Charles Black

Charles Drago

My sincere thanks for your kind wishes. However the Doctor advised me that I should expect no immediate relief from the new "meds" as they take appx. two weeks before they "kick in".

It appears that I might have to resort to having a drink or two ! For medicinal purposes of course !

Charlie Black

Thomas

Thank you ! I feel all warm & fuzzy when I receive vocal support. This is a wonderful feeling, but some friends think that I over react as the result of not having been breast fed when I was a baby.

I plan to follow your recommendation to relax, as I intend to go fishing with another crazed old reprobate. But since he is a psychoanalyst, he will no doubt remind me of the psychological damage that has most likely resulted from my bottle feeding. It is 71 degrees and Sunny here in the Swamplands.

Charlie Black

Yep ! Them scaly Gators done it again !

And this aint nuthin' ! Wait till next year !

It was actually an excellently coached game and fairly well played.

Dawn ? You are wrong again ! Where would we be if we all lacked a competitive spirit ?

Probably Dead !

Charlie Black

Charles Drago

"Esoteric" does not mean that ideas must be formed in the stratosphere where you "appear" to reside.

Nor does it incorporate some of the circular and venomous illogic which is so characteristic of you when you are unable to logically debate.

Dawn Meredith

If you feel that Robert Kennedy's actions, many of which were absolutely self motivated, which he so publicly flaunted, did not add to the animosity which both LBJ and JEH continued to develop for JFK, were arrogant and meant to antagonize these two men.....I feel that you must breathe the same "esoteric" lack of oxygen as your pleasant cohort, Charles Drago !

Mine was not a "straw" indictment of Robert, but one which is well documented.

My meaning was, is, and will continue to be, that

Robert's "personal behavior" went far to "broaden"

gaps which were growing "within" JFK's own administration....not to mention the "caverns"

developing elsewhere.

Yes ! I strongly feel that the "overly politically involved" RFK, unwisely went far beyond the boundaries of Attorney General, and that "his" attitudes and actions fueled the fire of conspiracy.

As I mentioned in another post, if even those who were in opposition to JFK, were able to find a different way to address their growing dissatisfaction with the President, the prospect of Robert Kennedy as a "future President" would have killed any such attempt.

Robert was generally considered "an arrogant little Bastard" by many of those who mattered and who figured heavily in "The November 22, Coup". This certainly isn't remotely reasonable politics.

He himself even KNEW that !

In the discussion of the JFK assassination, the

"seemingly different" attitude which Robert later seemed to develop, should not be confused in any way, with his actions while his brother was alive.

Charlie Black

With my apologies to those who realize the difficulty that I have had in overcoming my lack of protocol, which has resulted from my only recent emergence from the Swamps of Florida, I hope that my basic tribal pride will be forgiven, when I once again state on this Forum "GO GATORS...AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN" ! ! !

Charlie Black

Hi Terry

A great overall reply and I can understand your feelings of Robert during the hearings. I suppose that he could have sounded like a "gallant Knight"

battling ugly dragons.

I do agree with you regarding Mafia participation.

They were certainly not needed and were not controllable, from the true conspirators standpoint.

Just another scapegoat mixed in with both the pro and anti Castro Cubans and lone nut crazed Commies!

Charlie Black

Hello Dixie

Very interesting. It is easy to forget that parents have been faced withe the same "basic problems" forever. They also seem to not decrease with "privilege".

Charlie Black

To all

I apologize for my misquote of Marc Antony....it had been years since I had last read it and should have looked it up.

I however firmly believe in my other comments that "I personally feel, quite true".

Not in an attempt to change the views of any of you Robert Kennedy supporters, I felt that his actions before the sub commitee seemed "quite childish" to me....particularly his immature and ridiculous comments to Sam Giancana. I think that his personal behavior may have induced, "more" not less, support for the "bad guys". IMHO, he displayed a childish lack of class.

It was with this performance clearly in mind, that I was more than "shocked" with his appointment as Attorney General. In a great many areas, I feel that "Bobby" and Joe Sr.'s actions had more to do with JFK's assassination than aything that Jack had said or done. I further feel that his often childish "exchanges" with Hoover, and his constant and open critical comments to LBJ went a long way toward being some of the nails in the Presidents coffin.

Even though I personally "despise" Hoover and feel that LBJ was a "long time" criminal, I feel that some of the actions of Bobby, whom I refer to "in the early sixties" as a "ridiculous upstart", went far in broadening the gap between these two powerful figures and the President. Someone should have explained to Bobby, the benefits of properly attempted political manipulation. Actually, were he at all qualified, no one would have needed to. I don't feel that it is proper to show a public lack of respect to figures as powerful and prominent as LBJ and JEH. His bother certainly didn't!

I feel that Bobby had progressed "little" at the time of his confrontations with Hoffa. An arrogant lack of respect should be dispayed by "NO PUBLIC FIGURE" ! An Attorney General should behave in a manner deserving his title .....and not as a schoolboy.

I don't claim to be a psychologist, but my layman's view is that Bobby exhibited many of the characteristics of what I personally, not professionally, term "the litle man syndrome".

I certainly feel that there is good reason for Bobby to have entered a state of deep depression following his brother's murder....and considered, I have read, that he felt his (Bobby's) personal conduct may have had a significant role in the plan to murder his brother. If this is true, it may have been his foremost acknowledgement.

I am helpless to offer any comfort to you "Bobby supporters", when I say that his appointment as Attorney General may have been the greatest single political disaster of JFK's Presidency.

No! I don't feel that he was qualified....it was flagrant nepotism.....and I feel that this action had much to do with the formation of a coalition against a possible "24 year Kennedy Dynasty".

I feel that Robert's lack of maturity and sound political behavior, coupled with his deplorable manners and arrogant behavior, contributed more to his brother's downfall than any other single

person.....including the trigger pullers.

These are my personal feelings only and I am unwilling to engage in a multi paged debate regarding these points. You may each believe what you like.

Having held these opinions for almost four decades,

and having given "years" of thought to them.....

the chance of my opinion being changed is virtually non-existant. Yes, you may say that I have a "closed mind" on this issue, and I will agree !

Charlie Black

Hello John Dolva

A very well thought out and expressed message that few could argue.

Often when I think of JFK's speech in which he states "we all breathe the same air...."

I personally mentally inject a little more into it.

I feel that he is saying that not only are we all human, but that we are all subject to making the same human mistakes, and we must realize and accept this in an effort to exploit our similarities and desires for the betterment of life for all...and while doing this we must accept that none of us are perfect, so we must mutually accept our individual errors and weaknesses.

This at least is what he was saying to "me", in a speech which I rank at perhaps a higher level than the Gettysburg address.

In my personal thinking it expresses a love, understanding and intense humanity, which we should all share, irrespective of individual religions or the specific space which we globally occupy.

As a man with the same human flaws as most of us, I am unable to "exalt" him, tho I am very proud and thanful for the strengths which he had the courage to display.

Charlie Black

Here, here.....Don.......

Thanks....

The links...

The Posthumous Assassination of JFK

Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers

By James DiEugenio

# 1

http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html

# 2

http://www.ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html

B......

Hello Bernice,

I personally have never been in any way a fan of Jim DeEugenio's journalism.

I feel in no way A Kennedy Basher, but neither am I any more proud of some of his actions than am I of some of the actions of my own children. In order to respect or love a person, I don't feel that you need approve of, or think that every action that this person makes is wise.

Truth is not slander. Observing and mentioning weaknesses and imperfections in any human being

is something to which all human beings are subjected. Researching the horror of the Kennedy murders does not enlist one in the Kennedy FAMILY Fan Club. There are aspects of both this family and each of our own, that are not worthy of praise.

Charlie Black

"I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him".

Although I very much liked John Kennedy, I have NEVER shared the "sheer adulation" that so many on this and other forums seem to display.

To listen to many of you, you often speak of the "double assassination" of JFK. The second being by those of you who seem to feel that some of the unsavory truths about JFK, RFK, and Joe Sr. should be "unmentionables". Often when I post something that is true, though unflattering about the Kennedy's, I feel that there is an attempt by

some/many for me to wash my mouth out and "run, not walk" to confession!

"Lancer" was not a Holy Knight chosen by the almighty to be THE shining example of male American virtue. To the best of my knowledge, neither were any of the Kennedy's, including Rose .

My purpose on these forums is not to "in any way",

exalt any of the Kennedy family. When I say something which I feel true, tho uncomplimentary, I have never insinuated that similar behavior was not undertaken by others of their social and financial class. And yes, I do attribute much of Kennedy success to their privileged position and the pressure and drive of Joseph SR. Do any of you feel that the Kennedy brothers fought their way up "thru the ranks"? Do ANY of you feel that RFK "earned" the position of Attorney General? There can be much said that without the forceful guidance and prodding and the introduction and support of some large sums of money from Joe Sr., that perhaps none of the "Kennedy Boys" would have reached their lofty levels.

I personally feel that unless you are able to personally disregard the truthful tho less complimentary aspects of the Kennedy's, you are labeled a Kennedy Basher.

I feel that this is a quite immature approach, and a forced reluctance to accept what is quite visible to most. I feel that Jack Kennedy brought a great deal of "Pride and Hope" to this nation during a time of crisis and severe struggle, and I personally felt quite proud for him to be my President and Commander in Chief. And for one to have great respect for The President and the office of The President, does not require that the person holding that office be elevated to "Sainthood".

The Kennedy Bothers were fine young men, as were many in this country, who shared the same strengths and weaknesses as other young men, engaged in some acts that brought pride to their families, and other acts which did not.

They were fortunate to be of a privileged family, and I feel that perhaps it will be said in the final chapter, this "privilege" endowed them with a spirit too reckless and independent, for their own welfare, and that of those whom they served.

I really don't understand why, as a result of certain recent posts by other members, that I should have responded in this manner.

This was initially about the attempted preservation of Kennedy family secrets which they have the right in most cases, to do, as do we all. Whether secrets pertaining to the President's health should be included in this, I cannot judge. I feel that some "little lies" like this had some serious and long lasting effects which influenced decisions as important and damning as JFK's autopsy.

I feel that I have nothing that I would like to retract in my obvious lack of adulation of the Kennedy Family. I never hinted that any of them should have been "fault free", but I feel that privileged position gave them a false sense of security and power, which perhaps was their undoing.

Charlie Black

Charles Drago

Although I "somewhat" get the intent, of your statements, their substance does nothing to sway me regardless of the emotion which you have projected.

Are you asking me to believe that an investigation in the death of JFK Jr. would have yielded anything more than what resulted from the investigation of the "very obvious and public murders" of his Father and Uncle ?

I am certain that you can't be saying that the Kennedy family wanted it to be recorded as a part of History, many of their shady and nefarious dealings. Just because the name is Kennedy, that name does not stamp "Approval" of many of the unsavory dealings and crimes with which the family can be linked.

The "holocaust" was cast in Dealey Plaza. A review of past Kennedy mis dealings could be expected by no one to have averted what has followed.

It should be realized that the secrets of Hoovers voluminous files on Kennedy history, certainly was not allowed to die with "The Director" !

Yes I feel that there are very possibly many "secrets" that the Kennedy family, to this day, does not want exposed. However I feel very strongly that the Kennedy's have NOTHING that would directly and positively finger a single conspirator !

As I stated earlier, the Kenndy's were and remain to this day cornered. They cannot prove the conspiracy, though they do risk allowing many unsavory aspects of their lives made public....

Aspects that could in no way strengthen the Kennedy heritage !

It is and has been a "Lose / Lose" situation for the Kennedy family.

The position of the conspirators was so well entrenched that they did not fear a continuation of murder and what you precisely termed "holocaust" !

Charlie Black

Just a passing thought that I wish to mention.

There have been both many questions and criticisms of the immediate and continued Kennedy Family silence regarding the death of JFK.

I feel that at times, since they don't directly relate to 11/22/63 and Dealey plaza, although we realize certain circumstances, we tend to downplay them when discussing the intensity and horror of what ocurred on that assassination day.

I don't feel that even the most fervent lovers and supporters of the Kennedy Family are in a position to deny that this family was involved in some very questionable and perhaps shameful events that the family would prefer to keep "out of the sunlight", which dated back even to Joseph Sr.'s very early business and personal dealings. Some questions involving not only Josephs possibly illegal business dealings, his Hollywood Period, his decision of how to handle a daughters mental problems, and qustions regarding his conduct during his Ambassadorship. I will stop before I even enter the possible transgressions and hushed up aspects of several of his children's behavior.

There are several very important questions that involve even Jack's military career (even the PT 109 "heroic fiasco").

Please do not think that my point here is "Kennedy bashing" in any form. The reasons that I have even mentioned the above was to introduce J. Edgar Hoover and his general hatred of the Kennedy family. With the enormity of the Kennedy influence in so many different elements of modern American History, and with so "many" Kennedy's involved in what many might consider questionable dealings, behavior, in both personal and formal involvements,

I cannot even begin to gather the "enormity" of the generally unknown information which Mr. Hoover could use to to lambast and denigrate the Kennedy name and the name of JFK himself.

He not only could but would....and LBJ had insured that Edgar was again firmly entrenched as the "True Untouchable".

I think that we should probably give more consideration to what might be some very understandable decisions regarding "Kennedy Family Silence" !

I feel that there was no doubt a very binding "Unspoken Deal" !

Charlie Black

Hi David

Yes, I would suppose that the time proximity of the Diem and Kennedy Coups along with the instability that had been existing for some time, coupled with the the influence which was being force managed by the CIA, must have turned that bad situation into a pure horror !

I suppose that "hellish" is probably an understatement, since it lasted for the next 12 years !

Charlie Black

As I have always held a great deal of comtempt for this prime "cover upper", I don't mind saying that I am surprised that Valenti had not choked to death many years ago "on his own lies" !

Charlie Black

Hi Kathy

You grasped my meaning perfectly. If forward bases were taken off of alert within a few hours, the Military Brass "KNEW" immediately that we were not facing a Soviet threat.

That is why it is with such disgust that I review LBJ's pleading with prospective Warren Commission members, many days later, that their help was needed in averting a a potential Nuclear crisis.

Everyone in the Military, the FBI, and the various intelligence agencies well knew that no such crisis existed. As a matter of fact, I was permitted to go "on leave" before the Warren Commission was even appointed.

The more of the normal day to day activities immediately following the assassintion that one is aware of, the more the immediate "cover up" and its subsequent lies is so obviously apparent.

Except for many in other countries that were aware of the Coup, our countrymen were completely snowed.

I and all of my military acquaintences absolutely initially believed the FBI, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was an unbalanced, malcontent, crazed, lone nut MISFIT. We knew nothing of the Manlicher Carcano piece of junk. We were told that his was a very easy shot for an ex Marine Marksman, with a scoped military weapon, from the ridiculous distance of "only 70 yards". The "more military" in which one was involved, the easier it was to believe the fodder that was fed us. Why in 1963 would any of us young military men not have believed the FBI, and the near "god like" American hero, J. Edgar Hoover ?

I was hooked like a stupid mud fish !

Charlie Black

Hello Evan

I will agree with you that RFK was quite ruthless.

However, I feel that it is often misunderstood, that as a result of the better use of tact, the fact that JFK was both quite ruthless and reckless

is sometimes overlooked. They both were very much the proteges of "old Joe" and that both reacted when challenged quite agressively; tho JFK had the luxury of having RFK "front" his very strong reactions for the sake of diplomacy.

Yes I was a very young and quite "innocent" military officer on 11/22/63. In those days, it was pretty much forbidden that Military Officers voiced political opinions publicly...remember MacArthur !

I was at an overseas base when this occurred and I would like to clear up a couple of misconceptions that I personally KNOW are wrong. It was never considered by any of the "Brass" that this was a Soviet involved incident on the base where I was stationed. Contrary to popular belief, that even in our strategic location, we were placed on ALERT for no longer than three hours. I spent the night at home with my wife. There was no military concern of an impending war or attack. I am able to quite specifically judge this because I had recently been thru the chaos and high military readiness which had resulted from the Cuban Missile Crisis....we then were TRULY close to conflict.

Apart from the grief that most felt, the following days were "business as usual"! We were not on any elevated alert status.

As a matter of fact, in those first few days and months, the reports of the FBI were more or less considered Gospel....few comments to the contrary!

Evan, I managed to wander a little off topic. It is my personal belief (which I cannot substantiate), that there was little thought in the mind of RFK that there was any great mystery regarding what happened to his Brother. As a matter of fact, I feel that he thought that his personal actions and recommendations to the President contributed to the Coup. I feel that the both, "then and now" position, which has been taken by the Kennedy family, would not and possbly could not, be changed regardless of whether Robert reached the White House. This decision, I personally think, had a dual purpose....one was of course protecting Kennedy interests....the other however was the more overpowering reason....It was the very valid question and the imperceivable reaction of what would befall the U.S. government, were it known that a Coup d' Etat had been conducted by the highest elements of power within the U.S. Government, in accord with those who controlled the nations industry, oil, and banking.

Despite my constant "demands for truth", my deep belief is that the U.S. could not have taken it then, nor could it now.

It would be similar to saying there is no Santa Claus, no God, no hope, .....your father is a child predator and murderer, and your mother, sisters and grandmother are all whores, and that even tho there is no God, there is certainly a Satan who does and will always prevail.

I feel that this is but a "slight" exaggeration !

I feel that "A PORTION" of this cover up was truly conducted by Patriots, attempting to save "the remnants" of our nation from caving in upon itself.

I didn't intend to "sermonize" !

Charlie Black

Dan & John

You guys are REALLY going to believe me nuts now.

When I do this, all I get is a faceless caricature.

I originally thought that John, perhaps for some reason, had difficulty when he attempted to post it for me. I didn't bother to mention it, because I had no great desire to look at myself.

In my forum correspondence, I am using a web tv, if any of you know what that is. But I pick up pictures of about 1/2 the forum members but I just always assumed that the others had never attempted to post their photos. There have been ocassions in the past when the web tv has not accessed subjects for which I have searched. This maybe could be the

problem.

When my wife and I moved to the Beach after I retired, we did not have room for two computers.

If I am very nice, she may give me permission to use hers when she returns.

I don't even know which picture that I mailed John but I remember telling him "no" when he asked did I need it back. I would kind of like to know how marvelous that I look !

Thanks for the help....now I am curious!

Charlie Black

Daniel Wayne Dunn

Your post that I do have a photo posted came as a complete shock to me. However I am still unable to find it. Could you or ANYONE clue me in on what I must do to view it. I was unable to post the photo myself, so I mailed by postal service a photo to John Simkin who stated that he had posted it.....I have never been able to find it !

Would appreciate ANYONE's help. BUT....this in no way changes my feelings regarding the requirement for having a photo posted. I was not arguing the point because I personally felt that my privacy was being invaded, or that I was personally in harm. I was merely attempting to protect those who might have been in fear, and possibly might not join the forum for that reason.

Help will be appreciated.

Charlie black

Just to back up what Stephen has said - if there are requests for non-compliance they will be taken up on a case-by-case basis. Also, please take time to think about your posts and decide whether comments may be offensive to another forum member.

If you think someone has said something "wrong", then report it to a Mod rather than allowing yourself to become heated and respond in kind.

Thanks all!

Evan

My apologies both to you and the general forum, as my genaral disappointment in the oucome of this thread forces me to make "one more" snide and beady comment. Perhaps in the future, we should consider another rule which could possibly resolve ALL furure forum tension and conflict.

Rather than posting directly to the forum, we should perhaps, rather than risk hurting anyone's feelings, post directly to the forum moderators, so that they might congregate, and jointly decide if something is not too controversial to post.

If we all agree, it cannot be considered censorship as it would be a democratically adopted "good" for the welfare and brotherhood of all. Everyone would remain smiling and happy like a bed of petunias !

Charlie Black

Realizing, as I have all along, that I am fighting social and political pressures that it has been suicidal to combat, I will withdraw from continuing this thread. I do so only because I enjoy many of the persons and their input on this forum and don't want to be "kicked off".

As far as my prior statements and personal beliefs regarding what has been discussed on this thread, I remain firmly entrenched in what I believe to be both their legitimacy and rationality...."most of which were never even addressed".

So I offer my sincere apologies to you forum members whom I have bored, or who believe me to be stupid, irrational, or both, and for have WASTED forum time and space.

Insane, irrational or perhaps just stupid...I remain to fervently believe every point that I attempted to make on this thread. For what it is worth, I am not so stupid, as yet, to deliberately have WASTED so much of my own time unless I personally had not thought my position solid.

In all aspects of our social and political lives, this thread might be a good reminder that it must be REALIZED exactly where the true power lies, and the futility of fighting it. Even if your opinions may be shared by many, it is an excercise in futility to expect be be joined in what is well realized to be a LOST CAUSE !

My apologies to all.

Charlie Black

Not to attempt to ride a wounded horse, but there is a point which I thought that I had made, many posts ago.....but apparently failed to.

I sincerely meant to mention that I feel the following of the rule regarding the mandatory posting of a personal photograph, in itself is a direct violation of another forum rule (or perhaps I should say "guarantee"). That rule/guarantee is that nothing on this forum should be "INVASIVE OF A PERSONS PRIVACY". I feel that what constitutes "invasion of privacy", is a matter that can be determined by NO ONE, other than the individual him or her self !

Which principle should be followed ?

Charlie Black

Perhaps this same lack of consideration for the ruled masses was a major contributing factor which brought down the British Empire. Perhaps, some of the ruled, tho lacking British Culture, were not lacking sound and reasonable minds.

CHARLIE, IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TAKE ON BOARD WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IF YOU WERE NOT GIVEN TO SUCH FLIGHTS OF HYPERBOLE.

Did my last statement break any standing forum rules?

Charlie Black

NO, THERE IS NO RULE OUTLAWING OVERSTATEMENT OR MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL.

Hello Stephen

I respect your opinion, however since you brought it up, I would like to be shown examples of "My Flights of Hyperbole."

You see in my perhaps unbalanced mind, I looking back upon my comments, do not find them to be "Flights of Hyperbole". On the contrary, unless I am truly certifiable, I find my comments to be quite specific and implicit. I am not saying that they must be agreed with, however I do ask you to point out those statements which are not based on rational thinking. I am certainly not unbalanced enough to ask most of you to vote on the validity of my opinions versus those of John and Andy, and to think I am playing on a level field.

I truly understand the "survival value" of covering ones own ass, and I wouldn't expect many of you to depart from that.

I simply want pointed out what many of you seem to think are irrationalities.

And no ! I am not a Kamikaze Pilot !

Charlie Black

Perhaps this same lack of consideration for the ruled masses was a major contributing factor which brought down the British Empire. Perhaps, some of the ruled, tho lacking British Culture, were not lacking sound and reasonable minds.

CHARLIE, IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TAKE ON BOARD WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IF YOU WERE NOT GIVEN TO SUCH FLIGHTS OF HYPERBOLE.

Did my last statement break any standing forum rules?

Charlie Black

NO, THERE IS NO RULE OUTLAWING OVERSTATEMENT OR MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL.

Hello Stephen

I respect your opinion, however since you brought it up, I would like to be shown examples of "My Flights of Hyperbole."

You see in my perhaps unbalanced mind, I looking back upon my comments, do not find them to be "Flights of Hyperbole". On the contrary, unless I am truly certifiable, I find my comments to be quite specific and implicit. I am not saying that they must be agreed with, however I do ask you to point out those statements which are not based on rational thinking. I am certainly not unbalanced enough to ask most of you to vote on the validity of my opinions versus those of John and Andy, and to think I am playing on a level field.

I truly understand the "survival value" of covering ones own ass, and I wouldn't expect many of you to depart from that.

I simply want pointed out what many of you seem to think are irrationalities.

And no ! I am not a Kamikaze Pilot !

Charlie Black

Hello John

I don't feel that you nor anyone on this forum truly interpreted my statements as meaning that I or very many on this forum may object to posting their pictures, "primarily" out of fear of being tracked down by the CIA.

You personal rewording of my thougts was and is an attempt to change some very valid points that I made. It appears that others agree with my real contention, that this "rule" has the potential of causing discomfort to some members, although it has no positive purpose other than satisfying some members curiosity. I feel that this point was and remains a quite valid one. What is the true value of the rule, since it has been expressed by many that this rule does not necessarily promote truth or honesty ?

Is this just a pronouncement that "this is a rule so it must be of value" ? Have any of my, or others thoughts, even been considered for anything other than very obvious ridicule. Both rules and laws, when implemented, are considered in most free societies, that they are subject to change, ammendment, or nullification. Unlike Moses' tablets, I don't feel that these rules are etched in stone. You have been willing to ridicule, but have offered no sound reasonable purpose that would preclude amending this rule to state that the posting of personal photographs is optional, as it is on many forums.

Perhaps this same lack of consideration for the ruled masses was a major contributing factor which brought down the British Empire. Perhaps, some of the ruled, tho lacking British Culture, were not lacking sound and reasonable minds.

As I stated in a prior post, I personally, do not believe that I have broken forum rules. I have attempted to uphold my personal dignity, as should anyone worth corresponding with, and expressed sincere opinions.

I remind you again that the only reason that my photo is not posted is because you informed me that you had received my snail mailed photo, and that you intended to post it as I was unable to do so.

I sincerely feel that your past and most recent comments, and particularly Andy's most recent display to me of English "culture", represent a resentment toward the U.S. and as you have previously put it, our lack of culture.

I feel this to be extreme arrogance on the part of the Forum Hierarchy, and an absolutely vivid display of the lack of respect for certain forum members.

Did my last statement break any standing forum rules?

Charlie Black