On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Ken Rheberg]

Hi, Miles. That was quick. After I advised that I’d seen the moderator’s message to Bill and that it was real and not made up, it didn't take you long to jump back on board with this silly, ego-driven response:

“No, Ken. You're the one with zero credibility. It is not real. Miller made it up.”

And then you talked about Pepe le Moko.

Now, about that question I previously asked you which you have yet to respond to. It's not about ego. Or Pepe le Moko. It's all about your agenda and how it's being played out on this thread. One more time. Here we go with a little more clarification:

It seems that you have obtained, at least, the complete Lee Bowers segment of the unedited "Rush to Judgment" transcript. Am I correct on this, Miles? And, if so, did you obtain it from Dale Myers?

Thanks.

Ken

Edited November 9, 2007 by Ken Rheberg

[Miles Scull]

It seems that you have obtained, at least, the complete Lee Bowers segment of the unedited "Rush to Judgment" transcript. Am I correct on this, Miles? And, if so, did you obtain it from Dale Myers?

Thanks.

Ken

Why do you want to know this?

BTW, what about that bogus moderator Miller made up?

Why hide this alleged moderator's name?

Who is it?

Got any idea?

[Bill Miller]

Why do you want to know this?

BTW, what about that bogus moderator Miller made up?

Why hide this alleged moderator's name?

Who is it?

Got any idea?

Looks like I better get that article out on what is a "FORUM xxxxx" and how to spot their modus-operandi so to remind Miles that he has become the poster-boy for that article. Until then - just like the moderator/forum member said, "Like I have said before, I am quite sure, Miles' goal here is not to engage in true JFK assassination debate". If Miles had what you requested, Ken and it could prove is position to be true - you wouldn't have to ask for the pages to be posted ... especially over and over.

And so you know, Miles ... I copied and pasted all the information that came with that message. That information had the author, time, date, and etc. who sent me the message. I save all the important messages. So there was no made-up moderator, nor a made-up forum member. Like I said before, you are the author of your own record as to whether or not your peers would see you as a serious researcher or some xxxxx that has no real interest in the forum and its purpose to share information and to teach students on the JFK assassination.

Bill Miller

'What is an Internet xxxxx?

An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.'

Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Why do you want to know this?

BTW, what about that bogus moderator Miller made up?

Why hide this alleged moderator's name?

Who is it?

Got any idea?

Looks like I better get that article out on what is a "FORUM xxxxx" and how to spot their modus-operandi so to remind Miles that he has become the poster-boy for that article. Until then - just like the moderator/forum member said, "Like I have said before, I am quite sure, Miles' goal here is not to engage in true JFK assassination debate". If Miles had what you requested, Ken and it could prove is position to be true - you wouldn't have to ask for the pages to be posted ... especially over and over.

Bill Miller

'What is an Internet xxxxx?

An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.'

Since you made up a bogus forum moderator, aren't you the xxxxx?

I'm not.

[Miles Scull]

Folks, Can we get back to the debate???

There are alot of factors being added here that are extraneous and IMO, unnecessary to the argument. I fully understand both sides get frustrated,but if your argument is valid, it will ultimately stand on its own merit.

Since the RTJ transcript is called in as a reference,ideally, both sides should be entitled to use it

It would be essential for both sides of the Bowers argument to have access to this transcript in order to carry on a meaningful discussion that would no doubt answer many questions.

Miles then responded that Dale Myers made a copy of a transcript in Gary Mack's possession.

Miles,

I am asking you this with respect. Is it that you cannot tell them where you got it??If you can't, just say so, and maybe we can bypass this. Recall, however,

'You must not post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board.

Members who fail to abide by these simple guidelines will have their membership rescinded and their posts deleted."

Kathy

Kathy,

Nice to hear from you!

I agree that two sides should have equal access to the evidence.

Property rights preclude unauthorised publication.

However, "fair usage" means that small excerpts may be quoted.

Ken asks if I got my transcript from Myers. The answer is no.

My source for the transcript chooses to remain private.

If Ken or Miller call themselves "researchers," then let them research, instead of posting unsourced, uncited, unreferenced bogus slurs against other forum members when they are losing a debate.

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

[Bill Miller]

Since you made up a bogus forum moderator, aren't you the xxxxx?

I'm not.

You are right ... if I made up the quote, then I'd feel like I was a forum xxxxx. However, I was smart enough to save the message and still have it in my in-box, thus I can back up what I say and have selected people who I knew would have the class to not try and make a big deal out of as you would like to do. Maybe if you claim that you'll leave the forum for good if the person who sent me the message will come forward - I'd say that would be a tempting offer that they might want to take you up on, but it will be them to do it. Until then, you'll have to take the word of those who have seen it.

Bill Miller

Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Kathy,

Nice to hear from you!

I agree that two sides should have equal access to the evidence.

Property rights preclude unauthorised publication.

However, "fair usage" means that small excerpts may be quoted.

Ken asks if I got my transcript from Myers. The answer is no.

My source for the transcript chooses to remain private.

There were only three people known to have had that transcript in full - Lane - De Antonio - and Gary Mack. Then a copy made its way to Dale Myers. If other copies have found their way to Miles, then it most likely came by way directly or indirectly from Myers. Miles certainly started promoting Myers site to reference that report. Miles didn't seem interested in ever contacting Mark Lane ... De Antonio is dead ... and Mack has never allowed anyone access to his document other than Myers.

To cite from the transcript is not in violation of the copyright laws, but to post scans of the transcripts are in violation of the copyright laws. Case in point - The book "Six Seconds in Dallas". The Zapruder film was copyrighted and Josiah Thompson couldn't get permission to use the Zfilm images, so he had an artist meticulously draw the ones that he wanted to reference. The pages Miles posted do not look drawn to me, but actual scans.

If Ken or Miller call themselves "researchers," then let them research, instead of posting unsourced, uncited, unreferenced bogus slurs against other forum members when they are losing a debate.

You were given the source for the comments made about your behavior on this forum. It was even quoted so your comment on it being uncited is garbage. It was also referenced as a message to me. THREE STRIKES - YOU"RE OUT!!! As far as giving up the name ... isn't that what you are also doing and over copyright violations BTW.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.]Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it.

So what's the problem? All the message said was that it appears from your responses that you don't seem interested in the JFK debate ... there was no mention as to what kind of a deep rooted mental problem there could be to justify the your behavior for all those silly say-nothing responses, thus no forum rule was broken.

Bill Miller

Edited November 9, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Kathy,

Nice to hear from you!

I agree that two sides should have equal access to the evidence.

Property rights preclude unauthorised publication.

However, "fair usage" means that small excerpts may be quoted.

Ken asks if I got my transcript from Myers. The answer is no.

My source for the transcript chooses to remain private.

There were only three people know to have had that transcript in full - Lane - De Antonio - and Gary Mack. Then a copy made its way to Dale Myers. If other copies have found their way to Miles, then it most likely came from Myers. To cite from the transcript is not in violation of the copyright laws, but to post scans of the transcripts are in violation of the copyright laws. Case in point - The book "Six Seconds in Dallas". The Zapruder film was copyrighted and Josiah Thompson couldn't get permission to use the Zfilm images, so he had an artist meticulously draw the ones that he wanted to reference. The pages Miles posted do not look drawn to me, but actual scans.

If Ken or Miller call themselves "researchers," then let them research, instead of posting unsourced, uncited, unreferenced bogus slurs against other forum members when they are losing a debate.

You wee given the source for the comments made about your behavior on this forum. It was even quoted so your comment on it being uncited is garbage. It was also referenced as a message to me. THREE STRIKES - YOU"RE OUT!!! As far as giving up the name ... isn't that what you are also doing and over copyright violations BTW.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.]Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it.

So what's the problem? All the message said was that it appears from your responses that you don't seem interested in the JFK debate ... there was no mention as to what kind of a deep rooted mental problem there could be to justify the your behavior for all those silly say-nothing responses, thus no forum rule was broken.

Bill Miller

You did what?

QUOTE(Jack White @ Jul 1 2007, 03:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Miller is accorded a privileged status on this forum. He was among those

tossed off the DellaRosa forum for personal attacks.

"Miller" is not whom he claims to be. For a while, it appears that he posted

here under the pseudnym LARRY PETERS. When this was pointed out to

the forum, Peters disappeared and was replaced by Miller without missing

a beat.

Jack

If you did this, then you made up the e-mail from a bogus forum moderator & sent it to yourself.

That is why you do not name the alleged moderator. He would deny it!

[Bill Miller]

Miller is accorded a privileged status on this forum. He was among those

tossed off the DellaRosa forum for personal attacks.

"Miller" is not whom he claims to be. For a while, it appears that he posted

here under the pseudnym LARRY PETERS. When this was pointed out to

the forum, Peters disappeared and was replaced by Miller without missing

a beat.

Jack

If you did this, then you made up the e-mail from a bogus forum moderator & sent it to yourself.

That is why you do not name the alleged moderator. He would deny it!

Miles, you are not going to get anywhere with your trolling. First of all, we have been through the Jack thread before. In fact - I think if you trolled far enough through that thread - you should have seen a photo of me and Larry Peters shaking hands with a comment from Jack wanting to know why he and I would be shaking hands as if we had just contracted something sinister. So if you are going to xxxxx using tabloid type post like the one above, then expect to sink lower in the opinion polls as a responsible researcher.

And if you ever have gotten an email or even a PM through the forum, then you should be aware that their name and other information is also attached with their message in a way that shows that it is in fact a message sent from them. I was smart enough to show the entire page to those I have shared it with. So as usual - you are only enforcing the things being said about your interest here which makes you your worse enemy IMO. I am attaching a message that Duncan had sent me once as an example. It was such a message that I don't believe that Duncan will care that I posted it. It is attached at the bottom of this message. Ken was witness to the same amount of information so to be able to validate what I had posted. Now your trolling has just brought more negative attention down on you (see below).

Now this is the Bowers thread and the posted quote was used to show your behavior in this thread where you were not addressing the facts before you. Instead of taking heed to the quote and getting back on track - you are attempting to derail the thread just as you always do. It's not going to work and the more you carry on - the more you enforce the things being thought about your behavior here. You've had a thread created for you because of this very behavior until it was decided to remove it and just put you on permanent moderation. Have you not wasted enough forum space and manpower having to babysit you ... I would certainly think so. Now unless you have a JFK/Bowers post to make ... you are merely trolling.

I believe this statement was made with you and us in mind, "The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a xxxxx's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the xxxxx."

Bill Miller

An example of a PM message.

Welcome to your messenger

Re:Your remarks to Miles

Personal Message

Duncan MacRae

Rating: 0

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Add to PM block list

Forward PM

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

Re:Your remarks to Miles, Aug 28 2007, 07:24 PM

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 709

Member No.: 2442

Joined: 6-February 05

QUOTE

Duncan,

I just wanted to say that I thought you and Bernice's remarks to Miles about his disrupting the threads with his stupid #### was a stand-up thing to do. Where some of us believe that you may be in error on many things - you do come across as really wanting to learn more so to be accurate. Miles comes across as someone who applauds every silly claim - not because he studied it and agreed with what was said, but rather to make CT's look like dumb-######. The correct` term may be "counter intelligence". When you got after him like you did - it put you in a totally different league in our opinions. So if we are to tell you when we think you screwed up - we also feel that we should tell you when you have done something right.

All my best,

Bill

Thanks Bill, I appreciate your PM, and the fact that you sent it shows me that you are not all about you you you. I'm sure we'll get to all or most of the truths eventually, including Arnold in Moorman, and like I have said before, i'll openly admit my mistakes when I believe they are shown to be incorrect. I have admitted them openly in the past, Tripodman, Pergolaroofman, which I think shows at least that I don't stick by something just for the sake of it. I know the odd insult is thrown in to the mix every now and then, but coming from my end it's mostly tongue in cheek humour and not to be taken seriously,but I think you know that anyway as we've "battled" for years, probably will for a few more, and have a fair measure of each others personality and tolerance levels.

All the best to you too

Duncan

Edited November 10, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

Bill Miller'wrote:

[...]

Miles, you are not going to get anywhere with your trolling. First of all, we have been through the Jack thread before. In fact - I think if you trolled far enough through that

[...]

hell, if you stop now you won't make 20,000 looks, eh! Gotta be a record.... you don't want Miles or anyone else for that matter stop posting to this thread!

Edited November 10, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

hell, if you stop now you won't make 20,000 looks, eh! Gotta be a record.... you don't want Miles or anyone else for that matter stop posting to this thread!

Thanks, David ... the 5 or 6 say nothing about JFK material related responses that you have blessed this thread with has been a contributing factor in us reaching that goal.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

hell, if you stop now you won't make 20,000 looks, eh! Gotta be a record.... you don't want Miles or anyone else for that matter stop posting to this thread!

Thanks, David ... the 5 or 6 say nothing about JFK material related responses that you have blessed this thread with has been a contributing factor in us reaching that goal.

Bill Miller

specifically interested in the Zapruder film, Bill. Oh, and watching you dance, of course

[Ken Rheberg]

Miles said:

"Ken asks if I got my transcript from Myers. The answer is no.

My source for the transcript chooses to remain private."

Thanks, Miles, for clearing that up.

Now I'm asking you to send me a copy of it. Or to send a copy to Debra Conway at Lancer.

You'll recall, I assisted Debra in getting a copy of Ed Hoffman's book "Eyewitness" emailed to you so you could argue your position with everything at your disposal in the Hoffman thread, a position which was not the same as ours.

It's time to return the favor.

Ken

[Bill Miller]

specifically interested in the Zapruder film, Bill. Oh, and watching you dance, of course

Yes David ... there was lots to dance about when all you did was end up saying 'I think the Zapruder film is altered' and 'I see no proof of alteration'. I think the name of that dance was 'The double-talk waltz'.

[Mike Rago]

I would like to add a link to the following thread. In this thread I state my belief that the two men Lee Bowers saw were in front of the fence. I also point out two unidentifed men on the knoll.

http://educationforu...98

The two unidentified men on the knoll

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19298entry256844

Edited November 27, 2012 by Mike Rago