What do people think of uniting to attain specific goals?

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra.....I'm in for the cost of the ad.....I'm a rookie here...... it just seems nothing is being developed( action taken)...and it has been so long ago.....very bright individuals on board......so why nothing?

Well I think there has been some action taken Tom, and now we're discussing further action.

Much of the past and current action has taken the form of authoring books, developing websites, putting videos on youtube, etc.

JFKLancer, sponsors a conference every year I believe on the anniversary of the assassination. I haven't been to it so I'm not sure of all the details though Larry Hancock did post details of this years event in the research forums, including this one. So there is most definitely action.

I want to build on this with action intended to reach as many non-researchers as possible.

Regarding an ad, there is much to discuss here. We may have to start out modestly and work up to getting an ad in a high profile newspaper or magazine because some are seriously expensive. I mean seriously expensive (thousands or tens of thousands). So it's a possibility to be discussed among other possibilities--short and long term.

Also, I think many long-term researchers are understandably pessimistic about the prospects of informing people who don't want to be informed.

I can't speak for other cultures, but I've talked with enough Americans about this subject to see that many of them recoil from upsetting facts, actually making a conscious decision not to let disturbing reality into their heads because it'll shake their faux world and besides they rationalize:

"I can't do anything about it anyway."

Add to that the fact that the media and government do not want upsetting facts to be known, and there is some pretty powerful disincentive for/against those with the kind of agenda we're discussing. I don't want to blow smoke here; anyone even considering taking action of the kind we're discussing has to be absolutely determined, and would be well-advised to have an attitude that just taking the action, i.e., trying, may have to be its own reward.

Results would be great too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ruling them out. I'm just not counting on them.

Hope I'm making sense to you.

[Michael Hogan]

Let me ask you this ... Did you ever hear President Kennedy use words like $#it, @$$hole, or the 'F' word in any of his public speeches and if not - just why do you think that was???

Bill Miller could have easily made his point in a way that would show more respect for students and young people.

The fact that he chose not to leads me to believe it's not about young readers. It's not about Forum behavior.

It's about Bill Miller.

I'm glad Charles' word was deleted.

I find Bill Miller's gratuitous use of typewriter characters equally inappropriate, unnecessary and offensive in this Forum.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Charles Drago]

Bill,

My point is your savage attacks on Charles are out of line, imo. He is a respected member here, not an 'immoral joker with no regard for the rights of others'. That's an absurd claim.

Mark,

Thanks for your kind words.

The "attacks" you reference may be savage. So too their author. But I am put in mind of Matthew 11:8 -- “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A man dressed in soft clothing?"

No harm done.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to shout **** in a crowded Sunday School class.

Yours in filth,

Charles

[Bill Miller]

The "attacks" you reference may be savage. So too their author. But I am put in mind of Matthew 11:8 -- “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A man dressed in soft clothing?"

There was no attack by me on anyone ... the message is what probably makes people feel attacked as it should. Posting the word wasn't the worse part - trying to defend doing it was.

Not long ago I was in a diner with a woman friend and her nine year old daughter and there was a couple of girls and a young 18 year old guy sitting at a table and the guy was saying the "F" word in every other sentence. I looked over at him the first two times I heard it and the third time I got up and went over to his table - leaned over towards him - and told him that I didn't want that little nine year old girl to hear that word again while we ate our diner. (And we didn't hear it again either!) So unlike what Hogan believes to be my purpose for voicing my opinion ... it remains the same both here and off th forum. From where I come from - people have a right to free speech, but not the right to force what they say on someone else. That's why sites have warning labels so people will know what to expect ... it protects the rights of others that may wish to be informed as what to expect. Put a "You must be 18 or older" warning on the forum to enter and I say - say anything vulgar you like.

Bill Miller

Edited October 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Michael Hogan]

So unlike what Hogan believes to be my purpose for voicing my opinion ... it remains the same both here and off the forum.

Where was your sense of outrage here?

Surely an apology for that one, even a "XXXX - sorry about that"?

What you put in the post of yours I referenced was graphic and vulgar and similarly unfit for young minds.

A few typewriter characters didn't change that fact.

Moreover, they were not necessary for you to make your point.

Edited: Language. Antti Hynonen

Edited October 8, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

So unlike what Hogan believes to be my purpose for voicing my opinion ... it remains the same both here and off the forum.

Where was your sense of outrage here?

Surely an apology for that one, even a "s##t - sorry about that"?

What you put in the post of yours I referenced was graphic and vulgar and similarly unfit for young minds.

A few typewriter characters didn't change that fact.

Well Mike, if you haven't gotten it by now, then I assume that you never will. As has already been said before - there is a reason why comic strip writers use symbols in place of letters when their character starts raising hell. Maybe some of you won't be happy until the people who actually own this forum will pull the plug on it.

Bill

[Michael Hogan]

Well Mike, if you haven't gotten it by now, then I assume that you never will. As has already been said before - there is a reason why comic strip writers use symbols in place of letters when their character starts raising hell. Maybe some of you won't be happy until the people who actually own this forum will pull the plug on it.

No Bill, it is you that doesn't get it. The way you used those characters would not appear in any comic strip and you know it.

Comic strips in a family publication leave the words to the imagination - your post didn't.

Add to it the fact that it was totally unnecessary for you to do what you did in order to make your point.

And if you are so concerned about young people as you claim, even more reason for you to not do what you did.

And why no comments from you about Evan's post?

John Simkin says that the photographic threads cause the most problems here. Funny that you are a denominator in all of those threads and you're trying to use him for reasons that aren't even relevant to our discussion.

[Bill Miller]

Comic strips in a family publication leave the words to the imagination - your post didn't.

Well Mike ... probably none of it should be used. Personally - you and Jack can write the word "S##t" until you get writers cramp and it would not bother me to read it. I used the characters so to represent the words I chose without actually spelling them out so to stay within the forum rules. Spelling out the "F" word - thats another matter IMO that went way too far. Like I said in another post - some people don't know where to stop. Today the "F" word - tomorrow maybe posting porn on a site where minors come will be considered the norm because there are idiots elsewhere in the world that feel its OK, so why not everyone do it here. (sigh~)

Bill

Edited October 8, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Michael Hogan]

Well Mike ... probably none of it should be used.

It only took three posts by me to get you to acknowledge that.

Personally - you and Jack can write the word "S##t" until you get writers cramp and it would not bother me to read it.

Then it would appear you're not as concerned about young readers as you said.

I used the characters so to represent the words I chose without actually spelling them out so to stay within the forum rules.

Again, it would appear you're more interested in going to the edge of the rules as you put it the other day, than the young people that might be reading.

Spelling out the "F" word - thats another matter.

Then why did you include the other two words that you did in the sentence about President Kennedy? You were making it seem as if all three words were "the same matter." In fact, in the post below you make no such distinction.

....there comes a time when one becomes aware that he is not dealing with rational moral individuals if he has to keep trying to find ways to explain why it is wrong for someone to use foul language on a public forum that has minors using it for educational purposes. Like I said before, none of you would attempt to say that garbage in a church in front of your parish, nor would you try and defend such idiocy in a court of law because you would know better. Why you think its defensible here is beyond my comprehension.

[Evan Burton]

If I may interject: John has mentioned that younger people do read this section of the Forum. regardless of how we may think they talk, what they know, etc... John's house, John's rules.

I should not have put that word in my own post, and apologise for using it. Antti, thanks for editing it out. Michael, thanks for picking up on that. Consider me admonished.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Evan Burton