The truth about T. Folsom

[Jack White]

Hmmmmm. Finally "T. FOLSOM"...whoever it is...writes something that

makes halfway sense (although likely as untrue as the rest of "his" crap),

and his lengthy posting is locked and made unavailable for discussion.

Hmmmmmmmm. (not that I desired to discuss it; I wanted to see what

responses it generated)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Jack White

Folsom Nemesis

[Charles Drago]

I rise in defense of the original "The Truth About T. Folsom" thread.

As satire it is nothing more than a tedious one-trick pony. In the hands of a reasonably gifted writer, this failed lampooning of conspiracy realists' positions might have been carried out more concisely and/or cleverly. But the ham-handed nature of the post aside, there is much to learn from it about the hidden agenda of Mr./Ms. Folsom's masters.

In terms of style, the post seems to have been written by a more accomplished correspondent than the originator of earlier, Folsom-signed screeds. If, however, we're talking about one person, then the qualitative disparity may be accounted for by the taxing of his/her minimal literary skills (writing in one voice seems overwhelmingly challenging to this character; two voices simply sets the bar too high).

Further, the substance of Mr./Ms. Folsom's attacks tell us much about the paucity of ideas and the greater tactical ambitions of his/her masters.

There's no "there" there. And he/she is not fooling us. So why bother?

Because in the eyes of history, serious responses to LN provocations (which by definition are devoid of fact and insight and made by accessories after the fact to murder) will elevate the lies to co-equal status with the conspiratorial truth. Mr./Ms. Folsom accomplishes his/her mission simply by provoking return fire of a collegial nature; under such circumstances, the "debate" continues into the forseeable future -- and that's all they really want.

To paraphrase Robert De Niro as Al Capone in "The Untouchables" -- "What have they got? The Bug? The Pose-ur? The WC?

They got nothing! Nothing!"

But when we engage them with anything but contempt, we turn "nothing" into "something."

So ... The antidote to Mr./Ms. Folsom is not elimination of their discharges, but rather exposure.

But when we strip away the towel, let's make certain that the revealed microphallus is mercilessly mocked.

Charles Drago

[Paul Rigby]

But when we strip away the towel, let's make certain that the revealed microphallus is mercilessly mocked.

Charles,

All these aspersions about the precise nature of F's membership - I'm shocked and disappointed. Is there a Freudian analyst in the house?

Paul

[Charles Drago]

But when we strip away the towel, let's make certain that the revealed microphallus is mercilessly mocked.

Charles,

All these aspersions about the precise nature of F's membership - I'm shocked and disappointed. Is there a Freudian analyst in the house?

Paul

Paul,

Just tryin' to hit him/her where he/she lives: right in the family jewels.

Charles

Edited June 30, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Ken Rheberg]

I rise in defense of the original "The Truth About T. Folsom" thread.

As satire it is nothing more than a tedious one-trick pony. In the hands of a reasonably gifted writer, this failed lampooning of conspiracy realists' positions might have been carried out more concisely and/or cleverly. But the ham-handed nature of the post aside, there is much to learn from it about the hidden agenda of Mr./Ms. Folsom's masters.

In terms of style, the post seems to have been written by a more accomplished correspondent than the originator of earlier, Folsom-signed screeds. If, however, we're talking about one person, then the qualitative disparity may be accounted for by the taxing of his/her minimal literary skills (writing in one voice seems overwhelmingly challenging to this character; two voices simply sets the bar too high).

Further, the substance of Mr./Ms. Folsom's attacks tell us much about the paucity of ideas and the greater tactical ambitions of his/her masters.

There's no "there" there. And he/she is not fooling us. So why bother?

Because in the eyes of history, serious responses to LN provocations (which by definition are devoid of fact and insight and made by accessories after the fact to murder) will elevate the lies to co-equal status with the conspiratorial truth. Mr./Ms. Folsom accomplishes his/her mission simply by provoking return fire of a collegial nature; under such circumstances, the "debate" continues into the forseeable future -- and that's all they really want.

To paraphrase Robert De Niro as Al Capone in "The Untouchables" -- "What have they got? The Bug? The Pose-ur? The WC?

They got nothing! Nothing!"

But when we engage them with anything but contempt, we turn "nothing" into "something."

So ... The antidote to Mr./Ms. Folsom is not elimination of their discharges, but rather exposure.

But when we strip away the towel, let's make certain that the revealed microphallus is mercilessly mocked.

Charles Drago

Charles,

You appear to be asking us to respond in kind and become little "T. Folsoms." To engage with contempt. To mercilessly mock. Those are your words. That's what he does.

Peter Lemkin misunderstood what you meant when he later said, "other than that the entire group creature [i'm inclined to agree with Charles] should best be ignored..." If he agreed with what you were really saying, then he'd be out there engaging in contempt and mercilessly mocking rather than ignoring.

You're only encouraging the kind of disrespectful dialogue that the forum moderators are trying to stop at this very time.

Ken

[Charles Drago]

Ken,

Sincere thanks for reading and being inspired to comment upon my earlier post.

Alas, you chose to take what some wags would term a CinemaScope view of it -- one in which width is more important than depth.

I don't have the time or temperament right now to go into detail, so what follows will have to suffice:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK murder case who does not conclude that the act was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is the truth. Countless lives -- today and in the future -- depend upon the defense and dissemination of that truth

In my Constitutionally protected opinion, "Folsom" (the quotes are justified, I'd submit) and his/her ilk are conscious enemies of the truth. If we protectors and seekers and proselytisers of the truth allow them to be perceived as bringing to the table a point of view that somehow is respectable ... we lose.

You're right about this much: I am in fact "encouraging the kind of disrespectful dialogue that the forum moderators are trying to stop at this very time." But be precise and note that my targets are the enemy.

Sometimes we're engaged in polite debate and civil discourse.

Other times we're in battle.

"Folsom" is the enemy. He/she deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt, and will receive nothing but ridicule and contempt from me.

Hope this helps.

And by the way, let's allow Mr. Lemkin to speak for himself, shall we.

Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

P. S.

To anticipate the question:

Just who do I recognize as the enemy?

The bastards trying to kill us.

Charles

[Duke Lane]

One of the great things about this forum is that it is not alt.jfk.conspiracy or whatever the hell it's called where they have nothing better to do than invest in ad hominem attacks that detract from the conversation at hand.

Need I say more?