Evan's thread locked (JFK New Versions)

[Dawn Meredith]

It seems that no matter how many times John (or Andy- or any of the mods) insist on non personal attacks on this forum, lately every thread has devolved into such.

The thread that Evan had begun had such promise until a few decided that it take a different direction. Like the attacks on the work of John Armstrong. I have not read his book but am familiar with his work and know that he spend 12 years doing primary research. That his findings, via timelines, shed far more light on the question of "who was LHO?" than prior works. Yet both Jack White and Mike Hogan were villified just for mentioned it.

Greg, we all wanted to see your work. I have not ever seen you behave this way. You are a much respected member here, could you not have simply posted that you are not in agreement with Armstrong's work ?

Why can't people discuss differing ideas/ research regarding the various complexitites of this case without resorting to personal attacks?

This is after all an EDUCATION forum. Are people here to try to solve this case, while educating others about this important mystery? Or to be schoolhouse bullies?

Dawn

[Greg Parker]

It seems that no matter how many times John (or Andy- or any of the mods) insist on non personal attacks on this forum, lately every thread has devolved into such.

The thread that Evan had begun had such promise until a few decided that it take a different direction. Like the attacks on the work of John Armstrong. I have not read his book but am familiar with his work and know that he spend 12 years doing primary research. That his findings, via timelines, shed far more light on the question of "who was LHO?" than prior works. Yet both Jack White and Mike Hogan were villified just for mentioned it.

Dawn, back the truck up a bit. Evan asked for theories as a "newbie" to this case. If Jack had wanted to enunciate the theories of Armstrong for Evan he could have done so in a separate post. Instead, he chose to use Armstrong's theory as the basis for villifying me and my work in a reply to me. In case you missed it - and you surely must have, given that you're directing your lecture at the wrong person - here it is again: "Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in accuracy." Do you think that, in any way shape or form, aided Evan's understanding of the assassination? No. And that was not it's intent.

Peter Lemkin stated he did not understand why I got angry. Well, here's a newsflash: Read my initial response to Jack… yes, I was blunt with him, but I also had a joke or two at my own expense. Jack's behavior was almost expected, given that he makes just about that identical post every time I mention Oswald. Expected behavior from people like Jack is annoying, but I can't get angry at those who can't seem to help themselves. My anger came when the finger of blame kept getting pointed at me - as you are doing here, with the people doing the pointing not having the guts to name me. You have, and I respect that.

Greg, we all wanted to see your work. I have not ever seen you behave this way. You are a much respected member here, could you not have simply posted that you are not in agreement with Armstrong's work ?

Sure I could have. And I would have been lobbed another volley by Jack for the effort.

What I had been putting together as result of Evan's request will now be put up at my website. Jack can sign up and comment on it there if he wants - completely uncensored.

Why can't people discuss differing ideas/ research regarding the various complexitites of this case without resorting to personal attacks?

Well, here you're venturing into the same territory Peter Lemkin lectured on. ("We eat our own...the enemy is out there and we can't be a bit more kind to one another?…"). He also had the gall to ask which team I'm on.

I guess my tumor analogy didn't sink in. Let me try another one. Sports teams don't win the trophy by allowing just anyone on the team. As a kid, I played in a couple of football teams who really sucked. We didn't care. We weren't playing to win the trophy - just to have a bit fun and participation. I'm all for inclusiveness and participation in society generally, and more specifically in sport, social clubs and the like. And even in JFK chat-rooms - so long as you have no end goal you're aiming for. If you do want the "trophy", you need to pick a good team, and forget ideals of inclusiveness.

This is after all an EDUCATION forum. Are people here to try to solve this case, while educating others about this important mystery? Or to be schoolhouse bullies?

That's why I was putting the bullies in their place.

And Peter... I'm on the side of wanting justice carried out, but failing that, of wanting the historical records corrected as a minimum.

Dawn

[Jack White]

I repeat. I named NO names. I did not insult anyone. I said:

"Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in accuracy."

Note that I said ANY STUDY. I did not address this remark to anyone in particular.

ANYONE who has not read Harvey and Lee is not aware of Armstrong's MASSIVE PRIMARY RESEARCH and

CANNOT be fully informed regarding "Oswald".

Take David Lifton. He worked nearly ten years on a manuscript which he thought would be the definitive

book on Oswald. Then he ordered Armstrong's book. Lifton is now reworking his book to refocus on

other subjects and events...not solely Oswald. Armstrong wrote the DEFINITIVE book on Oswald.

I will say to ANYONE about LHO...if you have not studied Armstrong's book and accompanying CD,

your opinions about Lee Harvey Oswald cannot be valid.

Why some take offense at the suggestion that they should become FULLY INFORMED is a mystery to me.

Jack

[Guest Gary Loughran]

SHAME ON EVAN BURTON FOR MODERATING HIS OWN THREAD. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IF IT IS ALLOWED I FOR ONE WILL CONSIDER LEAVING THIS SINKING SHIP.

I'd also like to ask seaman Burton if his intention was a naive quesiton about JFK, as it seemed on the surface, or a way of showing the divisions in the JFK community, and in so doing, attempting to discredit?

Hi Peter,

Your points are well taken. I'm not sure of the protocol for opening and closing threads in that manner. However, I have found Evan to be generally very fair, and don't believe it was an action of malicious intent.

[Greg Parker]

I repeat. I named NO names. I did not insult anyone. I said:

"Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in accuracy."

Note that I said ANY STUDY. I did not address this remark to anyone in particular.

Precious.

Jack, there were a number of replies to Burton before mine that you could have replied to with your "advice". Better still, you could have posted it without it being a reply to anyone. But like all bullies, you're a coward with a built-in, ready excuse. Like others who replied directing their nonsense at me, you try and claim you weren't replying to anyone in particular. It is not as if you don't know I'm not interested in what you're selling. I've made that manifestly clear every time you've tried to hijack my threads with the same tired BS you've been sprouting here.

Peter,

If you want to embrace every whacko JFK conspiracy theory out there simply because the proponents of same are against the official version, that's entirely your prerogative. I see them as part of the problem; not the solution. If you want to engage in group hugs with the entire community, again that's up to you. I have no problem with it. Hell, I may even join in. Just don't expect me to believe that's going to solve anything - least of all this case.

[William Kelly]

It seems that no matter how many times John (or Andy- or any of the mods) insist on non personal attacks on this forum, lately every thread has devolved into such.

The thread that Evan had begun had such promise until a few decided that it take a different direction. Like the attacks on the work of John Armstrong. I have not read his book but am familiar with his work and know that he spend 12 years doing primary research. That his findings, via timelines, shed far more light on the question of "who was LHO?" than prior works. Yet both Jack White and Mike Hogan were villified just for mentioned it.

Dawn, back the truck up a bit. Evan asked for theories as a "newbie" to this case. If Jack had wanted to enunciate the theories of Armstrong for Evan he could have done so in a separate post. Instead, he chose to use Armstrong's theory as the basis for villifying me and my work in a reply to me. In case you missed it - and you surely must have, given that you're directing your lecture at the wrong person - here it is again: "Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in accuracy." Do you think that, in any way shape or form, aided Evan's understanding of the assassination? No. And that was not it's intent.

Peter Lemkin stated he did not understand why I got angry. Well, here's a newsflash: Read my initial response to Jack… yes, I was blunt with him, but I also had a joke or two at my own expense. Jack's behavior was almost expected, given that he makes just about that identical post every time I mention Oswald. Expected behavior from people like Jack is annoying, but I can't get angry at those who can't seem to help themselves. My anger came when the finger of blame kept getting pointed at me - as you are doing here, with the people doing the pointing not having the guts to name me. You have, and I respect that.

Greg, we all wanted to see your work. I have not ever seen you behave this way. You are a much respected member here, could you not have simply posted that you are not in agreement with Armstrong's work ?

Sure I could have. And I would have been lobbed another volley by Jack for the effort.

What I had been putting together as result of Evan's request will now be put up at my website. Jack can sign up and comment on it there if he wants - completely uncensored.

Why can't people discuss differing ideas/ research regarding the various complexitites of this case without resorting to personal attacks?

Well, here you're venturing into the same territory Peter Lemkin lectured on. ("We eat our own...the enemy is out there and we can't be a bit more kind to one another?…"). He also had the gall to ask which team I'm on.

I guess my tumor analogy didn't sink in. Let me try another one. Sports teams don't win the trophy by allowing just anyone on the team. As a kid, I played in a couple of football teams who really sucked. We didn't care. We weren't playing to win the trophy - just to have a bit fun and participation. I'm all for inclusiveness and participation in society generally, and more specifically in sport, social clubs and the like. And even in JFK chat-rooms - so long as you have no end goal you're aiming for. If you do want the "trophy", you need to pick a good team, and forget ideals of inclusiveness.

This is after all an EDUCATION forum. Are people here to try to solve this case, while educating others about this important mystery? Or to be schoolhouse bullies?

That's why I was putting the bullies in their place.

And Peter... I'm on the side of wanting justice carried out, but failing that, of wanting the historical records corrected as a minimum.

Dawn

Closing the thread is insane. IF someone broke some rule [and I didn't see anyone doing that, though some were less than polite and needlessly uncivil [iMO]. I can't believe this....do we disuss and debate or do we all just endlessly have threads cut off?!....There has been a bit too much of that IMO. Greg, I'm not going to respond, except to say you are either seeing spots where there are none [read ememies when the are on the good-guys team, or you are on the wrong team]....I don't know...I hardly know you, but don't understand the venom. I don't agree with anyone on the Assassination 100%, but I respect most who have tried to illuminate the truth v. the lies of the official version. Choose. Put the bullies in their place......my, my, my....I will say no more...but you have fallen greatly in my view with the last posts...sorry. Look, Do I dislike Jim DiEugenio for kicking me out of CTKA and lately pointing me out in a manner as a fool..yes;...do I think DiEuggenio is working against the truth in the JFK Assassination case...no, and I've said no more against him then I think he is intollerant of varients on his themes.....some rubric perhaps you fall into also.

I don't understand the problem.

I suggest you not help the 'other side' unless that is your goal.

Peter, if we are at war with those who killed JFK, as Charles and yourself have previously said, then John Armstrong is AWOL.

Rather than the sports team comparison that Greg used, going to battle is better, and it's important to know who is on the side of truth and justice, who is ready to fight and whose in the foxhole with you.

BK

[Jack White]

I repeat. I named NO names. I did not insult anyone. I said:

"Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in accuracy."

Note that I said ANY STUDY. I did not address this remark to anyone in particular.

Precious.

Jack, there were a number of replies to Burton before mine that you could have replied to with your "advice". Better still, you could have posted it without it being a reply to anyone. But like all bullies, you're a coward with a built-in, ready excuse. Like others who replied directing their nonsense at me, you try and claim you weren't replying to anyone in particular. It is not as if you don't know I'm not interested in what you're selling. I've made that manifestly clear every time you've tried to hijack my threads with the same tired BS you've been sprouting here.

Peter,

If you want to embrace every whacko JFK conspiracy theory out there simply because the proponents of same are against the official version, that's entirely your prerogative. I see them as part of the problem; not the solution. If you want to engage in group hugs with the entire community, again that's up to you. I have no problem with it. Hell, I may even join in. Just don't expect me to believe that's going to solve anything - least of all this case.

1. I challenge the "moderators" to remove this posting, which calls me a COWARD and BULLY, in

alleged retaliation for a perceived slight which did not take place. Is that not against forum rules?

2. I challenge Mr. Parker to reveal whether he has read Armstrong's book. If he has not, how can

he judge its validity.

I will call his immoderate outbursts silly beyond belief. I suppose I will be admonished for this opinion.

Jack

[Jack White]

QUOTING BILL KELLY

Peter, if we are at war with those who killed JFK, as Charles and yourself have previously said, then John Armstrong is AWOL.

Rather than the sports team comparison that Greg used, going to battle is better, and it's important to know who is on the side of truth and justice, who is ready to fight and whose in the foxhole with you.

BK

......

Very bad analogy, Bill. Armstrong should be likened to a VETERAN WHO SERVED 12 YEARS IN

THE TRENCHES, SPENT SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, DID MERITORIOUS SERVICE

BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY, AND WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED and NOW has returned to

civilian life. How many other JFK "soldiers" have served with such distinction? You are letting

your personal dislike for him overcome your good judgment. John is really a very likeable

person, but some are turned off by the intensity of his focus and his total recall of millions of

facts. I don't know why your are turned off by him, but it surely cannot be his research. If you

disputed research he knew to be true, he may have ceased being friendly...because he goes

to great lengths to avoid arguments. What he did was follow the advice of Penn Jones...select

a subject that interests you AND RESEARCH THE HELL OUT OF IT.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

1. I challenge the "moderators" to remove this posting, which calls me a COWARD and BULLY, in

alleged retaliation for a perceived slight which did not take place. Is that not against forum rules?

2. I challenge Mr. Parker to reveal whether he has read Armstrong's book. If he has not, how can

he judge its validity.

Jack, the mods can do what they think they have to. Censoring the truth has never succeeded in changing it.

I wouldn't waste a peso on Armstrong's book on the basis of what's plastered all over the internet in his name. He lied about about the NYC school records. He lied about about the Bolton Ford incident. He was at least lazy in not checking Decker's file to see what name was actually on it instead, relying on someone (mis)reading of the name during testimony. He lied about Lilian Muret's testimony. His acceptance of Dr Kurian's 40 year old memory is ludicrous in light of the fact that it's easily demonstrable that memory is false. He used a friend of a friend who was acting as some type of assistant in his "research" (you, Jack) as a witness without declaring that relationship. And that's just off the top of my head.

Now I challenge you to own up as to why you made your response to me in Evan's thread when now you claim the "lack of accuracy" slur was not aimed at anyone in particular.

but some are turned off by the intensity of his focus and his total recall of millions of facts.

Millions????!!!! Well... there you go... warping reality... just like Armstrong.

FWIW, I thought Jack's post in Evan's thread was just another way to tell Evan that Jack is a strong believer in Armstrong's work.

Kathy, what good would that information be to Evan who likely had never heard of Armstrong?

To repeat, if Jack had merely wanted to inform Evan of a particular theory he believes in, why make that post a response to me (which included a slur) and specifically not actually include any details of the theory for Evan to consider?

Edited October 17, 2007 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

I did not see it as a slur,and I am sure if Evan had not heard of him, he would've asked.

The obtuseness must be intoxicating, Kathy.

I do not think this should serve as a personal battlefield for anyone, and if this thread continues in this path, consideration will be given to lock it.

Go ahead. Unless anyone else wants to start threads attacking me, I'm done.

[Evan Burton]

SHAME ON EVAN BURTON FOR MODERATING HIS OWN THREAD. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IF IT IS ALLOWED I FOR ONE WILL CONSIDER LEAVING THIS SINKING SHIP.

I'd also like to ask seaman Burton if his intention was a naive quesiton about JFK, as it seemed on the surface, or a way of showing the divisions in the JFK community, and in so doing, attempting to discredit?

Think what you want. Do what you want. Other moderators can reopen the thread if they like because I'm not going to bother with it. If some people are upset by a simple question, then so be it.

[Jack White]

It seems that no matter how many times John (or Andy- or any of the mods) insist on non personal attacks on this forum, lately every thread has devolved into such.

The thread that Evan had begun had such promise until a few decided that it take a different direction. Like the attacks on the work of John Armstrong. I have not read his book but am familiar with his work and know that he spend 12 years doing primary research. That his findings, via timelines, shed far more light on the question of "who was LHO?" than prior works. Yet both Jack White and Mike Hogan were villified just for mentioned it.

Dawn, back the truck up a bit. Evan asked for theories as a "newbie" to this case. If Jack had wanted to enunciate the theories of Armstrong for Evan he could have done so in a separate post. Instead, he chose to use Armstrong's theory as the basis for villifying me and my work in a reply to me. In case you missed it - and you surely must have, given that you're directing your lecture at the wrong person - here it is again: "Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in accuracy." Do you think that, in any way shape or form, aided Evan's understanding of the assassination? No. And that was not it's intent.

Peter Lemkin stated he did not understand why I got angry. Well, here's a newsflash: Read my initial response to Jack… yes, I was blunt with him, but I also had a joke or two at my own expense. Jack's behavior was almost expected, given that he makes just about that identical post every time I mention Oswald. Expected behavior from people like Jack is annoying, but I can't get angry at those who can't seem to help themselves. My anger came when the finger of blame kept getting pointed at me - as you are doing here, with the people doing the pointing not having the guts to name me. You have, and I respect that.

Greg, we all wanted to see your work. I have not ever seen you behave this way. You are a much respected member here, could you not have simply posted that you are not in agreement with Armstrong's work ?

Sure I could have. And I would have been lobbed another volley by Jack for the effort.

What I had been putting together as result of Evan's request will now be put up at my website. Jack can sign up and comment on it there if he wants - completely uncensored.

Why can't people discuss differing ideas/ research regarding the various complexitites of this case without resorting to personal attacks?

Well, here you're venturing into the same territory Peter Lemkin lectured on. ("We eat our own...the enemy is out there and we can't be a bit more kind to one another?…"). He also had the gall to ask which team I'm on.

I guess my tumor analogy didn't sink in. Let me try another one. Sports teams don't win the trophy by allowing just anyone on the team. As a kid, I played in a couple of football teams who really sucked. We didn't care. We weren't playing to win the trophy - just to have a bit fun and participation. I'm all for inclusiveness and participation in society generally, and more specifically in sport, social clubs and the like. And even in JFK chat-rooms - so long as you have no end goal you're aiming for. If you do want the "trophy", you need to pick a good team, and forget ideals of inclusiveness.

This is after all an EDUCATION forum. Are people here to try to solve this case, while educating others about this important mystery? Or to be schoolhouse bullies?

That's why I was putting the bullies in their place.

And Peter... I'm on the side of wanting justice carried out, but failing that, of wanting the historical records corrected as a minimum.

Dawn

Closing the thread is insane. IF someone broke some rule [and I didn't see anyone doing that, though some were less than polite and needlessly uncivil [iMO]. I can't believe this....do we disuss and debate or do we all just endlessly have threads cut off?!....There has been a bit too much of that IMO. Greg, I'm not going to respond, except to say you are either seeing spots where there are none [read ememies when the are on the good-guys team, or you are on the wrong team]....I don't know...I hardly know you, but don't understand the venom. I don't agree with anyone on the Assassination 100%, but I respect most who have tried to illuminate the truth v. the lies of the official version. Choose. Put the bullies in their place......my, my, my....I will say no more...but you have fallen greatly in my view with the last posts...sorry. Look, Do I dislike Jim DiEugenio for kicking me out of CTKA and lately pointing me out in a manner as a fool..yes;...do I think DiEuggenio is working against the truth in the JFK Assassination case...no, and I've said no more against him then I think he is intollerant of varients on his themes.....some rubric perhaps you fall into also.

I don't understand the problem.

I suggest you not help the 'other side' unless that is your goal.

Peter, if we are at war with those who killed JFK, as Charles and yourself have previously said, then John Armstrong is AWOL.

Rather than the sports team comparison that Greg used, going to battle is better, and it's important to know who is on the side of truth and justice, who is ready to fight and whose in the foxhole with you.

BK

Point taken, in part. I personally don't like those who did work and then stopped on the case, but it has happened with many. If one wants to say they purposely worked to crea

e more smoke 

and mirrors, fine...say so.....I was out of things for over a decade trying to keep a tent over my hear....I don't quite understand Armstrong stopping, nor Twyman and others I could name...but they have. Neither of those two, however, do I suspect as the 'other side'. IN fact, I think they both made important contributions, although I don't take either's work without disagreeing or doubting some of it. None of us had to do anything. We all could have just le

 the lies stand - 

sadly, it is a very small group of us who have tried to deal with this and related matters.

Greg, I didn't imply you were on the other side, only trying to awaken you to how this might look (or server) from someone who was...or look to someone agnostic on the case. I know first-hand the problem of researchers fighting among themselves. OK, we have different 'camps' and interests and manners of research and personality

etc. But.....how are we going to make progress if we just hurl invective at one another. On rare occassion I might be needed, privately; on even rarer occssiona, publicly. To make it sport is counterproductive, IMO.

I don't see the same phenomenon in the enemy camp. I noticed the same thing in the anti-War; civil rights and other battles.Part was due to provacateurs, but sadly, the progressives like to infight, as they are so independant-minded, and other psychological / sociological effects at play.

Peter...you need to understand that John is not like you and me, obsessed with

everything about the JFK case. But he did become obsessed with Oswald.

John is not even an ordinary run-of-the-mill millionaire. He has a compulsion to

understand anything he does not know about anything that catches his interest.

Being wealthy and somewhat reclusive, he does lots of reading, and had read

a few books on the assassination, and saw that the case was filled with unanswered

questions. He started flying to DFW once a month to attend Jim Marrs JFK classes.

He saw my videotape THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD and realized

that HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT OSWALD, and that no real investigation had

been done on LHO. He decided to take it on himself to FIND OUT EVERYTHING

ABOUT OSWALD. It took him 12 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

He found out everything that there was to be found about LHO, and put it

all together. He wrote a book which at first was about two thousand pages.

He cut it in half to make it practical to publish. He spent a year in China

preparing it for publication. He typeset every word of the book himself. He

memorized every fact about Oswald. It was a gargantuan task. He published

the book...and was exhausted by the effort. He felt he had finished his

mission, learned what he had set out to do, and others could take up where

he left off. He went back to work at things that had made him wealthy...

oil, construction, and investments. He is NOT a JFK researcher. He wanted

to know who Oswald was. He found out. Now he has returned to civilian life.

If there is ever a major investigation of Oswald, he will reenlist, since nobody

has his grasp of all the documents. Till then, he is retired.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

I would still like to read the second installment of your presentation Greg, if you're up for it.

[Charles Drago]

Peter, if we are at war with those who killed JFK, as Charles and yourself have previously said, then John Armstrong is AWOL.

BK

Hi Bill,

I'll take advantage of your reference to my previous posts to offer brief observations about John Armstrong.

First things first: I am not qualified to offer informed, detailed commentary on the merits of his book. Anyone who would do so must demonstrate a familiarity with the material and a record of fact-checking that are, in terms of both depth and breadth of study, commensurate with the work under scrutiny.

The presence of certain demonstrable errors within that immense opus -- as pointed out by Greg and others -- clearly should grab our attention. But they certainly do not by extension disqualify the rest of Armstrong's output.

Armstrong made two surprise visits to Providence during the course of his research. He showed up on the last day of the conference I co-sponsored with Doktor Rahn. And sometime later, out of the blue, he called to ask me to lunch.

Millionaire Armstrong allowed thousandaire Drago to pick up the tab.

But I digress.

If we have learned nothing else from our exposure to and work in the deep political milieu, I trust we have developed instincts that would lead us to examine with keen and critical eye anyone who would present as Armstrong does: a man of seemingly limitless resources who spares no expense to delve into the Stygian depths of the JFK case.

(A similar case in point is that of Noel Twyman, for whom I harbor immense respect. Wouldn't an Armstrong/Twyman extended comparison make for interesting reading?)

This is not to cast undue suspicion on John Armstrong, his motives, and his ultimate product. As it happens, I respect and like the man, and whether Harvey and Lee ultimately is valued for its literal merits or as a negative template, its importance to the evolution of the investigation of the conspiratorial murder of JFK must not be underestimated.

I can understand Jack's loyalty to his friend. And I'm sure that Jack respects those of us who would honestly and fairly reserve judgement on Armstrong based upon our hard-won understandings of how the secret world operates.

Charles

Edited October 18, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Greg Parker]

I would still like to read the second installment of your presentation Greg, if you're up for it.

Myra,

it will be posted here as time permits:

http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index....0&Itemid=50

Am rewriting the first part for clarity. I also want to add a "who's who" as a lot of names that crop up aren't all that well known.

Unfortunately I have come to conclude that I can't do it here. Same thing happened at JFKResearch, which is why I quit posting there altogether a few years back.