David Von Pein

CTers don't like anything an LNer does. So what's new? If I was a "CTer", this thread would not exist....and everybody here knows it. How do you figure that?

Why on Earth do you have a problem with it, Bart? And.... Why the sudden about-face from this stance you took just two days ago?.... "No need to delude yourself any longer. Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway. 😁😝😂 " -- Bart Kamp; 8/23/19 It's obvious from that quoted remark that you couldn't have cared less about this matter on August 23rd. And yet, just two days later, you're acting as if you care very deeply. A most curious quick switch. (But maybe I hit the nail on the head when I used the word "acting" just now. Ya think?)

I do. Lots and lots of it, in fact. Not nearly everything on my site is a "debate" between me and CTers. I have written many stand-alone articles on various aspects of the JFK case. And your use of the word "thief" is preposterous. I haven't misquoted anyone. And I haven't distorted anything either. (Although some CTers will continue to argue that I have.) But if a CTer's meaning of "distortion" is that I have not replied to each and every word uttered by the CTers whom I have quoted at my site, then that would be true. But EVERYBODY here does that. I know of no one (except perhaps Anthony Marsh at McAdams' Usenet forum) who spends their whole day--every day--taking the trouble of responding to every single word written on JFK forums. That's just not going to happen (unless, as I said, your name is Tony Marsh, who is in a league of his own as far as wanting to get in "the last word" on EVERY single thread at the Usenet aaj newsgroup). I don't feel like a "thief" at all, Denny. And I don't want people to think of me as a "thief". As I've said numerous times now, I merely want to archive my own writings at my own website so they won't get lost forever. And via a "forum" format (which is where a lot of my "writings" are located), archiving my own words is not really practical to do unless the comments of the people I'm responding to are also transferred to my site as well. If I transfer just my words, there will be no context at all most of the time, which is not a good thing. And I cannot believe that anyone here (even the conspiracy theorists) would have a problem with what I just said above.

Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. It was a court of law that made the above decision (re: the MySpace case).

How do you know?

From this article (which would likely apply to "Internet Forums" as well as Facebook and MySpace).... ---Quote On:--- "Many courts have concluded, essentially, that once you post something viewable by anyone else on Facebook, you have forfeited any privacy interest in it. In one early social media privacy case, involving MySpace, a court noted, “Cynthia's affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and thus opened it to the public eye. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person would have had an expectation of privacy regarding the published material.” ---Unquote---

I'm well aware of that rule. (And it's surprising anybody is left standing here.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1310.html You're taking a lot for granted with this incorrect statement.

No way. Not a chance. My DiEugenio sub-section is one of the best tools on the Internet to illustrate to any ordinary "lurkers" who might be reading my webpages just how far "around the bend" many conspiracy theorists truly are (particularly Mr. James DiEugenio). Somebody, in fact, once told me I should publish my "DVP Vs. DiEugenio" series in book form. That's not a bad idea either. Maybe it could partly counteract DiEugenio's smelly 548-page smear campaign against Vincent T. Bugliosi known as "Reclaiming Parkland". And isn't it sweet of Jimmy to offer to delete TWO whopping pages from his website if I would agree to delete 133 pages of mine? Who would benefit more from such a lopsided transaction, Jim? (Geesh.)

Well, let's just examine the flip side to a portion of Jim's argument here.... When Jim DiEugenio posted his 2-part smear piece about me in April 2010 at his (then) CTKA site, there was no way for me to directly comment on the things that I think Jim "distorted" and "misrepresented" about me in that smear campaign, which Jim promoted on his site at the time as being a destruction (more or less) of "Disinformation Dave". (And that snide "Disinformation Dave" remark---all by itself---is, IMHO, a "distortion" and a total "misrepresentation" of the facts.) But at the time I couldn't directly attack and counter the things Jim was saying about me in his smear piece, because it was posted a few months before both of us joined this forum. Therefore, I posted my rebuttal comments on my own website (blog), which kicked off the sub-section at my site Jim referred to above. And, of course, just like my blogs, there is no "referee" at Jim's CTKA (or Kennedys And King) sites either. Now, yes, it's true that Jim's site isn't in a "Q-and-A" (or "forum") format. But the fact remains (in my opinion) that Jim engaged in a little bit of "distortion" himself when he wrote that two-part smear piece about me in 2010. So, once again when we're dealing with the utterances of James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, the Pot is calling the Kettle black. I shall again stress this important point.... The portions of any Internet forum discussion that I copy to my website are almost always only the portions that I myself have CHOSEN to participate in --- and no more than that. If I have chosen not to respond to various points being made in the same thread, then (naturally) there will be nothing in those particular sections of a discussion that I would have a desire to transfer over to my site --- because my main goal at my site is to archive my own comments and posts (so that my posts won't be lost to the dustbin of the Internet junkyard should the forums I'm posting on go belly-up in the future). But the entire discussion is always made available to view via a link that I always include (if it's available) at the bottom of each of my webpages. And it is my firm opinion that I have not "distorted" or "misrepresented" anyone's comments that appear on my website. (James DiEugenio's constant protests to the contrary notwithstanding.)

"Enterprise"??? LOL

Who said I couldn't tell the difference between those two things, Jim? I certainly never said I couldn't. Maybe you should read this post again, Jim. As I've said multiple times now, the issue is mainly about archiving MY OWN POSTS, not somebody else's. Get it yet?

Geesh, Jim's arrogance could fill up a baseball stadium. I've "distorted" nothing (of course), even though DiEugenio will forever insist I have. And the part about "an argument you aleady lost" is, of course, a totally subjective opinion. I don't think I've "lost" any of my LN-favoring arguments. CTers, naturally, will always disagree. They WIN every argument, right Jimmy? Per CTers, they couldn't "lose" one if they tried. And Jim's obsession with "the last word" is just plain silly. On Jim's site, if he's quoting some LNer (which he has) on a particular topic, guess who will get "the last word"? Answer: Jim. And I'd EXPECT that to happen, for Pete sake! It's DiEUGENIO'S site. And at MY site, guess who's going to get the last word? What would you expect at MY site? Jiminy Xmas, how silly Jim's "Last Word" complaint is!

I'm wondering if you can whine any louder. (Also read my last post above and see if you can understand the point I made there.)

As I explained earlier, it's merely an attempt to archive MY OWN POSTS AND COMMENTS at my OWN site. What is so "unethical" about that? And since forums like this one are seemingly always on the verge of collapse, the best way to make sure my thousands of EF posts are not lost forever when this JFK forum eventually does collapse and fold up (which it probably will because James Gordon isn't going to pay the bills any longer) is to copy my posts (and the associated comments by other posters which make MY posts coherent) to my own site, which is a blog site that does not require financial aid to maintain. And I shall stress this important point yet again as well --- I always provide a direct link (if it's available) to the complete forum discussion(s) at the bottom of every one of the pages on my site. So the complete and unedited discussion is always easily accessible on my webpages.

Incorrect. There's not a single ad on my "JFK Archives" site.

And to read my rebuttal to Sandy's post, go here.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-326501

Exactly. So, given the fact that I am nothing but a useless and lowly "LNer" in their eyes, I'm wondering why any of the CTers here give a damn what I do at my own website? Oh, wait.....I know the answer to that one. I answered it myself in this very thread three years ago. And nobody here can possibly deny I'm speaking the truth here.... "Jim Hargrove started this ridiculous thread merely because of my status as a Lone Nutter -- and for NO other possible reason. To prove I'm right, just ask yourself this question ---- Do you think Hargrove would have even considered (for even a brief instant) starting up a thread like this one if it was Jim DiEugenio or John Armstrong or Mark Lane or Greg Parker or Jon Tidd who had copied posts written by other people to their websites? (And, of course, DiEugenio and Parker HAVE done just that--many times--in the past. What person who owns a "JFK" website HASN'T?) I rest my case." -- DVP; February 20, 2016

Also.... Repeating this key point I made early in this thread.... "I like to archive my writings in a place where I know they'll be safe. Plus, I don't like the idea of taking hours (sometimes) to write an article or an Internet post and then having it virtually vanish from sight overnight (as almost all Internet forum posts do). That is to say, they get buried under a sea of other things in a very short period of time. And who is going to take the time to dig deep into the bowels of a forum's archives for 5-year-old posts or 10-year-old discussions? I sure don't. What a huge waste of time and energy it would be to continually post in such a fashion, particularly in an Internet world where forums can come and go about as fast as a start-up airline. Take Bob Harris' now-defunct forum, for example, with all of those posts now gone into the dustbin of cyberspace. (And I thought Bob had a pretty good forum, too. Too bad all that work was wiped out when he decided it wasn't worth the effort.) Ergo, I archive my material on my own site, where I have many articles indexed on the main page for easy access." -- DVP; September 2014

You don't have to argue that point, Jim. I've already argued it for you.... "I'm not staying and posting here merely because I want my previous posts to remain available here at this site (I archive almost all of my EF discussions at my own website anyway)....but I'd like to stay here because I want to continue to add future discussions to my website archives too. I've been able to add several interesting new Education Forum discussions to my site in just the last two months. And I wouldn't have been able to do it without the participation of this forum's members (both CTers and LNers alike). So, in short, I like this forum. I disagree with nearly everything that's uttered by the "CTers" in this place. (And I'm sure that comes as no big shock to you.) But, just the same, I like being able to post here and share my views." -- DVP; February 25, 2019

So what? I was merely making a valid point (unsolicited). And I think if you try real hard, Jim, you could manage to be a little snottier.

So coincidences CAN happen in the JFK case without "conspiracy" entering into it. Right, Jim?

The truly "boring" people are those who continue to fool themselves into believing that they have proven that the "second floor lunch room encounter never happened". The arrogance of many Internet conspiracy theorists is staggering when it comes to the things these amateur sleuths like to pretend they've "proven". They live in a world of fantasy-filled dreams all their own. Just amazing. For a dose of much-needed reality and non-conspiratorial fresh air pertaining to "The Lunchroom Encounter", click the logo below: Yeah, I can see why conspiracy fantasists like Bart Kamp would, indeed, have a desire to "ignore" or "block" common-sense arguments like the ones presented above concerning the lunchroom encounter. That way, they never have to see what complete fools they make of themselves each and every time they say something ridiculous (and wholly untrue) like this: "The second floor lunch room encounter never happened and was created by Fritz to ascertain Oswald's guilt as to killing Kennedy."

Steve, the 1:19 radio call you highlighted wasn't made by Benavides or Bowley. It's Ted Callaway's radio call.