Michael Hogan Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I apologize if I've upset any delicate sensibilities with my medium-level tolerance of outright moonshine. Your sarcasm about my delicate sensibilities aside, its clear that you just don't get it. If I truly had delicate sensibilities, I would have been in many more threads of yours than I have. Oh admit it, you haven't got it any longer, you old codger.... the Lone Nut clock is running out I have a feeling you'll be around a little while longer, your promise to quit posting if the Forum became moderated notwithstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) duplicate deleted Edited June 11, 2007 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I apologize if I've upset any delicate sensibilities with my medium-level tolerance of outright moonshine. Your sarcasm about my delicate sensibilities aside, its clear that you just don't get it. If I truly had delicate sensibilities, I would have been in many more threads of yours than I have. Oh admit it, you haven't got it any longer, you old codger.... the Lone Nut clock is running out I have a feeling you'll be around a little while longer, your promise to quit posting if the Forum became moderated notwithstanding. after Bugliosis' latest debacle, I'm gonna leave? No, my Irish friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload..... As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem. You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload..... As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem. You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... My but you get so personal in your comments David. Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload..... As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem. You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... My but you get so personal in your comments David. Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks? Myra, the facts of the case? First, you have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts.... I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board, Myra and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan. When this board is gone, Hogan and I are gone, and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you? Edited June 11, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload..... As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem. You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... My but you get so personal in your comments David. Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks? Myra, facts of the case? First you'll have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts.... I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan. When this board is gone, Hogasn and i are gone and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you? Actually, David, it sounds like you're saying that no one on a forum has the right to expect civil behavior from other forum members if they haven't been a member of the forum a certain length of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload..... As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem. You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... My but you get so personal in your comments David. Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks? Myra, facts of the case? First you'll have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts.... I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan. When this board is gone, Hogasn and i are gone and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you? Actually, David, it sounds like you're saying that no one on a forum has the right to expect civil behavior from other forum members if they haven't been a member of the forum a certain length of time. Actually Myra, Did I say that Myra? Why do you insist you know what CT's think, Bad habit, girl! What I AM saying is quite simple, your futile (and Lone Nutters) ad hom argument doesn't work, you want to fall on your alleged CT sword, by all means DO! Hogan, I suspect will hold it for you! -- Add to that, nobody likes a pushy-controlling Lady Myra, especially one who doesn't have intellectual command of the evidence..... Bet in 2 more posts we'll have every forum hall monitor present.... what say you? Edited June 11, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload..... As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem. You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. If this is an attempt to show an inconsistency, it failed. Notice that I said "as much info" as possible, not "as much obvious and blatant misinfo" as possible. People shouldn't have to wade through a swamp of indefensible nonsense just to get to the issues. My complaint about the video is not that it presented the "The real entrance is the little smudge in the autopsy photo" theory first pushed by Groden. I spent 50 bucks on Groden's book, after all, knowing it included such claims. My complaint, as stated, is that it presents a number of easily refuted measurements and descriptions as facts. Pat, There have been plenty of successful attempts, like this one, to show inconsistency in your statements. There are some whoppers in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9946 No matter how blatant your contradictions are you tend to deny them. But denial of your contradictions doesn't make them invisible to others. Myra Myra, WHAT contradictions? I happen to believe that both RFK and Garrison wanted to solve the case. I believe, as Talbot and many others, that RFK had real reasons to doubt Garrison's intentions. Or do you honestly believe Marcello was an innocent tomato salesman? My comments to Gil were sincere. I didn't mean to come across as a condescending know-it-all. The video has errors that should be fixed. If CTs don't help correct each other's mistakes than Bugliosi and his buddies will write exposes declaring that we're all fools, and have plenty of evidence in support. Don't you think we should turn the public debate around on them, so that they have to explain the moving back wound, the moving head wound, the Odio incident, etc??? As it is, whenever I try to discuss the case with anyone not fully familiar with the issues, I spend more than half the time trying to explain that even if Groden and Livingstone's autopsy photo alteration theory is wrong, even if Lifton's body alteration theory is wrong, even if Fetzer et al's Z film alteration theory is wrong, there is STILL evidence for a conspiracy. The debate has become so diluted that nobody seems to realize this anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Gil and Cliff, if I'd have had more time last night, I'd have listed the errors in the video. Perhaps I should have withheld commentary till I had the time. The errors in the video I referred to had nothing to do with my contention that the back wound entrance is at T1--based on the autopsy measurements, autopsy face sheet, and autopsy photos--nor the video (and Cliff's) contention that the back wound entrance is at T3 (based on Burkley's death certificate). There you go again. Right on cue. I point to the holes in the clothes, you ignore it. Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic. Your citation of the "autopsy face sheet" is disingenuous. The "14cm below mastoid process" notation on the face sheet was made in pen. That was a violation of autopsy protocol, which requires everything to be filled out on the face sheet in pencil. The part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back wound a bit below the location of the holes in the clothes. The diagram was signed off in pencil as "verified." The meassurement from the mastoid process violated two other autopsy protocols -- it used a cranial landmark to locate a thoracic wound, and the landmark it used was movable. Pat, you choose to tout improperly taken and recorded measurements over the verified and verifiable evidence -- the death certificate, the face sheet diagram, the holes in the clothes. Even the HSCA declared the Fox 5 autopsy photo "perhaps" inadmissible in court due to its questionable authenticity. And, of course, there's the more than dozen witnesses who got a prolonged look at the back wound and placed it at T3. JFK's T3 back wound is a fact. Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in the cover-up of his death, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) I suspect JFK is still the biggest attraction on this site (based on posting totals, I have no idea broad lurker visits). If, say the JFK portion of this site goes to a moderated forum, most CTer's will cease posting here. I certainly will, which I'm sure will delight many.... Where I come from, a man is judged by the strength of his word. And the accuracy. after Bugliosis' (sic) latest debacle, I'm gonna leave? No, my Irish friend. First of all, I'm not your friend. I don't like you, I don't respect you, you don't keep your word. Respect for the moderators keeps me from saying more. you're also dead wrong, Hogan! As you've proved yourself to be on numerous occasions....the minimum fee to sign the petition is $2US.... so please, AMAZE us! Cordially your's (sic), David G. Healy p.s. not much anyone can do to impress a tree stump Uh-huh...How's that again? Who is dead wrong? Don't you want to make sure of your facts? Apparently not. Try reading the threads before putting your foot in your mouth. Did I say that Myra? Why do you insist you know what CT's think, Bad habit, girl! What I AM saying is quite simple, your futile (and Lone Nutters) ad hom argument doesn't work, you want to fall on your alleged CT sword, by all means DO! Hogan, I suspect will hold it for you! -- Add to that, nobody likes a pushy-controlling Lady Myra, especially one who doesn't have intellectual command of the evidence..... You keep showing your true colors. Myra is more than capable than sticking up for herself, but you can take this to the bank. She already knows more about the reasons for President Kennedy's murder than you have ever shown. Intellectual command? Don't kid yourself, man. She's got you beat. And it ain't close. And guess what? Myra's still learning and the gap's getting wider every day. It's hard for you to type a sentence without using CT or LN, isn't it? Anyone that doesn't please you, you want to call them an LN'er. Knock yourself out with your childish generalizations that you clumsily try to use as slurs. I welcomed your name calling in these threads. Believe me it doesn't bother me; it just depicts your true nature, phony homilies like friend and cordially aside. And I do offer an apology to readers of this thread and especially Gil Jesus for the diversion. Sometimes though, things have to be responded to. Out of respect to moderator John Geraghty and others, I'll try to make these my last comments re David Healy. Edited June 12, 2007 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Gil and Cliff, if I'd have had more time last night, I'd have listed the errors in the video. Perhaps I should have withheld commentary till I had the time. The errors in the video I referred to had nothing to do with my contention that the back wound entrance is at T1--based on the autopsy measurements, autopsy face sheet, and autopsy photos--nor the video (and Cliff's) contention that the back wound entrance is at T3 (based on Burkley's death certificate). There you go again. Right on cue. I point to the holes in the clothes, you ignore it. Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic. Your citation of the "autopsy face sheet" is disingenuous. The "14cm below mastoid process" notation on the face sheet was made in pen. That was a violation of autopsy protocol, which requires everything to be filled out on the face sheet in pencil. The part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back wound a bit below the location of the holes in the clothes. The diagram was signed off in pencil as "verified." The meassurement from the mastoid process violated two other autopsy protocols -- it used a cranial landmark to locate a thoracic wound, and the landmark it used was movable. Pat, you choose to tout improperly taken and recorded measurements over the verified and verifiable evidence -- the death certificate, the face sheet diagram, the holes in the clothes. Even the HSCA declared the Fox 5 autopsy photo "perhaps" inadmissible in court due to its questionable authenticity. And, of course, there's the more than dozen witnesses who got a prolonged look at the back wound and placed it at T3. JFK's T3 back wound is a fact. Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in the cover-up of his death, imo. Cliff, I totally agree with you that the WC lied about the back wound location. In fact, if you take a look at part 2 of my video series you'll see that I pretty much prove it. That the doctors lied about the 14 cm however is less clear, and less logical. If they were gonna make up a measurement, then why didn't they make up a measurement that would place the back wound above the throat wound? As demonstrated in my videos the 14 cm measurement places the wound at the same level as the throat wound (if not slightly below) and far lower than the wound in the Rydberg drawings--which is probably why they denied Rydberg the use of the measurements and is probably why Humes lied in his testimony about providing Rydberg' the measurements. If all they needed to do was change the 14 to a 10 I suspect they would have done so. As far as the "they used the wrong landmark" argument... Both the Clark Panel and HSCA measured the distance from the right mastoid. The HSCA said the back wound was clearly on the back TWO INCHES lower than the wound in the Rydberg drawings, but was nevertheless but 13.5 cm below the right mastoid. This means that they concluded the 14 cm measurement was basically correct but that the Rydberg drawings were incredibly (and suspiciously) inaccurate. I've read a lot of stuff on anatomy and forensic pathology and I don't recall reading any that said using the skull to triangulate a back wound location was a bozo no no. I believe Weisberg was the first to jump on this, and while it makes sense, I'm not sure it makes a difference, as autopsy measurements are supposed to reflect the body in the anatomic position, and a 14 cm measurement from the mastoid in the anatomic position is way below the entrance on the Rydberg drawings. As far as the holes on the clothing lining up at T3...I inserted a pin in my clothing 5 3/4 inches below the collar. I then raised my right arm as if in a wave. My girlfriend then pushed the pin in till it pricked my skin. When I removed the shirt the pin mark was around T1, not C7/T1 a la Zimmerman, but T1, just below the shoulder line. Since my analysis of the Z film leads me to believe Kennedy is hit around Z-190, as he is waving, I find no discrepancy between the autopsy photos and clothing holes. I'm sorry this annoys you so. While you have repeatedly accused me of intellectual dishonesty for calling it as I see it (and have studied it), until you come up with a rational explanation why the doctors would change their measurements to reflect a wound much lower on the body than would be supportive of their contention that the bullet creating the back wound exited the throat, I will hold my ground. Since the autopsy photos, X-rays, and Z-film suggest a conspiracy, I fail to see how we are advancing the case by stomping our feet and insisting this evidence has been faked. This just gives the "Oswald didiots" of the world another excuse to not look at the accepted evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) I suspect JFK is still the biggest attraction on this site (based on posting totals, I have no idea broad lurker visits). If, say the JFK portion of this site goes to a moderated forum, most CTer's will cease posting here. I certainly will, which I'm sure will delight many.... Where I come from, a man is judged by the strength of his word. And the accuracy. after Bugliosis' (sic) latest debacle, I'm gonna leave? No, my Irish friend. First of all, I'm not your friend. I don't like you, I don't respect you, you don't keep your word. Respect for the moderators keeps me from saying more. you're also dead wrong, Hogan! As you've proved yourself to be on numerous occasions....the minimum fee to sign the petition is $2US.... so please, AMAZE us! Cordially your's (sic), David G. Healy p.s. not much anyone can do to impress a tree stump Uh-huh...How's that again? Who is dead wrong? Don't you want to make sure of your facts? Apparently not. Try reading the threads before putting your foot in your mouth. Did I say that Myra? Why do you insist you know what CT's think, Bad habit, girl! What I AM saying is quite simple, your futile (and Lone Nutters) ad hom argument doesn't work, you want to fall on your alleged CT sword, by all means DO! Hogan, I suspect will hold it for you! -- Add to that, nobody likes a pushy-controlling Lady Myra, especially one who doesn't have intellectual command of the evidence..... You keep showing your true colors. Myra is more than capable than sticking up for herself, but you can take this to the bank. She already knows more about the reasons for President Kennedy's murder than you have ever shown. Intellectual command? Don't kid yourself, man. She's got you beat. And it ain't close. And guess what? Myra's still learning and the gap's getting wider every day. It's hard for you to type a sentence without using CT or LN, isn't it? Anyone that doesn't please you, you want to call them an LN'er. Knock yourself out with your childish generalizations that you clumsily try to use as slurs. I welcomed your name calling in these threads. Believe me it doesn't bother me; it just depicts your true nature, phony homilies like friend and cordially aside. And I do offer an apology to readers of this thread and especially Gil Jesus for the diversion. Sometimes though, things have to be responded to. Out of respect to moderator John Geraghty and others, I'll try to make these my last comments re David Healy. of course...Nice dance, Hogan. What colors might those be? You're not accusing me of being a Lone Nutter are you? Apparently you'll go to much length avoiding the poll fee debate - eh? LMAO! Well I admit I'm a bit lacking when it comes to the use of CT/LNutter, especially when you take into account the new Bugliosi book. I doubt he could have completed his book were it not for the CT community. We've given him reason to LIVE, won't you agree? -- who am I calling what, Hogan -- Not a drinker 9can you say the same?), how can I slur --- or are you tactfully claiming otherwise? When you publish concerning the JFK assassination Mr. Hogan please inform us. If you'd like to see my published (book form) work I can point you in the proper direction.... Your apology is NOT accepted by me, nor a few others here. Other than that, have a nice LIFE... Cordially your's , David G. Healy Edited June 12, 2007 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload..... As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem. You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... My but you get so personal in your comments David. Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks? Myra, facts of the case? First you'll have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts.... I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan. When this board is gone, Hogasn and i are gone and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you? Actually, David, it sounds like you're saying that no one on a forum has the right to expect civil behavior from other forum members if they haven't been a member of the forum a certain length of time. Actually Myra, Did I say that Myra? Why do you insist you know what CT's think, Bad habit, girl! What I AM saying is quite simple, your futile (and Lone Nutters) ad hom argument doesn't work, you want to fall on your alleged CT sword, by all means DO! Hogan, I suspect will hold it for you! -- Add to that, nobody likes a pushy-controlling Lady Myra, especially one who doesn't have intellectual command of the evidence..... Bet in 2 more posts we'll have every forum hall monitor present.... what say you? Why David! Now you're telling me no one likes a pushy broad, revealing yourself to be a bit of a sexist, eh? This exchange is proving to be most illuminating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload..... As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem. You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. If this is an attempt to show an inconsistency, it failed. Notice that I said "as much info" as possible, not "as much obvious and blatant misinfo" as possible. People shouldn't have to wade through a swamp of indefensible nonsense just to get to the issues. My complaint about the video is not that it presented the "The real entrance is the little smudge in the autopsy photo" theory first pushed by Groden. I spent 50 bucks on Groden's book, after all, knowing it included such claims. My complaint, as stated, is that it presents a number of easily refuted measurements and descriptions as facts. Pat, There have been plenty of successful attempts, like this one, to show inconsistency in your statements. There are some whoppers in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9946 No matter how blatant your contradictions are you tend to deny them. But denial of your contradictions doesn't make them invisible to others. Myra Myra, WHAT contradictions? I happen to believe that both RFK and Garrison wanted to solve the case. I believe, as Talbot and many others, that RFK had real reasons to doubt Garrison's intentions. Or do you honestly believe Marcello was an innocent tomato salesman? My comments to Gil were sincere. I didn't mean to come across as a condescending know-it-all. The video has errors that should be fixed. If CTs don't help correct each other's mistakes than Bugliosi and his buddies will write exposes declaring that we're all fools, and have plenty of evidence in support. Don't you think we should turn the public debate around on them, so that they have to explain the moving back wound, the moving head wound, the Odio incident, etc??? As it is, whenever I try to discuss the case with anyone not fully familiar with the issues, I spend more than half the time trying to explain that even if Groden and Livingstone's autopsy photo alteration theory is wrong, even if Lifton's body alteration theory is wrong, even if Fetzer et al's Z film alteration theory is wrong, there is STILL evidence for a conspiracy. The debate has become so diluted that nobody seems to realize this anymore. Pat, Ok then, if you cant see the contradictions in the link I supplied then let's just say your positions evolve rapidly. I'll leave it at that because I appreciate the fact that you're actually trying to reach a genuine understanding in good faith, and there are other important points you're making so I'd just as soon move along to them. Regarding the public debate, that's a good question. In fact I think this, ideally, is as public as it would get. It would stay in a forum. If you look back at my post #5 that was the point. Gil is putting a ton of time and work into the creation of videos to try and reach a larger audience. Out of regard for that I think it would be good form to show some solidarity and try to just deal with individual issues on individual videos via the forum. And if there is an issue with one of his videos at some point then it just means he's a fallible human like any of us. In that scenario I would see nothing wrong with letting him know you want to cover his back and our backs and weed out bad info. So a forum post or PM seems like a good way to communicate your viewpoint. You know, ideally. Again, FWIW. Myra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now