Don Jeffries

Hanks cannot possibly be doing this for the money. He has more than anyone could ever need.

It's despicable that someone from my generation would not have bothered to look at all the widely available research that reveals the impossible nature of the official story. It's also laughable that he would pretend Bugliosi's magnus absurdus was so powerful it has persuaded him to produce a movie based upon it.

This is one of his worst acting performances.

Good Luck. May we come to know the truth.

Doug Weldon

Does this mean that you are going to walk away and never deal with the most important discovery brought up in this thread... namely, that Martin Hinrichs has identified the person and the part of that person's clothing that you and Fetzer have claimed for a long time is the "spiral nebula?" Are you really going to do that? Are you really going to just not deal with something that has been brought to your attention innumerable times? Funny, I thought real historians loved to grapple with evidentiary difficulties like this. I thought that dealing with such points was what writing history was all about. On the other hand, if you're committed to just building a case, the simplest thing is just to walk away. Evidentiary difficulties don't help in the building of cases.

Josiah Thompson

I'm glad you appreciate the work of Martin Hinrichs. What do you think of his recent post (on another thread), revealing that Oswald was questioned by the authorities about the backyard photos BEFORE they were discovered in the Paine garage? Now tbat should interest real historians.

Thanks, Bill, for posting this important info.

To those of you who think the Secret Service wasn't involved in the assassination of JFK, what innocent reason was there for them to destroy records?

Welcome, Monk! We will all benefit from your input here.

Josiah said:

"Do you think Livingston just made this up?"

This is a remarkable comment from someone who discounts the word of all the witnesses who reported seeing a hole in the windshield.

Josiah said:

"I would say that eyewitnesses often don't get details right."

But you believe that Livingston, Frazier and any witness who supports your own preconceived bias did "get the details right," correct?

I asked this question before, but I'd sincerely like to know which assassination witnesses you think ARE credible. As you more than anyone else here must know, many of these witnesses were crucial to the early critics demolishing the official version of events. If they are all discredited, and the neo-con tendency to accept the "official" evidence at face value becomes the predominant view in the CT community, what are we left with?

If we maintain that no evidence was altered, and discredit all witnesses who reported something contrary to the official story, as well as accept that such things as the single bullet theory, bunched up coat theory and jet muscle reaction theory are possible, then how do we make the case for conspiracy?

I believe Pamela has done some nice work on the replacement of the windshield. Although she disagrees with Doug, I think it might be very helpful if she'd post a brief summary of the evidence for that.

Would you, Pamela? Thanks.

Why is Doug being badgered about the way he questioned Prencipe? Josiah, you are evaluating him like the rules of a courtroom apply, and you are the presiding judge. I've never seen this principle applied to any other interrogation of a witness in this case. I guess that's the thanks Doug gets for providing a tape of the interview.

While Barb and Jerry use polite, refrained language (Josiah does not), the implication is obvious; you all three believe Doug has an "agenda" and are scrutinizing this interview (and all his work) in that light. One could just as easily postulate that you have your own agenda, and that is to discredit any notion of a hole in the windshield. I would prefer to replace "agenda" with "bias" or "preconceived notion." As in all the alteration debates, the lines have been drawn; no arguments from Doug will persuade you, just as none of your arguments will persuade him.

What is most obvious is that yet another witness friendly to CTers- Nick Prencipe- is being discredited by those in the critical community. Roger Craig, Richard Carr, Jean Hill, the list is very long. I'm still waiting for some threads on this or any other JFK forum detailing the shortcomings of witnesses friendly to the official story; Helen Markham, William Whaley, Howard Brennan, Amos Lee Euins, etc. The most "creditable" of them would have been laughed out of an honest courtroom, and the least creditable of the CT-friendly witnesses have more credibility than all the WC-friendly witnesses put together.

Josiah-Barb-Jerry- what witnesses associated with this case do you find creditable?

Josiah/Barb,

An attempt to "elicit the truth" is in the eye of the beholder. In my view, Doug has no more of an agenda than either of you have on this issue. As I commented in an earlier thread last year about your article, I don't think you've eliminated the doubts that many of us have about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. You seem to think you have. I don't unequivocally say you're wrong, but I still suspect there was a hole in the windshield.

Again, I think it comes down to two things; how you interpret the photographs and which witnesses you believe are credible. You clearly believe the "official" types like Frazier have more credibility. As a critic of the official "investigation," I think citizens who weren't directly connected to those who "investigated" the assassination have more credibility.

Thanks, Doug, for sharing all your good work.

I was alerted today to the fact that John Bevilaqua had posted some derogatory things about me on the Deep Politics Forum. After reading them, I just wanted to say that whatever little credibility he has is gone. This guy just completely made up things about me, which says a lot about the assassination theories he's constantly pushing in his posts.

John B. stated that "Mr. Jeffries is a rather well known author of science fiction books for the elementary and junior high school age groups." Although I'm flattered he thinks I'm "well known," I've only had one novel published thus far (hope to have a second one published soon), and they are for adults (and older teens), not "elementary and junior high school age groups." He also declared that my posts on this forum are "almost always intermingled with strong doses of science fiction, his favorite genre." Huh? What is he talking about here? Nothing grounded in reality, that's for sure.

Finally, John makes up a real whopper. According to him, "And his co-moderators all reviewed this posting in its entirely and decided, by a majority vote, that it should be published due to its relevance, appropriateness and its accuracy. His was the only dissenting vote. Mr. Jeffries has since returned to his specialty, science fiction, and has decided to defer for the moment, at least, further postings on JFK forums which blend fact and fiction in almost equal doses."

I would submit that someone who would invent such lies about another forum member is not fit to be a member here.

Wow- kind of an overload on the nasty adjectives, eh? Uneducated? If you're trying to appear truly educated yourself, next time place a comma between paranoid and educated. You'll sound more intelligent.

You mean that I should do it the same educated same way that you placed a - instead of a comma after the word Wow, and placed a period instead of a comma between the words educated and You'll, you'll with a capital Y in the above qoute?

I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further with ridiculous nit picking. Both of the examples from my post that you cited are grammatically sound. You put a period between two seperate sentences. I shouldn't have taken that cheap swipe at you, but I only did so because you labeled my previous post "uneducated." Kind of a natural response, but it was immature of me to do that.

I truly do not mean to offend you or any other person on this forum, but am baffled by anyone's reluctance to state their beliefs. This is especially curious since you are not shy about expressing your views on this subject, and do not hesitate to take issue with others. As such, you shouldn't be reluctant to state your beliefs when someone asks you. I certainly wouldn't be reluctant to answer such a query from a fellow forum member.

Again, if you never felt differently about the backyard photos or any of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned (or have mentioned elsewhere), then I withdraw the question. I also apologize for wasting your time and cluttering up space with this on the forum.

Again, would everyone PLEASE delete the text of prior posts, unless you're responding to a particular point? It's easy.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything nefarious, but it appears obvious that Duncan McRae is becoming (or already has become) what I've termed a "neo-con."

Short and sweet - What a load of paranoid uneducated drivel.

Wow- kind of an overload on the nasty adjectives, eh? Uneducated? If you're trying to appear truly educated yourself, next time place a comma between paranoid and educated. You'll sound more intelligent.

Duncan- this is a DISCUSSION forum. We all spout opinions. Your opinions on the topic at hand appear to have changed. Maybe I'm wrong; as I said, I don't remember all that much about your old posts, but I do seem to recall that you were a alterationist, pretty much in the Jack White camp. If I'm incorrect about this, I apologize. If you never believed the backyard photos were fake, and never held more "extreme" beliefs about this case (more akin to mine), then I was wrong to infer you're a neo-con.

I'm obviously intrigued by those researchers and students of the assassination who used to believe that the backyard photos were fake, or that there were a lot of mysterious and unnatural witness deaths, or that the Umbrella Man was a suspicious character (and certainly not Steven Witt), among other things, but now no longer do. I don't understand why it's difficult for those who fall into this category to explain what caused their views to change. Be proud of what enlightened you and share it with the rest of us. Perhaps we've missed some really good research that shattered many CTer "myths."

No one is attacking you or anyone else. I am, however, questioning you. If you, or anyone else, asks me why I spout out a particular opinion, I certainly won't be offended and will try to explain. Why are you offended?

This really ought to be a simple issue. When I first saw the backyard photos, they instantly and obviously seemed fraudulent to me. I think that most critics felt the same way. There isn't anything complex about them; they are as transparently phony as the magic bullet. As Jim points out, all you need to know is that Oswald's face is the same in each photo.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything nefarious, but it appears obvious that Duncan McRae is becoming (or already has become) what I've termed a "neo-con." I don't remember that much about his posts in the past, but it seems that he was a much firmer believer in conspiracy than he is now. I am not trying to start a fight, or insinuate anything, but again, as I've asked so many others whose beliefs have changed in a like manner in recent years, why? What has caused you to suddenly accept the backyard photos as legitimate? Certainly, the latest predictable "study" can't have been that persuasive. More importantly, what has caused so many CTers to temper their views about conspiracy?

I am truly curious here. Perhaps I've missed the boat, and there is something to this "neo-con" business. Maybe they're all right, and I'm wrong to cling to my extreme views. I only want to know what caused this significant change in critical thought. Was it Posner? Bugliosi? ABC's "Beyond Conspiracy?" I thought all those rehashes of the Warren Report had been adequately discredited, but perhaps I'm wrong. There must be something that has been written, or researched, by someone in the past 20 years or so to cause this "neo-con" phenomenon. If you've been enlightened, please share the reasons with us. This is a discussion forum- there's nothing wrong with changing your opinion about anything, but it's only natural to acknowledge it, and explain the reasons for it. No one owes anyone an explanation, but it's certainly curious that "neo-cons" don't seem willing or able to do so.

Jack White's work on the backyard photos was crucial, and is beyond dispute, imho.

This has been an interesting discussion but.... I would like to politely request, once again, that posters delete the text of previous messages when replying, unless they are responding to a specific point or points in a previous post. Most here are still guilty of doing this, and it just makes for tedious reading. If you can help here, I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be very grateful.

As for the substance of the debate, once again we are faced with deciding upon the credibility of disparate eyewitnesses vs. that of "official" witnesses (FBI, Secret Service, etc.), as well as the all too familiar arguments over film interpretation. As is the case with film alteration in general, I don't feel the case for conspiracy hinges on there being a hole in the windshield. However, that doesn't mean that we should discard the testimony of all those witnesses, unconnected to each other, who reported seeing a hole.

As I noted during an earlier debate on the article by Josiah and Barb, I wasn't overly impressed with their arguments. But that's natural, since I long ago came to distrust "official" sources like Frazier and the Secret Service. I think that's what most significant arguments between researchers boil down to nowadays; do you trust official sources or not? I do not, and I believe that only a few decades ago the vast majority of critics didn't, either. Some are skeptical of "eyewitness" testimony, while others (like myself) are skeptical of pronouncements by officials from the FBI, Dallas Police, Secret Service, etc.

Josiah, I was amazed to read your statement about Steven Witt. Did you honestly find his story instantly believable? You weren't suspicious about the timing of his coming out, or his lack of knowledge about what was going on that day in Dallas? Is it plausible that someone would choose a motorcade in Dallas to lodge an esoteric protest against President Kennedy's father's support of Neville Chamberlain prior to WWII? Isn't the purpose behind a protest the advertisement of a complaint or concern? How could anyone know what this guy was protesting? When Witt's testimony before the HSCA was first analyzed in the pages of The Continuing Inquiry, I think there was a unanimous consensus among critics that his story was blatantly ridiculous. What has happened in the intervening years to make it less ridiculous?

Once again, I agree with Bill Kelly. What is the purpose of rehashing the same thing over and over again? Another new topic on the identical subject.

I think we've established now that Josiah Thompson doesn't agree with Jack White's interpretation of the film record. It's also clear that Jack isn't going to acknowledge that Josiah's critcisms are valid.

Jack posts on many topics here on the forum. Does Josiah have any interest now in the JFK assassination, outside of challenging the views of Jim Fetzer and Jack White?

Lee, thanks for your thoughtful post. I find myself agreeing with most of what you have to say here.

It's unfortunate that even those on the same side in this fight often squabble over relatively minor details. This is nothing new- the original rift in the critical community was between Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg. As far as I could determine, it started over Weisberg's criticism of Lane for not listing the names of individual WC counsels when he quoted testimony in Rush To Judgment.

I probably am closer to Jack White philosophically than I am to any other poster on this forum. I wish he could see that you probably agree with much of what he posts. While I meant what I said about certain basic aspects of this case being black and white, on many issues related to the assassination there is no scientific certainty and lots of room for debate. In my view, film alteration is one of those gray areas. I have gradually evolved from an agnostic view on alteration to the point where I now believe that the Zapruder film is not completely legitimate.

All those who know the official story is impossible need to unite at some point. We should all acknowledge that none of us know exactly who killed JFK, exactly why he was killed, or the exact nature of the conspiracy. However, informed minds also need to stand firm behind the central tenet of the CTer platform- there WAS a conspiracy.

I appreciate what you're saying, Lee. We do need to be tolerant of other opinions. Most of the time, things are not entirely black or white. There is a huge gray area to many issues. And, as I've noted often here, we all need to stop the juvenile name-calling. Whatever your argument is, it will sound more persuasive if you remain civil.

However, those who've studied the JFK assassination should be able to agree on some basic points. The single bullet theory, for instance, is not a gray area. It is a black and white issue. It IS impossible. If that sounds intolerant, so be it. I won't call someone names who thinks it's possible, but I also will instantly disregard what they have to say on this subject. We don't have an obligation to grant every point of view the same level of respect. Saying the single bullet theory is possible, for example, is like saying the sky is red. No one respects freedom of speech any more than I do, but Jack quite correctly points out that once one has studied this subject in depth, then one's mind cannot be entirely open on it. When someone starts citing the "bunched up theory" for instance, the informed mind instantly rejects it and recognizes it for the disinformation it is. This is because the informed mind knows how much solid evidence makes such a theory impossible.

There has been a trend in the JFK research community, for a number of years now, where crucial aspects of what can loosely be described as "conspiracy theory" have fallen by the wayside, at least in the minds of many researchers. The backyard photos are an example of this. Duncan McRae just started a new thread on this subject. Back when I first started studying this case, circa 1975, everyone who was a CTer believed the backyard photos were fake. The only ones defending them as legitimate were government officials and/or the handful of LNers unconnected to the Warren Commission, Dallas police or FBI (Jim Moore springs to mind). All the critics were pretty well unified on the evidence. This is because the evidence then, as now, so obviously points to conspiracy. Other aspects of this case that were once ironclad planks in the CTer platform are: Oswald's innocence in the murder of Tippit, the mysterious deaths of witnesses, the umbrella man and many more.

Now before I am labeled "intolerant" or accused of demanding a "litmus test" for CTers, please understand that I am doing nothing of the kind. As I've stated before, if there had been any research or new evidence unrearthed over the past 30 + years, which persuasively argued that the backyard photos are legitimate, there were no mysterious deaths, Oswald killed Tippit, the umbrella man was just an innocent bystander, etc., then I would be willing ro reconsider my views on these aspects of the case. However, I am not aware of any new evidence or compelling research in this regard, so I remain dubious of those who now side with the LNers on these matters. I'm not accusing them of anything, but my informed mind must naturally question this.

I agree with Jack White on most everything, but I do not think film alteration is one of those black and white issues. However, while Jack's mind may be closed on this subject, so are the minds of his critics. I've mentioned it before, but it truly baffles me why so many spend so much time disagreeing with Jack or Jim Fetzer on this one aspect of the case, but the same people will bend over backwards to be kind to LNers. If you think there was a conspiracy, then surely you must agree with Jack and Jim more than any LNer, correct? There must be a lot more common ground between you, correct? Why demand "tolerance" for those who clearly don't know what they're talking about (single bullet theorists, for instance), but show no tolerance for film alterationists?

If I believed as strongly in something as Jack believes in film alteration, then I'd probably start being sensitive about being constantly critiicized, too. There is an inconsistency here; why don't passionate anti-alterationists like Josiah, Barb, Jerry, etc. lambaste Paul Baker or any other LNer who posts here? You think what Jack posts is worthy of your constant comdemnation, but what Baker or any other LNer posts isn't? Are you seriously suggesting that a belief in film alteration is more outlandish than total support of the official, Oswald acted alone theory?

I have no agenda here. I've been studying this case for a long time, and when I make these observations, it's not to caste dispersions upon any individual, or accuse anyone of anything. I simply think that some of those who have condemned Jack on this forum have been transparently obsessive in doing so.

While I don't quite understand the fixation that alterationists have with their pet issue (I think there are much stronger indications of conspiracy elsewhere in the evidence), I certainly don't understand the single-minded determination on the part of many of his critics to disprove his every assertion. A determination, I might add, that is not extended towards those who don't believe in conspiracy.

Thanks, Bill and Bernice. Great stuff!

I wouldn't place much trust in the NTSB report quoted by Skolnick. Hard to imagine they would ever have written such a report. This case calls out for real investigative journalism, which is a very rare thing for any mainstream media outlet to engage in. Len can ridicule Tom Flocco and other internet web sites that tackled this story, but the fact is no establishment press organ did, or probably ever will report anything but official statements on the JFK, Jr. crash. Thus, those internet sources are all we have.

I tried to do what little I could, but couldn't even get reporter Steve Sbraccia to respond to my followup email asking him to elaborate on what he meant when he told me "something wasn't right" about the JFK, Jr. crash. John Hankey, John Quinn or John DiNardo tried to locate the anonymous Hyannisport Gazette reporter who claimed to have heard or seen something strange in the sky that night, at the time JFK, Jr.'s plane was going down, but was told by the paper that the reporter (who they wouldn't identify) had been "mistaken" and wasn't working there any more. When pressed, he was told the reporter had "gone back to college." It would be nice to at least know the reporter's identity. Sbraccia told me he definitely existed, as he had talked to him, but also didn't remember his name. Also, Coast Guard officer Todd Burgun should be questioned about why he engaged in an extended television interview about the 9:39 p.m. conversation JFK, Jr. had with the FAA, if the conversation never really happened.

The JFK, Jr. case is still ripe for some real investigative journalism, in that it is relatively recent and the trail thus a lot warmer than the JFK and RFK assassinations. This is the only case in recent memory, that I can think of, that has not produced at least one critical book on the subject. Books that can be found in public libraries, for instance, question the official stories of incidents like the OKC Bombing and Waco, but there has been nothing published, to my knowledge, that questions the official findings about what really happened to John F. Kennedy, Jr.

Kathy and others,

I posted this link to a previous discussion we had on this subject a while back on another thread, but it's more appropriate to do so here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14595

There are links there that will direct you to some good sources on the internet.

I've tried to do some rudimentary research on the JFK, Jr. case, but it's hard to get anywhere. The case was quickly swept under the carpet, with only a handful of people on the internet unearthing what appeared to be reasonable questions about the official story. John Hankey was one, and he has produced a nice film about the subject (I think it's entitled "JFK, Jr./Bush II"), which should be accessible via YouTube or some other place on the internet. An outfit called Newshawk also had a reporter named John Quinn, who seemed to produce most of the early stories about the intriguing questions here: the 9:39 PM alleged phone call from JFK, Jr. to the FAA, during which he reported no problems and was said to be awaiting landing instructions; the lawyer, Victor Pribanic, who reported a loud explosion coming from the area at the time when JFK, Jr.'s plane went down; the mysterious Hyannisport Gazette reporter, who claimed to have witnessed a "big white flash in the sky" at the same time and place, etc.

Researcher Scott Myers, who appeared on one of those syndicated "Unsolved Mysteries" type of shows (can't remember the title, it was a short lived series, but very noteworthy in that it was the only time television has broadcast anything raising doubts about the official version of what happened to JFK, Jr.), later was kind enough to send me 6 hours of videotape from the original local news broadcasts in the immediate aftermath of JFK, Jr.'s plane being reported missing. The local news reporters mentioned the 9:39 PM phone conversation with JFK, Jr. numerous times, and interviewed Todd Burgun of the Coast Guard about it. This interview alone makes the FAA's later denial that the phone call ever happened ludicrous.

I emailed a few of the reporters from WCBV-TV a couple of years ago. One of them, Steve Sbraccia, sent a nice initial reply and, on his own (I did not let on that I questioned any of the official findings) stated that there was something "not right" about the JFK, Jr. incident. When I pressed him for details, he didn't reply, and didn't respond to two further emails.

The JFK, Jr. case cries out for some real investigative journalism.

Note- here is a link to an earlier discussion about this case, in which I left links to some interesting internet info.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14595

Thanks for all the good responses. I think it's interesting for everyone to see what others believe about the basic issues in this case.

I continue to be fascinated about those who think Tippit might have, or did shoot Oswald, or that Oswald might have fired some shots, or that the single bullet theory is possible, among other things. I'm not casting any dispersions, and certainly don't think this means someone is a disinfo agent.

I am genuinely curious about this. Would those of you who fit into one or more of these categories mind saying if this has always been your belief, or if you once were more of an "extremist" in this regard (like me, for instance)? If your beliefs have evolved in any of these areas, I'd love to know what made them change. Again, this is not to throw suspicion on those whose opinions have changed. We know that researchers can change their views on a particular aspect of this case. Jack White, for instance, was not always a film alterationist.

Thanks again for responding, and I'd love to hear from more of you.

Ray,

I too had the pleasure of communicating with Harold Weisberg. Dinner at his house was one of the most memorable evenings of my early years. You are right- he was far from perfect. It's not surprising that he declined to name assassins. Almost alone amongst his colleagues, Weisberg refused to speculate on exactly who might have been behind the crime. He did do a great job of exposing the flaws in the official investigation, though. Part of that was his detailed dissection of Marina's absurd WC testimony.

I agree with you about Kellerman. As I've noted, Weisberg wasn't right about everything. I do think, however, that he was right about Marina.

I've never called you names, Ray. I don't call anyone names here- it's juvenile and is supposed to be against the rules of this forum. You're certainly articulate enough to express your views without resorting to gutter tactics. Why are you so mean spirited in your postings?

I've expressed agreement with you several times on this forum. I criticized Lee Farley for referring to you in an uncalled for manner. Your response was to call me a jerk. You have replied to my postings numerous times over the years, and have consistently used a nasty, belittling tone in doing so. What is your problem? Try being civil.

John B.,

You are misinformed. You continue to believe that Liberty Lobby had a lot more power and influence than they ever did.

As I've noted before, I was a subscriber to The Spotlight. I guess that makes me suspicious in your eyes. I assure you I was not involved in the conspiracy. They were unquestionably obsessed with Israel, and tended to blame them for almost everything that happened in the world. However, they put out a great deal of good information. For instance, they were the first and only newspaper to expose the massive voting fraud in Florida (in the 1980s, a forerunner to the fiasco in 2000), when they published the "Votescam" series by the late Collier brothers. They also touted the benefits of alternative medicine and health foods long before the medical establishment belatedly admitted there was a link between diet and health.

You can call them "anti-semitic" all you want, but the Spotlight was the first and only newspaper to expose the power of AIPAC and Israel's undue influence over American foreign policy. For this, the Anti Defamation League fought a long battle to bankrupt Liberty Lobby, which they eventually did. Btw, the Spotlight was already out of existance before September 11, 2001, so you can hardly attribute any conspiracy theories about that event to them.

You might also like to know that the Spotlight turned gradually to the left over their last several years of publication. Comedian Dick Gregory, for instance, one of the most radical men in public life, sat on Liberty Lobby's Board of Directors during that time. I don't think he quite fits into your "rightist" conspiracy theory. The Spotlight also published several exposes on some other boogie men of yours, like the John Birch Society, who they were always at odds with, and William F. Buckley and E. Howard Hunt (both of whom they battled in court).

To the best of my knowledge, author Bill Kaysing started the whole apollo hoax thing, with his book "We Never Went To The Moon." This was published in the late 1970s, long before the Spotlight ever did a story on the subject (and as a subscriber, I can tell you I remember them publishing very few stories about this). I really think you're crediting them with way too much influence.

While Liberty Lobby may have started out as a typical right-wing outfit, they eventually became a populist organ that opposed almost all mainstream conservative organizations and politicians. I'm not the only poster here who has admitted to being a subscriber, and I valued the Spotlight very much, as they were about the only source one had for alternative news in the days before the internet.

Ray,

You are sometimes very difficult to be civil to. Again, the name calling. I'm a "jerk" for questioning the inconsistent and fanciful testimony of Oswald's wife? Were Harold Weisberg and the other early critics, who first analyzed her ridiculous testimony, also "jerks?"

I assure you it is possible to make your points without resorting to immature tactics.

At least you didn't call me a "dope addler." I think you were way over the line with that comment and need to immediately apologize to Mike for it.

Do other moderators agree with me about that?