Charles Drago

All language is dynamic, open to metamorphoses prompted by a multiplicity of forces. That being stated, there is EVERYTHING wrong with "creating a word to communicate an idea personally." (emphasis added) Language is not owned by any individual. There exist words to describe the phenomenon Marcel is referencing. His abuse of language is unacceptable to all who understand the value of language to intelligent discourse. "Hovering" suffices. "Helicoptering" is an abomination. Charles Charles...All languages allow IDIOMATIC expressions in friendly exchanges where the meaning is clear. I consider HELICOPERING an idiom describing a spinning/hovering activity. In a scientific paper, no. In friendly discussion, OK in my opinion. As I recall, you are a sports fan...and where would sportscasters be without making up expressive idioms? The current favorite of football announcers when a player is running for a touchdown is HE'S TAKING IT TO THE HOUSE. Actually he is not going to any abode, but carrying the ball across the goal line. Jack Jack, et al, More than just a quick response surely would amount to a hijacking of this thread, so I'll be uncharacteristically brief. Every word counts. The successful communication of complex ideas depends upon the precise, sophisticated use of language. All language is subject to change when change is mandated by the evolution of culture. But to coin a word for no reason other than laziness or ignorance is to assault language. I have no problem with "taking it to the house." I would have a major problem with calling the person who does so a "house takerer." Bernice: If we don't take language seriously, we put at risk the very foundation of civilization. Am I less than masterful in my language skills? Of course I am! But for better or worse, I work at those skills every day. And so should all of you. Charles

Don't you mean "disruptive"? See above. As a moderator tasked with maintaining linguistic standards, you should know better. Are the inmates running the asylum? Charles

All language is dynamic, open to metamorphoses prompted by a multiplicity of forces. That being stated, there is EVERYTHING wrong with "creating a word to communicate an idea personally." (emphasis added) Language is not owned by any individual. There exist words to describe the phenomenon Marcel is referencing. His abuse of language is unacceptable to all who understand the value of language to intelligent discourse. "Hovering" suffices. "Helicoptering" is an abomination. Charles

Which is precisely what I did without using the word. And what I do yet again, and in the same fashion, in post 126. But more than just "call" him that, I document what "Colby" has done and continues to do to earn the epithet. So, dear moderators, thanks to "Colby" you have quite the problem before you. I didn't use the word. "Colby" did. I'm simply agreeing with his characterization. Is that wrong? Charles Drago

Sharing an abusive PM is entirely the decision of its recipient. The contents of such a message go to the character of its sender -- by defintion, a person who posts on this Forum. Is it not of vital interest to all readers of this Forum to know the nature of the authors whose words they are asked to weigh? Charles

There he/they goes/go again, commiting the same act for the same purpose. "Colby" is knowlingly misquoting me. "Colby" is knowlingly telling an untruth. "Colby" is trying to be cute insofar as "Colby" accurately types a segment from my original post, but then characterizes it as my "claim." I MADE NO CLAIMS. I asked a question. Anyone with reading comprehension skills above the third grade level would know this. Which, I suppose, gives "Colby" an "out." "Colby" may be retarded. But I don't think that is is the case. What "Colby" does above is categorically and morally identical to what "Colby" did previously. "Colby" is not telling the truth. "Colby" knows it. So what does that make "Colby"? Charles Drago

Greg, et al, The ultimate disposition of George Michael's materials has yet to be determined. There are a handful of viable locations under consideration, but my educated guess is that we're at least a solid year away from being able to provide pubic access to even a portion of the archive. I must also make clear that all decisions will be made by Alycia Evica. In the meantime, work is underway on a major project that George Michael asked to be our immediate focus of attention. Hope this helps. Charles

Correct. And people thought Carter weak because of the treasonous pre-election actions of individuals inside and out of his administration -- including more than one of Reagan's highest-level associates. But on a humorous note: Do you recall the press conference at which Reagan defended the Pentagon's budget by noting that a very small percent of those funds were spent on weapon systems. Most of the dough, he told us, went toward "salaries and costumes." That's uniforms. If only someone had yelled, "Cut!" Charles

________________________________ pouring or poring? _______________________________ Pouring. Bourbon. Apparently too much of it. Got me.

Yet another two-bagger. (For you baseball illiterates: a "double".)

Michael, If you've listened to the "analysis" of this issue by the star political pundits of American TV, you've once again witnessed an unsettling demonstration of their deep political naiveté. The extent of their insight is discerned in the predictability and superficiality of the questions they pose: Did Robert Novak, in whose column the story first saw light, make it all up? Was he parroting, wittingly or not, disinformation of GOP operatives seeking to exacerbate hard feelings between Clinton and Obama? Did Hillary's people really do what Novak claims they did? Some questions that seem to have escaped the Worst and the Dullest: Did Obama's operatives start the rumor in order to smear Hillary and/or deflect the inevitable release of embarassing info about their man? If Clinton forces are to blame, is their primary mission to head off exposure of scandalous information about their own candidate? Within the past two weeks stories have appeared on certain generally respected Internet sites in which suggestions are made that a major daily newspaper (allegedly the L.A. Times) is sitting on a story linking Hillary and her chief female advisor in a Lesbian relationship. This aspect of the current story, of course, is not mentioned in today's "analysis" of Novak's column. But the timing here suggests that there may very well be a connection. Also overlooked by the heirs of Edward R. is the possibility of this play supporting the grand strategy of voter alienation/suppression. You want watch scum rise to the top? Watch Chris Matthews. Charles

Thank you, Jack. "Helicoptering"??? There is a verb "to helicopter"??? Perhaps "hovering" would have done it??? A relatively large segment of skull will be blown forward, hang virtually motionless in mid air, and then gently hover in the breeze??? My brain just pulled a hamstring. Charles

Hi Mark, As I write this post I'm pouring through the first batch of documents, manuscripts, and other materials from the Evica archive. As your own words attest, you're aware of George Michael's groundbreaking work on the Oswald defection. I have every reason to believe that Greg's contribution to the topic simultaneously will stand on its own merits and compliment, even as it is complimented by, my dear friend's work. Segretti Light, by the way, is working to solve this case the same way a tumor is working to cure the cancer. But I digress. Best, Charles

The above amounts to a most revealing example of the trickery that we've come to expect from Segretti Light. 1. Note the wholly irrelevant upper case emphasis on the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. A Democrat! THAT Democrat! 2. Note the attack on a claim that never was made -- in this case, the manner in which Mailer was reached (see next item). 3. Note the unwillingness and/or inability to understand terms and definitions -- in particular, "administration." 4. Note the conflation of hypotheses, illustrating the most notorious, time-honored tactic of the disinformationalist. It's all piffle, and the only moral response is to expose the perfidy for what it is. The prime example: Segretti Light's pronouncement to Bill Kelly: "You are wrong that the questions about the assassination are answerable; many are not." There's the game in a nutcase ... er, nutshell. The grand strategy of Segretti Light's masters is the perpetuation of uncertainty and confusion. Such is his brief and that of Lamby and Purvo (Lamson, Colby, and Purvis; sounds like the Devil's law firm). And by the way, when you read this guy's intellectually and grammatically impoverished posts, you know where the "Light" in "Segretti Light" comes from. Charles Drago

The uncredited author of the title of the review is Mort Saul: "Werner von Braun's autobiography is titled I Aim for the Stars. "It should be titled, I Aim for the Stars, but Sometimes I Hit London." Critic Alex Roland and/or his editor is/are technically guilty of plagiarism. Charles

A cold? Hadn't thought of that. Or perhaps more than a couple of cold ones?

Emphasis added. This misspelling is indicative of voice recognition software. Or perhaps one of Segretti Light's controllers speaks/writes English as a second language. Or perhaps forgers operate under spelling/usage protocols that mandate errors of specified varieties at scheduled times so as to conform to a literary legend built for the composite posting personality. Charles

Far too many of your ilk remember only the most recent iteration of an argument. This sad truth explains the reasoning behind the assignment given to you, Colby, Gratz, and Purvis -- among others -- to get the last word. So .........

No, I don't. Charles' original statement was: Assuming for the sake of argument -- and man, it pains me to do so -- that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event, as well as the absurd official conspiracy theory and the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District? Len subsequent quoted: the near total absence of damage to the building IMO Len was arguing that damage to the building was far from being a "total absence" and was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack. It would have been better to quote the whole sentence / paragraph, but there is a dispute as to the level of damage. I also disagree with statement "...that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event...". I believe the damage is consistent with the aircraft striking the building. Anyway, I do not believe that it was a deliberate attempt to alter the meaning of Charles' statement. A correction has been made, and I believe that should be the end of the matter. Evan, With all due respect: Nonsense! Colby wasn't "arguing" anything. He was purposefully misquoting me not by changing my words, but by truncating them in order to change their meaning and, as a result, impugn my own truthfulness and perhaps even sanity. For how could a truthful, sane person argue that the Pentagon did not sustain damage? Which is what Colby claimed that I maintain. The smoking gun? If, as you claim, Colby was merely arguing that damage to the Pentagon "was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack," then why on earth would he have removed the tail end of my original post -- "consistent with such an event" -- which stands unequivocally as the portion of my sentence most directly relevant to his alleged point? The only plausible -- and just barely so -- explanation for Colby's omission other than a conscious effort on his part to deceive (and you know what that would make him!) is what I like to term "cognitive impairment." Which I don't buy for as long as it takes a reasonable person to understand Colby for what he is. I'd like to address Bill Kelly's not unreasonable and appropriately impassioned plea for an end to this exchange. Bill, this is not about me or even Colby. It is about the penetration of this Forum by agents provocateurs tasked with undermining our shared efforts in support of their masters' grander strategies to keep us mired in argument and to corrupt history by creating the illusion of a level playing field for their knowlingly false points of view. They must be exposed, or by definition they win. Charles Drago

The vast majority of historians also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. So are they correct in that also? Because a "great majority of historians" say something is true, we should believe it? Without question, I should believe that Ronald Reagan, a man who gave far less consideration for the homeless and poor than he did his friends in the military and so-called Moral Majority? I thought caring for the homeless and poor were Christian values. Beautifully reasoned, Courtney.

That would be me. I dared to make oblique references to the forbidden synonyms for fib and fibber in describing the purposeful misrepresentation by Len Colby of one of my posts. Let's see if "fib" and "fibber" go into the black hole. So! Here's a question or two for the moderators: Has any member of this Forum ever been convicted of perjury in a court of law? If so, would it be permissable to post a message referring to that person as a "xxxx" within the context of a discussion of the "lies" that led to the conviction? Has any member of this Forum ever been caught in a posted lie? If so, would it be permissable to refer to that person as a "xxxx" within the context of a discussion of the posted "lies"? Based upon his perjury conviction, is it permissable to refer to Scooter Libby as a xxxx? If so, and if Libby joined this Forum, would the permission be rescinded? Finally, If I were to write in a post, "the Pentagon and its grounds did not suffer significant damage consistent with the impact of a 757," and, oh I don't know, a "Rio D. Janiero" were to quote me as having written, "the Pentagon and its grounds did not suffer significant damage" within the broader context of attempting to cast aspersions on my rationality and judgment, would "Janiero's" action properly be described as a "lie" and "Janiero" a "xxxx"? If so, would the moderators deny me the right to do so in my defense? Charles Drago

It is my understanding that certain USG documents relating to the Lincoln assassination and its investigation remain classified. Can anyone verify this?

Adios, Segretti Light.

Several members posted details of the plight of the poor in the United States. Tim replies by pointing out that the US has 740 television sets per 1,000 people. Members make considered criticism of Reagan's presidency and Tim posts details of survey results that show that Reagan was a popular president. It clearly is impossible to have a logical debate with this man. Message received, point taken. Adios, Segretti Light

Dear Segretti Light, From post 60: "So it is NOW Drago's position that he challenged my statement that he claimed Mailer lied when he stated he thought Castro acted alone." Check your meds. And your Freudian slip. Charles Drago PS Ka-CHING! (To avoid confusion: that's the sound of a cash register ringing.)