Bernice Moore

Plus Jack; he left it in writing...also, you don't get any better imo, plus his son and wife and the executive, ower of the plant backed his honesty..like others she is just going to have to wait for the book, perhaps that is what continues to bother her, the forthcoming book, i do not know, but she certainly enjoys harping on dougs info and work , with the least provocation..perhaps he will be along, to answer her..?.b

fascinating read; Try a search at mary ferrell's site...http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Billie Sol has a web site, you may be able through his publisher or, to make contact, no the reymond book has never been published into an english version, i wish,..let us know anything you hear about a film of his life...b

David, i have contacted Allan with your comments, he does not come to this forum as he cannot log in to answer your questions personally, when i hear any input back i shall post such to let you know, thanks for the interest...best b

David; reply; Please thank David Josephs for his comments on the EF and say that there were no powder burns because it was a contact shot.

Hi Robert; quote ''In fact, I have been getting in huge fights with Kennedy groupies on the discussion boards who are engaged when I point out the ugly truth that JFK was an out of control Sex Freak. Being a Sex Freak, cost John Kennedy his life''

quote ''The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh is an excellent book and I highly recommend it.''

Robert Will you Please consider taking a deep breath a step back and a minute and begin keeping in mind, that your words within your post are your opinion, one opinion, and is not necessarily others, and no matter how right you believe your theories to be, others have the same right to their own opinions as you believe you do,without being brow beaten in any way, the way your words read, makes it clearly sound imo, that they do not, and that is taking away their rights..which you do not have the right to do, no one has....thank you..take care...b

Ambitious miniseries was set to air this spring; stars Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes, and producer Joel Surnow were told today of cancellation.

In a surprise move, A&E Television Networks has canceled plans to broadcast The Kennedys, the ambitious and much-anticipated miniseries about the American political family that was set to air this spring on the History Channel.

“Upon completion of the production of The Kennedys, History has decided not to air the 8-part miniseries on the network,” a rep for the network tells The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. “While the film is produced and acted with the highest quality, after viewing the final product in its totality, we have concluded this dramatic interpretation is not a fit for the History brand.”

The multi-million dollar project—History and Lifetime president and general manager Nancy Dubuc's first scripted miniseries at the network and its most expensive program ever—has been embroiled in controversy since it was announced in December 2009.

Developed by Joel Surnow, the conservative co-creator of 24, along with production companies Asylum Entertainment and Muse Entertainment and writer Stephen Kronish, the project drew fire from the political left and some Kennedy historians. Even before cameras rolled, a front-page New York Times story last February included a sharp attack from former John F. Kennedy adviser Theodore Sorenson, who called an early version of the script “vindictive” and “malicious.”

History and parent A&E said at the time that the script had been revised and that the final version had been vetted by experts. Indeed, the script used in production had passed muster with History historians for accuracy.

Despite the controversy, History was able to recruit a big-ticket cast to the project, announcing in April that Greg Kinnear (John F. Kennedy), Katie Holmes (Jackie Kennedy), Barry Pepper (Robert F. Kennedy) and Tom Wilkinson (Joe Kennedy) would co-star. The actors and CAA, which reps both Kinnear and Holmes, were told this afternoon of the cancellation. Surnow also was told today.

No advertisers had registered complaints or concerns with the miniseries, confirms an A&E spokesperson, but the content was not considered historically accurate enough for the network’s rigorous standards. So an air date, which had not been announced but was planned for spring, was scrapped.

“We recognize historical fiction is an important medium for storytelling and commend all the hard work and passion that has gone into the making of the series, but ultimately deem this as the right programming decision for our network,” a rep tells THR in the statement.

The miniseries is still scheduled to air in Canada on March 6, and will still be broadcast internationally.

But the U.S. cancellation no doubt is a disappointment in an otherwise blockbuster era for AETN president and CEO Abbe Raven and Dubuc, both of whom championed the project. AETN, owned by a consortium comprised of Hearst, Disney-ABC Television Group and NBC Universal, enjoyed its most-watched year ever in 2010, with its six Nielsen-rated networks posting combined year-over-year viewership growth in each quarter. In addition, History is now a Top 5 cable network in all demos, fueled by hit original series such as Pawn Stars and Ice Road Truckers.

The Kennedys cancellation somewhat mirrors the fate of The Reagans, a miniseries that was to air on CBS in 2003 but was scrapped when advertisers threatened to boycott after conservatives raised concerns about depictions of former president Ronald Reagan being insensitive to AIDS victims. The Reagans later aired on Showtime.

THR has learned that producers of The Kennedys might make a similar move to bring the miniseries to a pay cable channel.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...dys-last-69529

David, i have contacted Allan with your comments, he does not come to this forum as he cannot log in to answer your questions personally, when i hear any input back i shall post such to let you know, thanks for the interest...best b

Ron; there are some earlier threads on this problem within the forum, there has never been a permit, needed nor issued for selling anything in the park, within those threads i believe this is spelt out...fyi...b

Ron i found these articles in a search http://www.wfaa.com/results?search=site&keywords=groden&searchbutton=Go

b

Subject: Dallas to appeal dismissal of charge against Dealey Plaza vendor

Robert Groden:blink:

(This should be considered a political issue in the next round of Mayor

and Council elections in the City of Dallas. What Robert Groden offers

is 1st Amendment material, just as do sellers of newspapers. He is the

author of it. People who buy from him seek him out, at this location.

He formerly served on the staff of the US House Assassinations Committee

that dealt with the acoustics evidence, and other evidence about Dealey

Plaza. He is also known for his testimony about photographs at the O J

Simpson trial.)

Dallas to appeal dismissal of charge against Dealey Plaza vendor

12:00 AM CST on Friday, January 7, 2011

By RUDOLPH BUSH / The Dallas Morning News

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-conspi

racy_07met.ART.State.Edition1.1470038.html

Almost as doggedly as Robert Groden has pursued his theory that the

Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy and cover-up, the city of Dallas

is pursuing him.

After a municipal judge dismissed the charge against Groden last month,

the city filed notice Wednesday of its plans to appeal the case and try

to have it sent back for trial.

The city argues that Judge Carrie Chavez incorrectly ruled she did not

have jurisdiction in the case and that the city should have charged

Groden under a separate ordinance.

"[N]either the defendant nor the court has a right to choose the offense

for which the defendant is to be charged. In fact, the 'separation of

powers' doctrine protects that the prosecutor's discretion to choose the

offense to be prosecuted from usurpation by the trial court," assistant

city attorney Frederick Williams wrote in a strongly worded motion.

Groden's attorney, Bradley Kizzia, said the city's interest in pursuing

Groden isn't about one man, but about removing all pamphleteers, authors

and others who deal in Kennedy's murder from Dealey Plaza.

"It appears to me since Robert Groden is a noted author and widely

recognized as very knowledgeable about the JFK assassination, they have

decided to make an example of him," Kizzia said.

Groden is well-known among those interested in the assassination, and

he even consulted with director Oliver Stone on the 1991 film JFK.

Until his arrest in June, Groden had spent 15 years selling books and

magazines in the plaza, Kizzia said.

Now the city is pursuing him for not having a permit to sell merchandise

in a city park.

"They say the reason they're doing it is he doesn't have a permit. There

is not a process for getting a permit," Kizzia said.

The city attorney's office did not comment on the case.

Meanwhile, Groden has sued the city, alleging that it is violating his

civil rights.

--

Regards, TOM BLACKWELL, PO Box 25403, Dallas, Texas 75225

http://DemocraticResearch.Org

Thank you Robert, that is truly a compliment indeed. I respect your work enormously and try to stumble along but always learn something that often only germinates in my mind often much later. It connects somewhere and prob to many a seeeming diversion, but I come from a different perspective and your, and others, postings often meet that in strange places.

thank you robert ,your very welcome, you are very generous ...we collectors of the photos keep in mind,imo do so enjoy following along within a thread searchng, to find just how many names we can put a face to or documentation,we may have, especially when the upload and space is available such as is at this site, and where you have the control and can delete your older uploads.also your immense knowledge is very generously shared and much appreciated. often.by the many..do have a good one..best b..

hi don;

thanks, i think the story has been posted before, it's familiar but ??? perhaps if anyone would recall , it may be Jack White...take care..b

photos from r.dellarosa; james richards,john woods, and the web...b

"Death of William Pitzer: Information"

http://www.manuscrip...com/PitzerFiles/

For anyone interested in the "mysterious" death of Lieutenant Commander William B. Pitzer, here is source information, including the full FBI file.

Allan

Eaglesham

:blink:ruby, oswald, pepers, preston...b if it attaches, thanks,,

Preston, Billy J.

In 1963, Preston was a Dallas policeman. He says he saw written proofs of a conspiracy, like a motel receipt made to Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald. He sent the documents to D.A. Henry Wade who gave them to the FBI. The files have since then disappeared.

LETTER 1

September 11, 1996

PRESTON : Enclosed is copy of National Enquirer of August 17, 1996. I was never questioned by the Warren Commission. The agent from the FBI went to work for H.L. Hunt the Dallas oilman. So I guess that is where my files went. After Mr. Hunt's death, a PBS reporter showed me some files. That was in these I turned over to District Attorney Wade and the FBI.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/5439/Correspondents.html

Henry Wade D.A denies knowing Ruby....

But secretary-receptionist June McNabb states he was in and out of his office often...

""One frequent visitor: Jack Ruby, who fatally shot Lee Harvey Oswald as he was being transported to jail after the assassination. Mr. Ruby owned the Carousel, a downtown strip club.

"Ruby was one of the guys who just hung out," Ms. McNabb said. "Nobody paid any attention to him. He came into our office because of hot checks. He tried to give passes to everybody in the office. Nobody went, or at least I didn't.""...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/texas-man-cleared-dna-30-years-prison-declared-20110104-080607-533.html

jfk. w,,artime..quintero..morales.j.r...b

Thanks Bernice.

your very welcome barry, hope all is well, and a wish for a very good new year for you, i tried to upload his photo there but ?? i will give it one more go, take care, best b..

American University

June 10, 1963

President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees,

distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned

his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am

earning mine in the next 30 minutes, ladies and gentleman:

It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American

University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John

Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This

is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop

Hurst`s enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a

city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public`s

business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who

wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this

area and the Nation deserve the nation`s thanks, and I commend all those

who are today graduating.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a

university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and

I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating

from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their

talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

`There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university,` wrote

John Masefield, in his tribute to English universities - and his words are

equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus

greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university,

he said, because it was `a place where those who hate ignorance may strive

to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see.`

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on

which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived -

yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of

peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana

enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the

grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the

kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables

men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their

children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women

- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense

in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable

nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It

makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten

times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the

Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons

produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil

and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons

acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is

essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle

stockpiles - which can only destroy and never create - is not the only,

much less than most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational

men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit

of war - and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we

have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world

disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet

Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can

help them to do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own

attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - for our attitude is as

essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful

citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by

looking inward - by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of

peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and

toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us

think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is dangerous,

defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that

mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept this view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, they

can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of

human destiny is beyond human beings. Man`s reason and spirit have often

solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace

and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny

the values of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and

incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace - based

not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in

human institutions - on a series of concrete actions and effective

agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single,

simple key to this peace - no grand magic formula to be adopted by one or

two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of

many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge

of each new generation. For peace is a process - a way of solving

problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests,

as there are with families and nations. World peace, like community peace,

does not require that each man love his neighbor - it requires only that

they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a

just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between

nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our

likes and dislikes may see, the tide of time and events will often bring

surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be

inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more

manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw

hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is

discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their

propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative

Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly

baseless and incredible claims - such as the allegation that `American

imperialist circles are preparing to unlease different types of wars . . .

that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by

American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . (and that) the

political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically

and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . (and) to

achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars.`

Truly, as it was written long ago: `The wicked flee when no man pursueth.`

Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements - to realize the extent of

the gulf between us. But it is also a warning - a warning to the American

people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a

distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as

inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more

than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be

considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism

profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we

can still hail the Russian people for their many achivements - in science

and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of

courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common,

none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among

the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no

nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union

suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost

their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked.

A third of the nation`s territory, including nearly two thirds of its

industrial base, was turned into a wasteland - a loss equivalent to the

devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again - no matter how - our two

countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate

fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of

devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed

in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and

dangers to so many countries, including this Nation`s closest allies - our

two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive

sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating

ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and

dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the

other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and

its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and

in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of

the Soviet Union as well as ours - and even the most hostile nations can

be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those

treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct

attention to our common interests and to the means by which those

differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at

least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final

analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small

planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children`s future.

And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that

we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are

not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must

deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the

history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that

constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach

solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a

way that it becomes in the Communists` interest to agree on a genuine

peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers

must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of

either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of

course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our

policy - or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America`s weapons are nonprovocative, carefully

controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military

forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our

diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely

rhetorical hostility.

For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And,

for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute.

We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be

eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people -

but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any

people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its

financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to

develop it into a genuine world security system - a system capable of

resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the

large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can

finally be abolished.

At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world,

where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which

weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which

threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo,

in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent

and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set

an example for others - by seeking to adjust small but significant

differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to

many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and

theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and

West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of

our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet

Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely

because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours

converge.

Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of

freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope - and the

purpose of allied policies - to convince the Soviet Union that she, too,

should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does

not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose

their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of

world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could

refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace

would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law - a new context for

world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the

Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased

contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed

arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on

each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the

other`s actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of

arms control, designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to

reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long-range interest in

Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament - designed to take

place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the

new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit

of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920`s. It

has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however

dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort - to

continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better

grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet

where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear

tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would

check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would

place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one

of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of

nuclear arms. It would increase our security - it would decrease the

prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require

our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the

whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and

responsible safeguards.

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important

decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed

that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward

early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be

tempered with the caution of history - but with our hopes go the hopes of

all mankind.

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter,

I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear

tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not

be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal

binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a

treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve

it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and

freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must

justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication

of our own lives - as many of you who are graduating today will have a

unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad

or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the

age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our

cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of

government - local, State, and National - to provide and protect that

freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is

the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that

authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the

responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect

the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.

All this is not unrelated to world peace. `When a man`s ways please the

Lord,` the Scriptures tell us, `he maketh even his enemies to be at peace

with him.` And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of

human rights - the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation

- the right to breathe air as nature provided it - the right of future

generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also

safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly

in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the

advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute

security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can - if it is

sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the

interests of its signers - offer far more security and far fewer risks

than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not

want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has

already had enough - more than enough - of war and hate and oppression. We

shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it.

But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are

safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or

hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on - not toward

a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

　

C.S.LEWIS-JFK-ALDOUS HUXLEY..

Of course I am kidding , Bernice, as Dawn pointed out. I was born during the day, but I was not born

YESTERDAY!

by the way how much is :tomatoes2600 euros.. just so i have an idea of how much the beggar was after...here's one for you Ray..:lol:keep them coming.. .best b

:blink:thanks all, there does not seem to have been any further fornow, i suppose in the last 3 hours or so, hopefully it is all under control now..one wrote and asked me what the h i was doing in spain, i told him looking for rain... but i must tell you this, one man researcher wrote me back not positive it was a scam, very sorry that he could not help me, as he had been ill and therapy had taken all his ready cash, see there are many many more good ones then baduns out there i think if you look, so it went round the facebook dix, i imagine they may get them regularly but different kinds with so many registered.best b

It being Spain and as I live close to the border, I aimed to send Mexican Pesos,

then discovered the farce involved. Still may send the Mex pesos.

thank you my friend but with the snail mail the way it is i wonder if it would actually make it, take care,, it certainly went far and wide from one end of the country to the other and anywhere in the states, it certainly wasn't a boring day..thanks all again..b

:blink:thanks all, there does not seem to have been any further fornow, i suppose in the last 3 hours or so, hopefully it is all under control now..one wrote and asked me what the h i was doing in spain, i told him looking for rain... but i must tell you this, one man researcher wrote me back not positive it was a scam, very sorry that he could not help me, as he had been ill and therapy had taken all his ready cash, see there are many many more good ones then baduns out there i think if you look, so it went round the facebook dix, i imagine they may get them regularly but different kinds with so many registered.best b