a lot like the climate of incitement does. Because when an epidemic breaks out it's usually the weak, the old or the unhealthy are the people who are carried off. In a similar sense when you have a climate of incitement, a lot of violent political speech, it's always people who are pretty nutty who actually shoot someone. That's always how it is. It doesn't mean these two things [the Palin bullseye map and the Arizona massacre] are unrelated. That's in the nature of how these things work.”
Finally, Arizona/Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had this to say, and it's my point as well:
"All the vitriol we hear... That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."
Bulleyes and harassment lists and hit lists may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."
-
This issue is being discussed here:
Thanks John.
-
January 9 Tweet from Michael Moore:
"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking."
-
On edit, since join pointed out the discussion at http://educationforu...showtopic=17215, I'm moving my post to that thread.
-
Has anyone got James W. Douglass' contact details? Someone has contacted me about a possible book deal.
I don't John but if you have contact with Lisa Pease or Oliver Stone, who participated in this panel discussion with Douglass, or with Robert Ellsberg who moderated the discussion, they may be able to help.
-
I just tried to log-in over at Deep Politics Forum and I get this message:
"Robert Morrow, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."
I guess someone at Deep Politics Forum ... just ... can't ... handle ... the ... truth about what a sex freak John Kennedy was. I posted a lot of useful, highly relevant, TRUE stuff about the JFK assassination over there. And you would not believe the incredible nasty, at times profane personal attacks that some members - even a MODERATOR - of Deep Politics Forum threw all me... all because of political ideological reasons. So some, but not all or even most DPF members, especially this guy Charles Dragoo - whoever he is - made a bunch of completely unwarranted nasty attacks on me.
Of course, I did nothing of the same to that minority. I just stuck to my theories, analyses and the facts like I always do.
Check out the Deep Politics Mission statement:
"Welcome to the Deep Politics Forum, an online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.
Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows."
So I guess they are for debate, research, trading information, seeking the truth EXCEPT OF COURSE YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT A COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL SEX FREAK JOHN KENNEDY WAS AND HOW HE WAS EXPERIMENTING WITH DRUGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ...
In fact all types of reasonable, fact-based political discourse is allowed at Deep Politics Forum EXCEPT FOR THOSE DEBATES OR THEORIES WHICH THE SOME OF THE OFTEN NASTY, ABUSIVE MODERATORS DISAGREE WITH.
To be fair, the bad egg moderators and members of DPF are in the minority, and I do think the web page offers a great place to learn about deep politics and the 1963 Coup d'Etat. I really don't think the majority of Deep Politics participants HAVE FASCIST AND TOTALITARIAN INSTINCTS ... but some do, don't they?
Robert, Here's my take on it FWIW.
As I think you noted, President Kennedy's sex life is trotted out regularly as a way to diminish his value to the people he was taken from. The subtext is 'JFK was a sleaze so it doesn't matter who killed him.' I think a lot of people recoil from the subject because it's so often used to dismiss him as a person and as the great revolutionary leader he was.
I understand that Myra. However, it is extremely important to understand that the ONLY reason Lyndon Johnson got on the 1960 Democratic ticket with John Kennedy is that LBJ, Sam Rayburn, and Hoover used SEXUAL BLACKMAIL on John Kennedy to force him to put LBJ on the ticket. And the source for that is a damn good one: Evelyn Lincoln, JFK's personal assistant for 11+ years. And as Jack Ruby said if JFK had picked Adlai Stevenson for VP he would have still been alive and not assassinated. Lyndon Johnson was integral to the planning and the cover up of the JFK assassination.
So JFK's out of control and blackmailable sex life is EXTREMELY important to understand its impact on real politics. After the death of JFK, we got the Vietnam War for example.
Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary, reports that Johnson, with J. Edgar Hoover’s dark help, got on the 1960 Democratic ticket by using BLACKMAIL on the Kennedys
"During the 1960 campaign, according to Mrs. Lincoln, Kennedy discovered how vulnerable his womanizing had made him. Sexual blackmail, she said, had long been part of Lyndon Johnson's modus operandi—abetted by Edgar. "J. Edgar Hoover," Lincoln said, "gave Johnson the information about various congressmen and senators so that Johnson could go to X senator and say, `How about this little deal you have with this woman?' and so forth. That's how he kept them in line. He used his IOUs with them as what he hoped was his road to the presidency. He had this trivia to use, because he had Hoover in his corner. And he thought that the members of Congress would go out there and put him over at the Convention. But then Kennedy beat him at the Convention. And well, after that Hoover and Johnson and their group were able to push Johnson on Kennedy."LBJ," said Lincoln, "had been using all the information Hoover could find on Kennedy—during the campaign, even before the Convention. And Hoover was in on the pressure on Kennedy at the Convention." (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 272).
According to Lincoln, Kennedy had definite plans to drop Johnson for the Vice Presidency in 1964, and replace him with Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. In 1964, new President Lyndon Johnson gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a lifetime waiver from the mandatory retirement age of 70 that Hoover would hit on 1/1/65! In other words, Hoover could live to age 120 and still be head of the FBI. In my opinion, both LBJ and Hoover were conspirators, along with the CIA, in the JFK assassination. LBJ’s and Hoover’s jobs were to cover up the murder.
More on how Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn blackmailed and threatened John Kennedy to get Lyndon Johnson on the Democratic ticket in 1960
The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. Through Seymour Hersh, you get the voices of the CIA people and perhaps Secret Service people who hated John Kennedy. JFK was not murdered because he was a reckless and prolific womanizer. But it gave JFK's killers one more justification to kill someone they did not respect ... and actually hated for reasons both personal and ideological.
Seymour Hersh really does a fantastic job detailing how the psychopathic serial killer LYNDON JOHNSON BLACKMAILED HIS WAY ONTO THE 1960 DEMOCRATIC TICKET ... with last minute threats and blackmails issued by him and Sam Rayburn late in the night of July 13th, 1960 at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. By the morning of July 14th, Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn (using Hoover's blackmail info on Kennedy) had TWISTED THE ARM of John Kennedy enough to force him to break his deal with Symington and INSTEAD put the homicidal maniac and Kennedy-hater Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 Demo ticket.
That my friends, was a FATAL decision. Because Johnson works like this: blackmail you today, kill you tomorrow. Like Jack Ruby famously said, if John Kennedy had picked Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy would still be alive... or at least would not have been shot like a dog in the streets of Dallas.
In reality John Kennedy was all set to pick Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri who was very popular in California, which had a whopping 35 electoral votes at that time. With Johnson on the ticket, Kennedy lost California by a razer close 1/2 of a percent. It is very likely that a Kennedy/Symington ticket would have WON California.
Read the Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh, p.124-129:
Close JFK friend Hy Raskin: “Johnson was not being given the slightest bit of consideration by any of the Kennedys… On the stuff I saw it was always Symington who was going to be the vice president. The Kennedy family had approved Symington.” [Hersh, p. 124]
John Kennedy to Clark Clifford on July 13, 1960: “We’ve talked it out – me, dad, Bobby – and we’ve selected Symington as the vice president.” Kennedy asked Clark Clifford to relay that message to Symington “and find out if he’d run.” …”I and Stuart went to bed believing that we had a solid, unequivocal deal with Jack.” [Hersh, p.125]
Hy Raskin: “It was obvious to them that something extraordinary had taken place, as it was to me,” Raskin wrote. “During my entire association with the Kennedys, I could not recall any situation where a decision of major significance had been reversed in such a short period of time…. Bob [Kennedy] had always been involved in every major decision; why not this one, I pondered… I slept little that night.” [Hersh, p. 125]
John Kennedy to Clark Clifford in the morning of July 14, 1960: “I must do something that I have never done before. I made a serious deal and now I have to go back on it. I have no alternative.” Symington was out and Johnson was in. Clifford recalled observing that Kennedy looked as if he’d been up all night.” [Hersh, p. 126]
John Kennedy to Hy Raskin: “You know we had never considered Lyndon, but I was left with no choice. He and Sam Rayburn made it damn clear to me that Lyndon had to be the candidate. Those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems. I’m going to have enough problems with Nixon.” [Hersh, p. 126]
Raskin “The substance of this revelation was so astonishing that if it had been revealed to me by another other than Jack or Bob, I would have had trouble accepting it. Why he decided to tell me was still very mysterious, but flattering nonetheless.” [Hersh, p. 126]
Robert,
The part where you quote Evelyn Lincoln is really interesting and makes sense. It was always apparent that LBJ forced his way onto the ticket. And I do believe LBJ planned at that point to promote himself over JFK's dead body or he'd never have given up the powerful majority leader position for the cruddy ol' VP slot. Plus at that point a Southerner had never been elected president, so his only path to greater power was over JFK's body. If the sexual blackmail is the rest of the story then that sounds plausible and I'm glad to know it.
As far as Seymour Hersh though, I consider him to be a CIA mouthpiece and "The Dark Side of Camelot" to be a JFK smear from Hersh's CIA handlers. I don't consider Hersh credible.
-
I just tried to log-in over at Deep Politics Forum and I get this message:
"Robert Morrow, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."
I guess someone at Deep Politics Forum ... just ... can't ... handle ... the ... truth about what a sex freak John Kennedy was. I posted a lot of useful, highly relevant, TRUE stuff about the JFK assassination over there. And you would not believe the incredible nasty, at times profane personal attacks that some members - even a MODERATOR - of Deep Politics Forum threw all me... all because of political ideological reasons. So some, but not all or even most DPF members, especially this guy Charles Dragoo - whoever he is - made a bunch of completely unwarranted nasty attacks on me.
Of course, I did nothing of the same to that minority. I just stuck to my theories, analyses and the facts like I always do.
Check out the Deep Politics Mission statement:
"Welcome to the Deep Politics Forum, an online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.
Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows."
So I guess they are for debate, research, trading information, seeking the truth EXCEPT OF COURSE YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT A COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL SEX FREAK JOHN KENNEDY WAS AND HOW HE WAS EXPERIMENTING WITH DRUGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ...
In fact all types of reasonable, fact-based political discourse is allowed at Deep Politics Forum EXCEPT FOR THOSE DEBATES OR THEORIES WHICH THE SOME OF THE OFTEN NASTY, ABUSIVE MODERATORS DISAGREE WITH.
To be fair, the bad egg moderators and members of DPF are in the minority, and I do think the web page offers a great place to learn about deep politics and the 1963 Coup d'Etat. I really don't think the majority of Deep Politics participants HAVE FASCIST AND TOTALITARIAN INSTINCTS ... but some do, don't they?
Robert, Here's my take on it FWIW.
As I think you noted, President Kennedy's sex life is trotted out regularly as a way to diminish his value to the people he was taken from. The subtext is 'JFK was a sleaze so it doesn't matter who killed him.' I think a lot of people recoil from the subject because it's so often used to dismiss him as a person and as the great revolutionary leader he was.
-
MB and Colby have now opened NEW threads on this subject with MB saying she is being black mailed and Colby...well..being Colby.
The thread I started was about a separate but related issue. I guess if you ran a forum you wouldn't mind if members threatened to sue you.
This has no place here and its sorry to see that some of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby.Why don't you spell out which "of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby" and provide evidence of said bias?
Come, on Jim, I was really hoping you’d reply.
Rats, I'm a little too late.
I was actually hoping to apologize for this thread but I think it's about to be locked.
First it has nothing to do with JFK as others have noted.
Second I think I was being silly and melodramatic when I used the word "blackmail."
In retrospect I think the DPFers were trying to be honorable and warn me before posting on Wikispooks.
I'd also hoped to post some closing thoughts on the other thread which is now locked.
I totally understand why it's locked and have no issue with that.
Just wanted to say something...
-
I share RCD's concerns about this kind of dirty laundry being aired out on the forum. I think I'll stop bemoaning the constant strife between warring individuals and cliques in the research community. It must be obvious, at this point, that such disputes may very well be more important than the JFK assassination itself, at least to those who continue to delight in engaging in dramatic words of war.
I am personally disallusioned by all this infighting. As I've noted before, I usually agree with most of those who feel compelled to keep arguing with each other. In this latest bit of theatrics, the players are all people whose views are normally in accord with my own. Myra Bronstein, for instance, was one of my very favorite posters here. I also admired Charles Drago's no-holds-barred posts, even while bemoaning his often bombastic style. I could never find anything bad to say about Dawn Meredith.
Let's pretend that all the best and brightest CTers could ever come together at one place- let's call it a convention, for lack of a better word. They've been granted the right (I know, this is impossibly naive, but please play along) to name their own blue ribbon investigative commission, to finally discern the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. So...who would be on that commission? How would the CTers ever agree on even one member, let alone several? Is there one critic who someone would not passionately object to? This is the present state of the critical community; beset with an increasing number of those I call "neo-cons," or people who have grown to dismiss many of the strongest tenets of conspiratorial platform, and plagued by personal feuds between the most knowledgable CTers.
With all these beligerant debates, often involving personal matters and frequently between people who haven't ever met each other personally, it has become increasingly easy for suave LNers to cruise into forums like this and use the discord between CTers to their advantage. I wouldn't strongly object to these DPF threads being closed, and the subject becoming verboten here, but I admire John Simkin for allowing a free exchange, unfettered by the kinds of excessive control exercised on many other forums.
The infighting is beyond tiresome and I have very specific and very significant things I plan to accomplish as a JFK researcher/historian. That's where I want my energy and focus to go. I'm sorry for my role in your disillusionment Don. And I appreciate your post.
I actually find the in-fighting educational. The more CTs fight among themselves, the more I'm convinced there is no "ongoing conspiracy," only a bunch of opinionated people trying to have their way with history, some on one side of the fence, some on the other...few willing to even consider using a gate....
In the words of Elvis Costello..."Two little Hitlers will fight it out until one little Hitler does the other one's will..."
Not that I would want to compare anyone to Hitler... That would be bad...
I really don't think it has that much import Pat. We're just garden variety assholes who couldn't get along.
Don is right and it's a horrible waste among people who, when not being assholes, all care a lot about bigger historical and societal issues.
-
I share RCD's concerns about this kind of dirty laundry being aired out on the forum. I think I'll stop bemoaning the constant strife between warring individuals and cliques in the research community. It must be obvious, at this point, that such disputes may very well be more important than the JFK assassination itself, at least to those who continue to delight in engaging in dramatic words of war.
I am personally disallusioned by all this infighting. As I've noted before, I usually agree with most of those who feel compelled to keep arguing with each other. In this latest bit of theatrics, the players are all people whose views are normally in accord with my own. Myra Bronstein, for instance, was one of my very favorite posters here. I also admired Charles Drago's no-holds-barred posts, even while bemoaning his often bombastic style. I could never find anything bad to say about Dawn Meredith.
Let's pretend that all the best and brightest CTers could ever come together at one place- let's call it a convention, for lack of a better word. They've been granted the right (I know, this is impossibly naive, but please play along) to name their own blue ribbon investigative commission, to finally discern the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. So...who would be on that commission? How would the CTers ever agree on even one member, let alone several? Is there one critic who someone would not passionately object to? This is the present state of the critical community; beset with an increasing number of those I call "neo-cons," or people who have grown to dismiss many of the strongest tenets of conspiratorial platform, and plagued by personal feuds between the most knowledgable CTers.
With all these beligerant debates, often involving personal matters and frequently between people who haven't ever met each other personally, it has become increasingly easy for suave LNers to cruise into forums like this and use the discord between CTers to their advantage. I wouldn't strongly object to these DPF threads being closed, and the subject becoming verboten here, but I admire John Simkin for allowing a free exchange, unfettered by the kinds of excessive control exercised on many other forums.
The infighting is beyond tiresome and I have very specific and very significant things I plan to accomplish as a JFK researcher/historian. That's where I want my energy and focus to go. I'm sorry for my role in your disillusionment Don. And I appreciate your post.
-
I have had these emails from ... Charles R. Drago. Do members think we should delete these postings?
Dear Mr. Simkin,
Further, you do not have my permission to publish copyrighted material owned by me. Again, should you do so, I shall seek legal remedies.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Drago
cc:
Dennis J. McCarten, Esq.[/color]
A word of wisdom for Dennis J. McCarten, Esq.,: Don't expect much of a fee from this case, Dennis. Any claim by Mr. Drago for breach of his copyright belongs in SMALL CLAIMS COURT!
According to http://www.valleybreeze.com/Free/CUM-violin-guy Dennis left the practice of law years ago and now makes violins. Maybe he could play one while CD tells his sad tale to the small claims court.
I was wrong then. I assumed it was a made up name.
Good sleuthing Linda.
-
Is there some reason the DPF foodfight has to play out here?
These are a half dozen EF members who decided to create their own site because this one wasn't good enough to suit their tastes. Yet now that they're at each other's throats, this site is good enough for them to attack each other? Shame on all involved.
This has NOTHING to do with who killed Kennedy and should be disallowed here, imho.
It totally agree Robert.
And Evan is being a bit disingenuous.
That was another thread that he closed.
MB and Colby have now opened NEW threads on this subject with MB saying she is being black mailed and Colby...well..being Colby.
This has no place here and its sorry to see that some of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby.
MB knows that, that is why she is here.
Don't speak for me Jim.
The mods here are hardly biased for me. And I'm hardly biased for them.
In fact one of my posts in the "Deep Politics Forum" thread, a thread I did not start, described how I voted to ban Evan at DPF but lost the vote.
That's not exactly a valentine to Evan.
If anyone is showing bias it's you.
As far as "MB saying she is being black mailed" there is nothing else to call it.
I'll post the blackmail letter sent by Peter Presland, with the rest of the gang apparently blind cc'd, on deeppoliticsforum.info.
Not that I have any illusions about you keeping an open mind, given your bias.
The Peter Presland/Deeppoliticsforum.com blackmail letter is here:
http://deeppoliticsforum.info/
It's the scarlet letter. You can't miss it. Unless you want to of course.
-
Is there some reason the DPF foodfight has to play out here?
These are a half dozen EF members who decided to create their own site because this one wasn't good enough to suit their tastes. Yet now that they're at each other's throats, this site is good enough for them to attack each other? Shame on all involved.
This has NOTHING to do with who killed Kennedy and should be disallowed here, imho.
It totally agree Robert.
And Evan is being a bit disingenuous.
That was another thread that he closed.
MB and Colby have now opened NEW threads on this subject with MB saying she is being black mailed and Colby...well..being Colby.
This has no place here and its sorry to see that some of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby.
MB knows that, that is why she is here.
Don't speak for me Jim.
The mods here are hardly biased for me. And I'm hardly biased for them.
In fact one of my posts in the "Deep Politics Forum" thread, a thread I did not start, described how I voted to ban Evan at DPF but lost the vote.
That's not exactly a valentine to Evan.
If anyone is showing bias it's you.
As far as "MB saying she is being black mailed" there is nothing else to call it.
I'll post the blackmail letter sent by Peter Presland, with the rest of the gang apparently blind cc'd, on deeppoliticsforum.info.
Not that I have any illusions about you keeping an open mind, given your bias.
-
Is there some reason the DPF foodfight has to play out here?
These are a half dozen EF members who decided to create their own site because this one wasn't good enough to suit their tastes. Yet now that they're at each other's throats, this site is good enough for them to attack each other? Shame on all involved.
This has NOTHING to do with who killed Kennedy and should be disallowed here, imho.
I won't quibble with the 'shame on all involved.' No one took the high road in this.
The answer to the rhetorical question: "Is there some reason the DPF foodfight has to play out here?" is-- of course it doesn't have to play out here.
And I think it's done playing out here.
The answer to a related question that was not explicitly asked: 'Why is anybody posting on this subject here?'--is that someone else started the thread "Deep Politics Forum": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17126. The existing thread evolved into a discussion on what happened to DPF.com. There was a lot of discussion and speculation. People were actually contacting me via email to ask what happened and then discretely reporting back via that thread. And so it was reasonable for me, as a member of this forum, to join the existing thread.
After three DPF folks sent concurrent letters to John that some took as blackmail attempts and John went public with it on the forum, I felt it was relevant that they next tried to blackmail me. The blackmail thread is the only one I started. And the mods can close any thread they like, and/or ask people to stop posting in them, though as I said I think it's done playing out here.
My only quibble with your remarks Robert is the implication that starting another forum is an automatic declaration of war. Folks that started DPF did have issues here. And we certainly vented to each other privately. But we had a rule against bashing other forums at DPF, and we even locked threads when people refused to stop bashing EF. I think we need more such discussion forums, not fewer. When the mod of another JFK forum died recently, I and a former colleague at DPF were concerned about the loss of the material on the forum, and the colleague told me they extended an offer to host the material from that forum on DPF. I was told that the offer was declined. And the material is now gone I believe. And that's a shame. So as far as forums go, IMO the more the better.
The material is not gone. Stay tuned.
Really? You mean the material from Rich's forum!? Are you saying it'll be mirrored somewhere?
-
Is there some reason the DPF foodfight has to play out here?
These are a half dozen EF members who decided to create their own site because this one wasn't good enough to suit their tastes. Yet now that they're at each other's throats, this site is good enough for them to attack each other? Shame on all involved.
This has NOTHING to do with who killed Kennedy and should be disallowed here, imho.
I won't quibble with the 'shame on all involved.' No one took the high road in this.
The answer to the rhetorical question: "Is there some reason the DPF foodfight has to play out here?" is-- of course it doesn't have to play out here.
And I think it's done playing out here.
The answer to a related question that was not explicitly asked: 'Why is anybody posting on this subject here?'--is that someone else started the thread "Deep Politics Forum": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17126. The existing thread evolved into a discussion on what happened to DPF.com. There was a lot of discussion and speculation. People were actually contacting me via email to ask what happened and then discretely reporting back via that thread. And so it was reasonable for me, as a member of this forum, to join the existing thread.
After three DPF folks sent concurrent letters to John that some took as blackmail attempts and John went public with it on the forum, I felt it was relevant that they next tried to blackmail me. The blackmail thread is the only one I started. And the mods can close any thread they like, and/or ask people to stop posting in them, though as I said I think it's done playing out here.
My only quibble with your remarks Robert is the implication that starting another forum is an automatic declaration of war. Folks that started DPF did have issues here. And we certainly vented to each other privately. But we had a rule against bashing other forums at DPF, and we even locked threads when people refused to stop bashing EF. I think we need more such discussion forums, not fewer. When the mod of another JFK forum died recently, I and a former colleague at DPF were concerned about the loss of the material on the forum, and the colleague told me they extended an offer to host the material from that forum on DPF. I was told that the offer was declined. And the material is now gone I believe. And that's a shame. So as far as forums go, IMO the more the better.
-
Um, now Drago sent me email claiming that he had emailed the gloves coming off threat in error.
I don't know why he is making a point of telling me this. I don't know if he is reracting the threat, or if he is actually unaware that I'm on the distribution. I'm guessing that the gang of five were blind cc'd on Peter Presland's original blackmail email, and Drago is repeatedly replying to all... including the blackmail target.
Or maybe Drago put his gloves on while he was still typing.
This is my first time as a blakmail target so I gotta ask: Isn't it supposed to be more sinister than comical?
It's keystone cops over there at DPF.com. All that's missing are seltzer bottles and banana peels.
-
After posting this thread Drago sent me a threatening email and informed me that (I paraphrase of course) the gloves are coming off.
The man sure loves a fight.
It'll be interesting to see what they concoct for the Wikispooks page.
At least Drago didn't hide behind Peter Presland in this case.
-
The problem would be the expense of defending the forum, since it hosted in and most of the DPFers live in the US presumably that is where they would bring suit which would be quite burdensome for John.
...
Well that's just it. They're going to go after anyone in my orbit.
And I'm unwilling to have John in the line of fire, so I was happy to remove the email quotes (which are on, or will soon be on, my website anyway).
The tough talkin' guys can come after me and bluster instead of harassing people because of their proximity to me.
Well the other shoe dropped.
The deeppoliticsforum.com gang sent me a blackmail letter this morning.
Details (but not quotes from personal email of course
) here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17189. -
Deeppoliticsforum.com is blackmailing Myra Bronstein!!!
I got the creepy email from Peter Presland this morning at 7:04am USA MT.
It said (I’m paraphrasing of course, so they don’t try to blackmail John again) to look at https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Myra_Bronstein where all kinds of personal information is published: location in the US, profession, etc—along with a photo.
Peter’s email tells me there is a vast amount of documentation to come both personal and DPF related.
And it gives ultimatums (paraphrasing):
- If deepppoliticsforum.info remains public then the https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Myra_Bronstein will remain public.
- Should I choose to escalate then there is a long list of documents they will publish.
- And it warns me that a google search for my name will likely be at the top of the search results within 3 weeks.
WOW!
My first time being blackmailed.
Maybe John can give me tips since he’s been blackmailed before.
I wonder if they'll throw me in the same prison the Wikileaks guy was in.
And them maybe Michael Moore will bail me out. Wow.
I’m guessing that they’re more than willing to list my home address, phone numbers, email address, etc since that’s the very thing Magda Hassan (cloaked as ‘Peter Tosh’) did--posted names/addresses/phones/etc of alleged fascists/Nazis without any proof or sourcing. In fact that’s what triggered the big blow up.
I attached screen captures of the blackmail site. I want the screen shots in case they decide to scrub.
I’ll post deeppoliticsforum.com’s (via Peter Presland) blackmail letter, as well as the screen captures, on deeppoliticsforum.info tonight.
I wonder why they’re hiding behind Peter Presland and Wikispooks. The gang of five was unwilling to sign Peter’s letter. It was just signed Peter Presland, Wikispooks Webmaster.
Why not, as Magda said about her Nazi post under a pseudonym, be out and proud?
-
John,
This does not constitute any legal advice, but I would remove nothing pertaining to contents of "private" emails, unless it can be determined that the authors can prove monetary damages caused by the re-posting of the contents of their messages. Do Myra's postings deprive anyone of royalties or impact the DPF revenue stream?
Ironically, these people who claim to be advocates for transparency are nothing of the sort, when it comes to their own interests. I've deliberately avoided taking any side in the DPF feud, but I do not appreciate intimidating posts in reaction to "the game" not going the way some of our members would like.
...
The material you posted is really helpful and interesting Tom.
-
...
A word of wisdom for Dennis J. McCarten, Esq.,: Don't expect much of a fee from this case, Dennis. Any claim by Mr. Drago for breach of his copyright belongs in SMALL CLAIMS COURT!
-
I have had these two emails from Jan Klimkowski and Charles R. Drago. Do members think we should delete these postings?
To John Simkin
Myra Bronstein has published details of private and confidential emails at the Education Forum.
This is to inform you that the Education Forum does not have permission to publish details of my private email correpondence, and I hereby request you to remove all such emails, and alleged excerpts of emails, immediately.
Jan Klimkowski
Dear Mr. Simkin,
Please cease and desist from publishing my private-emails. You are doing so without my permission on the Spartacus site, of which you are a co-owner.
Be advised that, should the practice continue, I shall seek all remedies available to me under international and other relevant statutes.
Further, you do not have my permission to publish copyrighted material owned by me. Again, should you do so, I shall seek legal remedies.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Drago
cc:
Dennis J. McCarten, Esq.
Dont remove them John
They are just trying to cover their tracks
You didnt post them John, so I dont think you have anything to worry about
I went ahead and removed the email quotes Dean 'cause I don't want John in the crosshairs.
Their tracks are not covered. I'm posting all relevant material on my website.
) here: 
Arizona Rep Giffords shot, at least 5 killed
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
I don't see anyone assuming anything. I see people noticing and mentioning patterns. It's part of what researchers do. Along with keeping an open mind.
In 1979 "Raymond Lee Harvey" was "arrested by the Secret Service after being found carrying a starter pistol with blank rounds, ten minutes before President Jimmy Carter was to give a speech at the Civic Center Mall in Los Angeles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lee_Harvey
Do you see a pattern now?