So remind me

[Miles Scull]

_____________________________

--ThomASS (as you say)

_____________________________

Pmub a legab

[Thomas Graves]

See, if you had remembered what I actually said you would have been able to easily find the thread.

____________________________

Dear Myra,

Silly me! And to think I was wasting all my time plugging in search terms like "and" and "a" and "the" and "of" and "for" and "to" and "his" and "they" and "them" and "their" and "uhh,"and the whole time trying to reconcile all these articles and conjunctions and pronouns and possessive pronouns and interjections and I should have remembered that you had used the word "recompense," I mean "recourse," I mean "riparian," I mean "reconstitute," I mean "rigmarole," I mean "rigor mortis," and after all is said and done, who gives a "rat's ---" what you used, right?

The important point is that in the thread "Question for Tosh" you, in so many words, rhetorically accused "Tosh" of being a witting conspirator in the assassination of JFK. Sorry if you don't remember doing so. Also sorry if the particular post/s I'm talking about have been "deleted" by someone. Doesn't matter to me because I remember that you more or less accused Tosh of participating willfully in the evil deed. I and half of The Forum (at that time) remember you doing so....

Keep up the good work,

--ThomASS (as you say)

___________________________

Edited May 21, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

_____________________________

--ThomASS (as you say)

_____________________________

Pmub a legab

__________________________

Hi Miles,

Let me guess-- Yavapai?

--Thomas

__________________________

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I cant speak for the other Mods, but I view my role here very much in the words of the old Medical saying "do nothing to make the situation worse" and so, for most of the time, thats exactly what I do, nothing, I will only interveen if (a) Forum guidelines are being ignored, abused, or ( a Member requests adjudication by P/M. Other than that, you are all intellegent adults, learn to admit that from time to time you might JUST be in the wrong, the ability to alter ones opinions in light of new eveidence is a sure sign of maturity, IMHO.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I can understand why you have resigned as moderator but the problem is that by doing so you allow people like Myra to win. She will not be satisfied until all moderators resign.

Hi John,

It was with sadness that I did stand down and I'm convinced more than ever that in this particular case I made the right decision. As a moderator I didn't want to leave this thread open and that is a decision I stand by. On evaluating my role, and taking the course I did, I opened the topic again...regretfully. As a moderator I could not do nothing, this whole topic is so unbelievably crass that it's continued existence is detrimental to the casual forum reader and a poor reflection on the forum as a whole, in my opinion (although the currency of that isn't doing too well at the minute).

No John, the existence of this thread and it's legacy as a record, will serve as continued evidence that Myra didn't win anything at all. Getting your own way in such a manner is sometimes the most Pyrrhic of victories.

Up the Hammers,

Gary

[Antti Hynonen]

IMO we could delete this entire Topic (thread). Waste of bandwidth.

Edited May 21, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Guest Gary Loughran]

IMO we could delete this entire Topic (thread). Waste of bandwidth.

Hi Antti,

The whole premise of this thread is based on a call for proof from a topic that was knowingly deleted. To delete this may cause more angst. I could even claim I never gave up moderation (God forbid) and ask for proof.

Even to close it now would show that the moderators DO keep bumping into each other etc. that would also mean the topic was closed, opened, deleted/closed. No as I say it's legacy is worth keeping and it does get lots of views.

Gary

P.S Google caches pages. Whilst Tosh's posts have been deleted, he couldn't delete those posts in which he was quoted by others.

See here Pyrhhic victory for some of what was discussed in the first few pages of this current topic.

Hope this doesn't ignite any further antipathy, but perhaps will give some closure to the questions posed on the first page of this thread

Edited May 21, 2007 by Gary Loughran

[Terry Mauro]

IMO we could delete this entire Topic (thread). Waste of bandwidth.

Hi Antti,

The whole premise of this thread is based on a call for proof from a topic that was knowingly deleted. To delete this may cause more angst. I could even claim I never gave up moderation (God forbid) and ask for proof.

Even to close it now would show that the moderators DO keep bumping into each other etc. that would also mean the topic was closed, opened, deleted/closed. No as I say it's legacy is worth keeping and it does get lots of views.

Gary

P.S Google caches pages. Whilst Tosh's posts have been deleted, he couldn't delete those posts in which he was quoted by others.

See here Pyrhhic victory for some of what was discussed in the first few pages of this current topic.

Hope this doesn't ignite any further antipathy, but perhaps will give some closure to the questions posed on the first page of this thread

**********************************************************************

I happened to have liked the original topic of this thread, but after looking over the thread, "So how many conspirators..." another good one, by the way, I came to the conclusion that Thomas was clearly engaging in what I would consider to be a case of bird-dogging Myra by bringing up what he considered to be a past transgression, on her part. I failed to see what this had to do with the thread Thomas had started, and it seemed that he might have been a little miffed at Myra's contribution to his thread, possibly prompting him to bring up this point. Yet, I failed to denote any provocation in Myra's tone that could have set him off and am still non-plussed as to what has transpired in this regard.

On the other hand, Myra might have been better suited to have allowed this to whither on the vine, instead of making the reference to Graves in the new thread she had started. But, having had a newbie, in the person of David G., present in observation of the bird-dogging incident on Thomas' thread, I can understand Myra's impulse to respond in kind, though in no way am I condoning it. I still can understand the reasoning behind it.

As far as my swearing in my description of the Rockefellers, I was merely trying to make light of the situation while attempting to steer the thread back on track. Sorry to have offended anyone, but least of all the @%$#^*~ Rockefellers, I could care less about their feelings, or what they think. Especially, considering the utter disdain they profess to have for the plebes who are the ones paying the taxes to finance their special interests. Isn't that what this thread started out as, to begin with?

Thomas Graves

Rating: 0

View Member Profile

Find Member's Posts

post May 13 2007, 01:20 AM

Post #7

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 656

Joined: 20-September 05

Member No.: 3525

QUOTE(Myra Bronstein @ May 12 2007, 09:30 AM) *

QUOTE(Thomas Graves @ May 12 2007, 09:28 AM) *

What a joke........

Maybe we get out of it what we put into it.

_____________________

Yeah My-rah, absolutely....

So, what have you "gotten out of it" so far, other than the fact that you now think William "Tosh" Plumlee was one of the (witting) conspirators and that the CIA is a nasty, nasty organization and that you really really hate this 'n that 'n tuther thang 'bout 'Merika........?

--Thomas

AND:

Thomas Graves

Rating: 0

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post May 13 2007, 11:46 PM

Post #16

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 656

Joined: 20-September 05

Member No.: 3525

QUOTE(Thomas Graves @ May 13 2007, 05:24 PM) *

QUOTE(Myra Bronstein @ May 13 2007, 02:38 AM) *

[...]

I will say that the classic equation "garbage in=garbage out" might explain why you're disappointed with your results.

___________________________

My-ra,

How could I possibly be "disappointed with my results" when I've never claimed to have any "results" (except proving that "Larry Florer" really was Larry Florer--FWIW). I'm happy just to sit back and watch the names of individuals and groups and associations of individuals and groups of about 1% of all the American adults who were alive in '63 being thrown out as possible conspirators on this forum and others like it.

Keep up the good work!

--Thomas icecream.gif

P.S. Do you still think "Tosh" Plumlee was one of the conspirators? (I remember his calling you a #@&!$ in his last or next-to-last post. It made my day!)

(edited and bumped)

_______________________________

Edited May 21, 2007 by Terry Mauro

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

Google caches pages. Whilst Tosh's posts have been deleted, he couldn't delete those posts in which he was quoted by others.

See here Pyrhhic victory for some of what was discussed in the first few pages of this current topic.

Hope this doesn't ignite any further antipathy, but perhaps will give some closure to the questions posed on the first page of this thread

________________________________

Gary,

Thanks for the link.

--Thomas

________________________________

Edited May 21, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Evan Burton]

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

Well said.

[John Simkin]

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator.

[Myra Bronstein]

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator.

That reminds me, my "ignore" function won't accept the name "john simkin."

Is there a bug with it or is it designed not to accept that name?

Thank you for any assistance you can offer with this.

[Myra Bronstein]

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator.

If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves.

[Terry Mauro]

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator.

If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves.

**********************************************************

"If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves."

Stop this, right now! Before your credibility is all shot to hell!

I am really disappointed that a bright individual, such as yourself, would continue in this vein.

And, I am thoroughly disgusted with this culmination of events that have led to the deterioration of a perfectly good topic.

Furthermore, I refuse to sit back and witness the "kamikaze" tactics of someone I had wished to have held in higher esteem than this.

I must concede, Antti is right, with regard to a waste of bandwidth.

Shut it down.

[Myra Bronstein]

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator.

If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves.

**********************************************************

"If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves."

Stop this, right now! Before your credibility is all shot to hell!

I am really disappointed that a bright individual, such as yourself, would continue in this vein.

And, I am thoroughly disgusted with this culmination of events that have led to the deterioration of a perfectly good topic.

Furthermore, I refuse to sit back and witness the "kamikaze" tactics of someone I had wished to have held in higher esteem than this.

I must concede, Antti is right, with regard to a waste of bandwidth.

Shut it down.

You got it Terry.

I respect you so you have my ear.

I do hope that the regard for bandwidth, and I mean this sincerely, extends to seemingly endless battles with Kathy that have hijacked many threads that I hoped to get something useful out of, the "Death of Witnesses" one among them.