Charles Drago

On 1/22/2019 at 2:20 AM, Ron Bulman said:

Yes it is necessary.  Your posts among others inspired me to keep reading years before I dared post here.  

Thank you.

On behalf of Chris Courtwright, William Xanttopoulis, and the late George Michael Evica, I wish to express our gratitude to the powers that be who, knowingly or not, have followed our lead and reinvigorated the concept of a Truth and Amnesty (now Reconciliation) Commission for JFK (currently expanded to include RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X) that we originated and first brought to the public's attention in 1997.

Although neither I nor any other surviving founder of the earlier Commission was consulted during formation of its contemporary iteration, we are flattered to have had our concept developed all these years later, and we wish the Commission Godspeed.

Greetings, Fellow Travelers,

I'm checking in on a friend's computer.

Let's see how long this stays up.

Charles R. Drago

The fact that Drago can logon on normally from another computer pretty much confirms Andy's explanation that his problems are due to his computer rather than his account. Odd that he seems to think otherwise.

Hey there Len! Did you see this fascinating thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14076

"Conspiracy of Big Tobacco Companies - 100 Years of Deceit, They KNEW Smoking Was Addictive & Caused Cancer!"

Do you have any thoughts on the subject?

Myra, I'm afraid that Len has too many thoughts on the subject -- warm, fuzzy thoughts of the sort one usually derives from, say, a family album of cherished memories.

I must wonder, though, if Len counts himself among the deniers of the holocaust unleashed on the world by big tobacco. And I also am keen to learn if he's lost any immediate family members or loved ones to tobacco-related cancers.

Greetings, Fellow Travelers,

I'm checking in on a friend's computer.

Let's see how long this stays up.

Charles R. Drago

The fact that Drago can logon on normally from another computer pretty much confirms Andy's explanation that his problems are due to his computer rather than his account. Odd that he seems to think otherwise.

Exactly. Notice he was setting things up exactly as I said - again? If he tried to debate Andy here, he'd pretend his posts were being deleted or he was banned or other nonsense. He can't risk a debate over at the Deep Bull Forum because he can't use his escape clause there.

Ah, Evan,

You are so bold and courageous ... and a brilliant observer of human nature to boot.

I've asked John Simkin to check into the reason why my computer malfunctions so selectively. When he reports to me, as I know he will, the story of why I am "Forbidden" entry to the site of your breathtakingly insightful and honorable posts ...

You'll be the first to know.

Until then, be heartened by the fact that I won't be back for at least a week, so it's safe to continue your attacks.

I'll close with a fashion tip: Brown slacks nicely compliment the yellow of that streak down your back.

Charles Drago

Greetings, Fellow Travelers,

I'm checking in on a friend's computer.

Let's see how long this stays up.

Charles R. Drago

Peter,

Here's an easy one: How about Big Tobacco's conspiracy to hide the health risks associated with nicotine consumption -- at an estimated cost of 100 million lives through this century?

This one surely can be acknowledged by all but those who, for any number of reasons, feel a kinship with the conspirators.

Giving new definition to the term "smoking gun," I should say.

CD

My theory is that Hyde suffered a coughing fit after smoking a safe cigarette.

He has done nothing of the sort.

Charles was allowed to advertise his forum, and did so.

Charles challenged Andy to a debate, and Andy agreed - to a debate on Charles forum.

It is NOT a matter of "...risking exposure..", IMO. I believe that as soon as Andy shows up Charles in a debate here, Charles will claim it was because of an unfair advantage, interference from mods, whatever.

I believe Andy wants to disarm Charles of that weapon by debating on the DPF, where Charles cannot claim interference. Is Charles too scared to debate Andy on Charles own forum?

Continuing this brand of logic:

A scientist taught a flea to obey spoken commands.

The scientist would say, "Fly, flea," and the flea would fly.

Then one day the scientist cut off the flea's wings.

"Fly, flea," said the scientist. But the flea did not fly.

Which prompted the following entry in the scientist's diary: "IMO, I believe that when one removes the wings from a flea, the flea becomes deaf."

The scientist, I believe, was a Professor Burton.

The flea was named Andy.

Then Charles will be only too happy to accept Andy's offer to debate at the DPF then, right? That will keep it all above board.

Let's see what Charles does.

Charles will ask Evan if he truly believes that Charles will respond to schoolyard taunts.

Charles will challenge Evan to use his moderator privileges to review long-sequestered Walker-Drago confrontations, discover who ran from the encounter by closing threads after being humiliated, and honestly report same on Walker's forum.

Charles will ask Evan to explain how it is to Charles' advantage to debate Walker on the website Walker controls.

Charles will leave Evan and Walker and "Colby" to continue their circle ... dance while Charles takes a hot bath and then returns to the land of the living.

Charles will shake his head and wonder, Where do we find such men?

Why not here, where you control the field?

Think.

Stop talking to yourself and answer the question.

Oh ... wait a minute ... you can't risk the exposure.

Got it.

I was not banned, but merely suspended. And I'm proud to note that I'm likely the most irritating of the many burrs under Sherrif Walker's greasy saddle.

Self Knowledge at last

You are indeed a minor pain in the posterior Charles.

Now Andrew,

The last time you attempted to engage me in a battle of wits, for which you were and are woefully unarmed, you took a beating and then ran to hide behind your administrator's battlements. Hence my suspension.

Would you have at it again? Perhaps on a dedicated thread? Give me your public assurance that, once bested, you will not turn tail, and the games will begin.

Charles

Come come Chazza you can do better than that

How about something profound from on the "deep" politics forum?

Preregister an account for me and I'll gladly lock horns with your piddling intellect and massive ego on any topic you like :lol:

Sigh ...

Why not here, where you control the field?

But what about David Guyatt?

He seems to have gone - probably not to a better place.

I have no information regarding the circumstances of his departure. You will have to quizz [sic] another.

But Andrew,

Did you not previously write, "[N]one of you, despite your best efforts, were banned."

Care to squirm out of this one, old sport?

I was not banned, but merely suspended. And I'm proud to note that I'm likely the most irritating of the many burrs under Sherrif Walker's greasy saddle.

Self Knowledge at last

You are indeed a minor pain in the posterior Charles.

Now Andrew,

The last time you attempted to engage me in a battle of wits, for which you were and are woefully unarmed, you took a beating and then ran to hide behind your administrator's battlements. Hence my suspension.

Would you have at it again? Perhaps on a dedicated thread? Give me your public assurance that, once bested, you will not turn tail, and the games will begin.

Charles

I was not banned, but merely suspended. And I'm proud to note that I'm likely the most irritating of the many burrs under Sherrif Walker's greasy saddle.

But what about David Guyatt?

Cliff, et al,

Without referencing anyone in particular and as a matter of general tactical significance:

When the Bunker Street Irregulars cannot lure honorable men and women into their rhetorical traps, and not even absurd name-calling works, they'll simply write to each other -- and, as is the case with at least one such entity on this forum -- he or she will talk to himself or herself ad absurdum.

Of course they also swear, with right hands held high, that they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Reminds me of the iconic photo of the tobacco industry bigwigs standing shoulder-to-shoulder before a committee of Congress, all of them in just that posture.

Duly sworn, they testified that they "believe" that nicotine is not addictive.

And they have the "scientists" to prove it.

Nicotine? Addictive? Could you cite the proof? The references?

Where do we find such men?

(The question is not rhetorical in nature; I and others happen to know.)

CD

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one.

I agree but he is an expert at taking over threads. It is a shame because this could have been an interesting discussion. Especially, if Evan and Len would have been willing to contribute.

Gotta tell ya, John, that dry British sense of humor has found a home in you.

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

CD

Cliff,

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but ...

I told you so.

CD

Cliff, et al,

We must confront the conspirators and their accessories head-on.

Without referencing anyone in particular and as a matter of general tactical significance: Calling out all those conspirators and their accessories who would camouflage themselves in the roles of independent thinkers and writers neatly does that job.

Here's the critical distinction: To recognize the validity of those roles is to stand in service to the greater agenda that empowers them. And such recognition, of course, takes place when we engage these scoundrels in the very debate that is their mission to perpetuate.

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

You see, if we don't play, they lose. And you know how kindly disposed their masters are to loosing.

CD

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

Charles,

But if at the end of that process I stand as a better educated and more

forceful advocate for "the side of the angels," then it's a risk I'm willing to

take.

If you respond to them directly, by definition you endorse their bona fides as honorable, well-informed observers.

These people are doing the work of JFK's killers. They are the enemy. To engage them on their terms is to deliver victory to them.

That's all these charlatans want.

Don't do it. I'm beggin' ya.

CD

While that has been an important component of "the American air defense system," the PRIMARY defensive activity is outlined in ...............................................................

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Light up another one, "Colby."

But just make sure you don't set fire to the sheets. I'd hate to conclude that tobacco is dangerous to our health.

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

The weakness of Feser's argument was that he lumped these two theories together. Clearly, he did this because he attempting to smear JFK assassination researchers with being 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Agreed. And so ...

To quote Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison in JFK ...

"Ask the question, ask the question!"

WHY would he do such a thing?

Maybe Evan and Len could explain why?

Evan aside; as far as the latter are concerned, I'm reminded of the comedian's line: "I don't explain 'em, I just tell 'em."

Interesting play with your Knight, though.

I prefer the range of my wandering Bishops.

That does not satisfy you simply because - despite what you say now - you want me to weave together a bunch of speculations - which - bit by bit you will nit pick and call for ever increasing minute detail.

Agreed. And so ...

To quote Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison in JFK ...

"Ask the question, ask the question!"

WHY does "Colby" act in such a fashion?

The weakness of Feser's argument was that he lumped these two theories together. Clearly, he did this because he attempting to smear JFK assassination researchers with being 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Agreed. And so ...

To quote Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison in JFK ...

"Ask the question, ask the question!"

WHY would he do such a thing?

"Colby" ...

We see you ...