Charles Drago

The purpose of a new group/forum would be to discuss what action to take collectively, as a cohesive group, based on the research and revelations that come out of existing groups and books and websites.

Action oriented as opposed to research oriented.

The key difference being that instead of communicating mainly with other researchers, we'd be communicating with people who normally don't give the decades old JFK assassination a second thought, and who wrongly think that it is irrelevant to today's events and political climate.

Discourse is, with respect to the relation of forces, not merely a surface of inscription, but something that brings about effects.

- Michel Foucault

Brava, Myra!

Myra,

Your ideas are worth serious consideration, and I hope that I'll be able to offer worthy responses soon.

Until then, you've inspired the following:

Why not ask John, Rich, and Debra to form a -- what shall I call it? -- Leadership Forum? I'm thinking of a multi-site, two-stage approach.

The Leadership Forum would appear simultaneously on all three websites.

Stage One -- Closed to all but the principals. A full and free exchange among the leadership, if you will.

Stage Two -- Open to one and all.

Each site would provide a moderator.

Thoughts, please.

Charles

Charles,

Why not put this garbage on one of the other threads. First you asked for people not to post anymore outside of the one thread and now you are posting this stuff on new threads. And you also seemed to be addressing this post to Myra - do you not have a PM option? You two seem hell-bent on doing what-ever it takes to make it appear as if you are right regardless of how wrong you are.

Here is a thought ... you and Myra start your own forum - problem solved!

Bill Miller

Bill,

Your problem, perhaps.

My idea for a Leadership Forum -- which I posed to everyone with access to these pages -- is, in your opinion, "garbage"?

Thank you for the most ringing of endorsements.

In the mean, you keep those "shut up, Charles" arguments coming. They make my point -- and my day.

Ever present,

Charles Drago

Michael,

Charles McCarry indeed is a gifted novelist. The Tears of Autumn is far and away the finest piece of long-form, honestly labeled JFK assassination fiction. Libra, for this reader, pales by comparison.

McCarry's plot is, of course, hooey. But there is much to be discovered between his lines. And lead character Paul Christopher's belief in "consequences" paraphrases the first, and what for me remains the most cogently accurate explanation of the events in Dealey Plaza.

On December 4, 1963, in response to a post-speech question about the assassination, Malcolm X said, "The chickens have come home to roost."

Charles

Myra,

Your ideas are worth serious consideration, and I hope that I'll be able to offer worthy responses soon.

Until then, you've inspired the following:

Why not ask John, Rich, and Debra to form a -- what shall I call it? -- Leadership Forum? I'm thinking of a multi-site, two-stage approach.

The Leadership Forum would appear simultaneously on all three websites.

Stage One -- Closed to all but the principals. A full and free exchange among the leadership, if you will.

Stage Two -- Open to one and all.

Each site would provide a moderator.

Thoughts, please.

Charles

Gosh

Let us hope you are also using the word "bullied" as a metaphor for perhaps "moderated"

The moderate bully. The bullying moderate.

Two great pub names, don't you think?

Don't you DARE permit yourself to be bullied out of the playground.

Sincerely,

Charles Drago

Maybe seeing this site as a 'playground' might be part of the problem. At the same time ... the sentiments offered for Myra could also be applied to those who have to enforce some sense of respectability for the purpose that this site was created to serve. Shame on those who stand so close to the mirror that they only see themselves and not the other people around them.

Bill Miller

Bill,

And perhaps part of the problem is the inability of certain members of this Forum to rise above literalness to grasp such heavily nuanced aspects of language as metaphor.

Charles

Charles - you know better than to use such language. Please do not use it again. Thank you.

Evan,

You have my assurance that I shall continue to comply with this Forum's sensible ban on the gratuitous use of what is commonly identified as obscenity.

However, please know the following:

My use of the deleted word was hardly gratuitous. I addressed the absurdity of the situation at hand by providing a side-by-side comparison of obscenities, and by implicitly asking readers to judge relative levels of offensiveness. My inspiration? Lenny Bruce.

Myra,

Your passionate commitment to truth and justice for JFK inspires me. You are appreciated by many who visit and contribute to these cyber pages. Don't you DARE permit yourself to be bullied out of the playground.

Sincerely,

Charles Drago

Enough is enough.

John Kennedy is dead. Robert Kennedy is dead. Martin Luther King, Jr. is dead.

Their murderers evade justice.

The world is aflame as a consequence.

And we're ripping ourselves apart in a fury over <expletive deleted> swearing?!

Gosh, Mr Drago, I feel like I've been savaged by a dead sheep...

Gosh, Mr. Tribe, I have no doubt that you recognize that old, familiar, warm, fuzzy feeling.

Baaaaah humbug!

My Dear Mr. Tribe,

Thanks so much for paying attention.

Thanks for your splendid misinterpretation of my methodology and intentions vis a vis support of Jack White.

Thanks for characterizing my work with a degree of accuracy unexperienced since the Israelis identified the USS Liberty as an Egyptian man of war.

Thanks for acknowledging what I'm sure you know to be the insignificant oddities within the larger JFK assassination investigation.

Thanks for demonstrating the courage and vision required to accept the possibility of conspiracy in the death of JFK.

Your students are fortunate indeed to be educated by so refined, fair-minded, and disciplined a pedagogue.

What is left to say? Perhaps the immortal words of that great philosopher Billy Bats apply.

Now go home and get your shine box!

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

My Dear Mr. Tribe,

Thanks so much for paying attention.

Thanks for your splendid misinterpretation of my methodology and intentions vis a vis support of Jack White.

Thanks for characterizing my work with a degree of accuracy unexperienced since the Israelis identified the USS Liberty as an Egyptian man of war.

Thanks for acknowledging what I'm sure you know to be the insignificant oddities within the larger JFK assassination investigation.

Thanks for demonstrating the courage and vision required to accept the possibility of conspiracy in the death of JFK.

Your students are fortunate indeed to be educated by so refined, fair-minded, and disciplined a pedagogue.

What is left to say? Perhaps the immortal words of that great philosopher Billy Bats apply.

Now go home and get your shine box!

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

Bill,

Your opening post on this thread dovetails neatly and brilliantly with Evica's "assassination conspiracy-as-dramatic construct" hypothesis -- one which, for my money, comes closest to describing the operation's grand design.

Is not a well-conceived con game nothing other than a drama, replete with all elements and structures of the form?

Another point: Giordano Bruno would have understood the use of the word "magic" in this context.

The only remaining puzzle: Where did Linebarger find Blofeld's cat?

Superb work!

Charles

The seats in the limo were lumpy.

If the crossfire failed, the fallback plan was to use a cleaver.

And Sputnik was referenced in most JFK orbituaries.

Thank you, Paul.

A key element of the plot: The condition of the Merc must underscore the non-survivability of the crash.

And so the body was altered.

Charles

Sorry to admit that my education has not stretched to Macbird, although I confess to being a fan of the Bard, Sir Francis Bacon, his ciphers and the underlying motifs contained therein. I also enjoy Umberto Eco and his The Name of the Rose and being a Brit, I'm obviously very fond of the Rose as a symbol, too.

David

Macbird was produced as an off-off-off Broadway production in the mid-sixties. An original cast LP was issued, and the play was published in paperback.

It's essentially a riff on Macbeth, with an LBJ character in the title role. Need I say more?

I shall: It was ham-handed, but not without its moments.

Bubble, bubble,

Charles

I think disinformation can be an artform.

David

Disinformation is by definition a product of the creative process. But unless a given provocation boasts the form, function, and other components and characteristics which, singularly or in the agregate, comprise artistic expression, it is merely creative craft.

On the other hand, I recognize the JFK plot to be art-as-conspiracy. To be specific: the product of dramaturgy. (Ruby/Falstaff, Angel and Leopolod/Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, LBJ/Macbeth [see Barbara Garson's Macbird], etc.).

And you?

Charles

I find that language by Mr. Drago offensive.

Mr. Gratz,

I've offended you?

It is to be devoutly wished.

I, on the other hand, am NOT offended by what in my Constitutionally-protected opinion are your selective piety, flagrant self-promotion, simple-minded "analyses," and annoyingly inept efforts to disrupt this Forum by whining for a seat at the adults' table.

I appreciate you as what I'll term an "alter boy." But despite your best efforts, the truth will not be altered.

(At this point I have about a dozen Johnny Geoghan lines for you, but, believe it or not, even I have limits, and to use them would amount to hitting below the belt. So to say.)

By the by: The day my behaviour is "acceptable" to you, I'll ask Kellerman and Greer for a ride through Dallas.

So why don't you make like a Thanksgiving turkey and get ... oh, you know.

Charles Drago

As JFK clearly understood, one's floppy never poses a political problem.

One's hard drive, however, is another matter.

Let us pray that our moderators are vertically challenged.

Charles, I really don't care one way or the other how the people who pay to have this forum wish to run their business. But I must say that if one wishes to be taken seriously, then one should follow-up on what they have said. You called for 'no more post' and since that time in this thread` alone ... you have posted four more additional times.

I read this saying not long ago that may offer some inspiration here and it goes like this ...

"Say what you mean, but mean what you say. Just don't say it mean."

Bill Miller

Bill,

I accept your criticism and its validity. Forgive me if this response is lame.

As I wrote in response to John:

"Silence is an unacceptable response to evil. It is, however, a viable tactic in a grander strategy to defeat those forces that would make silence mandatory.

"My intent in calling for a boycott of posts on the JFK Forum was to employ that tactic."

I remain torn on the issue: How would continued silence -- mine or yours -- move us forward? Yet how else can we support Jack?

Would not the silence sanction end up doing more harm than good? Like Clinton's anti-Saddam sanctions that resulted in nothing other than the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents?

Melodramatic? Perhaps. But how can we justify, let alone live with, the fact that our absence from the field awards it by default to the Lamsons and Colbys?

To the degree that my "threat" has prompted valuable discussion and self-examination, it stands as a successful tactic. But again, your counter-argument resonates.

In the event that I haven't lost all credibility, permit to suggest the following: Let us continue to treat the enemy as the enemy, to refrain from collegiality and respectful language in the face of enemy action, and if the moderators don't like it, they can go stuff themselves.

If this Forum is to become an enemy stronghold, it will not be my fault or yours.

As for Jack White: He has my full support. Hasten the day that he can return, unfettered, to this Forum.

Thoughtfully,

Charles

As Ian Fleming would have written of Lennie and the Craigster: Freddie Uncle Charlie Kate 'em!

The Other Charles

Glad you changed your mind, Charles. The forum would've been a sadder place without you.

I thought you might enjoy the following picture which was sent to me a year or two ago.

It's especially for those who enjoy cross word puzzles...

David

PS, It just occurred to me to add the rider that my pic above is not directed at anyone here. It was sent to me as a joke (I hope!) and in that spirit is sent here.

Let us pray that our moderators are vertically challenged.

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

John,

Before I respond to your post, I must be certain that you are aware of the respect I harbor for your efforts here -- and for the sacrifices you make to keep the website viable.

Silence is an unacceptable response to evil. It is, however, a viable tactic in a grander strategy to defeat those forces that would make silence mandatory.

My intent in calling for a boycott of posts on the JFK Forum was to employ that tactic.

Should this Forum be closed down, the enemies of the truth will have won a considerable victory. Such a turn of events must not be permitted it to occur.

For years I have argued against the extensions of collegiality and other forms of deference to the enemy who advance in the guise of honest researchers. Not a single counter-argument to date has persuaded me to abandon this position.

The problem, of course, is how to differentiate between well-meaning commentators with whom people of good conscience can honorably disagree, and agents provocateurs who assume deep cover by playing those roles?

I have not a shard of wisdom to share in the form of a viable solution, other than this: As Louis Armstrong said about jazz, "You know it when you hear it."

Yesterday, after an enemy of the truth publicly accused me -- on your Forum -- of intellectual dishonesty, I filed a report with the moderators. In it, I made certain to note that I had no problem whatsoever with the insult; after all, I had considered the source -- one who, by the way, regularly defames Jack White with impunity. Rather, I simply asked that Forum rules be applied fairly to all posters.

Today I received a prompt and satisfying response from Antti. He expressed his agreement with my position, I take him at his word, and I consider the matter closed.

With your permission, then, I shall continue to post on this and Forum. At the same time, please know that I reserve the right to expose our enemies in suitable fashion.

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

Damn it Tim, everyone knows that 6 minus 2 is five in Hollywood. The same way that 2 plus 6 is ten.

It's known as mafia numerology.

Didn't you do maths at shcool?

Heck, I did, and I'm dyslexict...

David

Too me.

As Ian Fleming would have written of Lennie and the Craigster: Freddie Uncle Charlie Kate 'em!

The Other Charles

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

John,

Before I respond to your post, I must be certain that you are aware of the respect I harbor for your efforts here -- and for the sacrifices you make to keep the website viable.

Silence is an unacceptable response to evil. It is, however, a viable tactic in a grander strategy to defeat those forces that would make silence mandatory.

My intent in calling for a boycott of posts on the JFK Forum was to employ that tactic.

Should this Forum be closed down, the enemies of the truth will have won a considerable victory. Such a turn of events must not be permitted it to occur.

For years I have argued against the extensions of collegiality and other forms of deference to the enemy who advance in the guise of honest researchers. Not a single counter-argument to date has persuaded me to abandon this position.

The problem, of course, is how to differentiate between well-meaning commentators with whom people of good conscience can honorably disagree, and agents provocateurs who assume deep cover by playing those roles?

I have not a shard of wisdom to share in the form of a viable solution, other than this: As Louis Armstrong said about jazz, "You know it when you hear it."

Yesterday, after an enemy of the truth publicly accused me -- on your Forum -- of intellectual dishonesty, I filed a report with the moderators. In it, I made certain to note that I had no problem whatsoever with the insult; after all, I had considered the source -- one who, by the way, regularly defames Jack White with impunity. Rather, I simply asked that Forum rules be applied fairly to all posters.

Today I received a prompt and satisfying response from Antti. He expressed his agreement with my position, I take him at his word, and I consider the matter closed.

With your permission, then, I shall continue to post on this and Forum. At the same time, please know that I reserve the right to expose our enemies in suitable fashion.

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

I love a good cause as much as the next guy, but it seems from my search and reading that Jack White attempted to post in another sub-forum when he was not logged in and got the standard (if non-specific) error message that generates.

Andy Walker confirmed that in the relevant thread in that sub-forum.

There are more than enough actual issues, and I hope that Jack will post here to confirm that rumors of his moderation have been greatly exaggerated. (And that is a perfectly wicked multi-layered pun cake, leavened with my fondness for Jack.)

Ashton

You may be right, Ashton.

If nothing else, this thread has allowed us to use the word "moderation" and the name "Jack White" in the same sentence.

So let's clear this up, if we can. Is Jack being moderated?