Jump to content
The Education Forum

Final Thoughts on the Mack Business, and a Fond Au Revoir


Charles Drago
 Share

Recommended Posts

If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.

And so Housman is brought to mind ...

What can I do, what can I write

Against the fall of night?

I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.

The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.

To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.

To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.

As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.

Watch your newspapers.

Charles R. Drago

February 25, 2008

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.

And so Housman is brought to mind ...

What can I do, what can I write

Against the fall of night?

I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.

The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.

To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.

To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.

As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.

Watch your newspapers.

Charles R. Drago

February 25, 2008

Charles: I know how you feel. If I can be of ANY help in your quest in the future, just let me know. I have a few promises to keep and I too will wrap it up as to working through Forums. They have become to contaminated and total objectivity has been lost to those who in my opinion have mental problums in one forum or another. Perhaps, I too, have mental problums or I would not be here. I have recently reviewed many threads posted over the years and I see nothing which has been accomplished in the directions this Forum was created for. I see a total lack of focus, both pro and con on the Kennedy matter. I see egos more than facts as to this case. As they said in OPS "CIP" "Keep in Touch". Your friend Tosh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.

And so Housman is brought to mind ...

What can I do, what can I write

Against the fall of night?

I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.

The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.

To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.

To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.

As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.

Watch your newspapers.

Charles R. Drago

February 25, 2008

Dear Charles, please don't leave the Forum. I look forward to reading your posts and I think you're invaluable in helping us piece together the Kennedy Assassination. You're so sharp and witty. You can't change the Gary Macks of the world. I think it would be a painful blow to researchers if you took your wisdom and left here. We need your input and we value your opinions and your humor. OK, I'm selfish -- you're a big draw for this forum and I would miss you. :(

Kathy Collins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.

And so Housman is brought to mind ...

What can I do, what can I write

Against the fall of night?

I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.

The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.

To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.

To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.

As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.

Watch your newspapers.

Charles R. Drago

February 25, 2008

I echo the other posters, but I also understand. The posts coming to the defense of the one RESEARCHER who has been invited on television to state the party lie has been indeed disheartening.

This forum seems to be taken over by the defenders of the WC, not those who KNOW it was a conspiracy.

Gary Mack may very well be the nicest person on earth but he had a tv camera on him last Monday and an opportunity. What he did instead was disgraceful.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.

And so Housman is brought to mind ...

What can I do, what can I write

Against the fall of night?

I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.

The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.

To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.

To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.

As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.

Watch your newspapers.

Charles R. Drago

February 25, 2008

Charles, when you say "watch your newspapers" I sincerely hope you mean that you're working on a positive development, and not contemplating a desperate act. While I agree with many of your views, I can not agree with your presumption that we can understand other men's souls, and judge their cognitive powers without error. There are many people who BELIEVE Oswald acted alone, with as much intensity and self-righteousness as we BELIEVE he did not. While history has shown that there is little chance we'll ever be able to convince them, it also has shown that if we take the argument to the public--much as Mark Lane once did--that we'll win over the next generation.

I've found that one can reach newbies via Youtube and the IMDB forum for the film JFK. If we reach people before they get indoctrinated in the "Oswald did it" cult, there's a chance new members of the media will see things our way, and quit toeing the company line. If you want to make an impact you might want to take your efforts there. But--warning--no one anywhere is particularly swayed by "I'm right and if you disagree with me you're cognitively impaired" type arguments. It just doesn't play in Peoria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum seems to be taken over by the defenders of the WC, not those who

KNOW it was a conspiracy.

No sweat, Dawn

I eat 'em for lunch. They don't grind me down, I grind them down.

Cue Patton

I love it. God help me I do love it so.

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.

And so Housman is brought to mind ...

What can I do, what can I write

Against the fall of night?

I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.

The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.

To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.

To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.

As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.

Watch your newspapers.

Charles R. Drago

February 25, 2008

Charles, when you say "watch your newspapers" I sincerely hope you mean that you're working on a positive development, and not contemplating a desperate act.

Pat, What desperate act could anyone be contemplating after saying "watch your newspapers"? Do you think Charles is considering murder or suicide by paper cuts?

While I agree with many of your views, I can not agree with your presumption that we can understand other men's souls, and judge their cognitive powers without error. There are many people who BELIEVE Oswald acted alone, with as much intensity and self-righteousness as we BELIEVE he did not.

You miss the point. "Belief" in this case no more than blind faith on both sides of the divide. That belief should turn to knowledge once the evidence is studied. If, after reading the evidence, such knowledge eludes you, it could only be because of cognitive impairment. If such knowledge does not elude you, but you still claim to believe their was no conspiracy, you are complicit in the ongoing cover-up. That is, at least as far as I can gather, the gist of Charles' argument.

You appear to have taken the key ingredient (studying the evidence) out of Charles' equation in order to rebut it. It has NOTHING to do with trying to get inside another man's head.

While history has shown that there is little chance we'll ever be able to convince them, it also has shown that if we take the argument to the public--much as Mark Lane once did--that we'll win over the next generation.

I've found that one can reach newbies via Youtube and the IMDB forum for the film JFK. If we reach people before they get indoctrinated in the "Oswald did it" cult, there's a chance new members of the media will see things our way, and quit toeing the company line. If you want to make an impact you might want to take your efforts there. But--warning--no one anywhere is particularly swayed by "I'm right and if you disagree with me you're cognitively impaired" type arguments. It just doesn't play in Peoria.

Again, you've taken the key ingredient out. Charles' argument, if he were to actually say something like the above, would be: "There was a conspiracy. If, after studying the evidence, you disagree with that, you are cognitively impaired or complicit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.

And so Housman is brought to mind ...

What can I do, what can I write

Against the fall of night?

I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.

The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.

To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.

To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.

As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.

Watch your newspapers.

Charles R. Drago

February 25, 2008

Charles,

I really hate to lose you, at least in the context of this forum.

There is a middle ground between total withdrawal from the forum and sparring with each and every Mack clone.

Like, maybe say your piece and put the obvious disinfo agents on ignore.

That type won't be persuaded by all the logic in the world because they have an agenda that has nothing to do with truth.

And if you're concerned about undecided third parties being swayed by the propaganda then maybe you can just hope that they can weigh words, the quality not quantity, and decide for themselves.

Maybe you can sleep on it, so to speak.

Myra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, it is a shame you are deciding to stop contributing here. There is no reason for you to do this- not only do we value your thoughts, you are giving others the satisfaction of thinking they chased you away. You won the debates with them, because you had reason on your side, but if you aren't around, during the next debate there will be a real void on our side.

I have come to the conclusion that the research community is being slowly taken over by a new kind of "neo-con." While the neo-conservatives in the Republican Party (and some Democrats) all but run our foreign policy now, neo-conspiracists are increasingly becoming the majority voice in our little JFK assassination research world. By neo-conspiracists, I mean those who spend far more time atacking "lunatic fringe" CTers than the official version of events. Gary Mack would be a perfect example of this new "neo-con."

When I first started studying this case back in the early 1970s, critics were insinuating the involvement of the CIA, big oil, the mob, LBJ and powerful forces in the Pentagon, but they focused their attention on the obvious indicators of conspiracy. These would include: the single-bullet theory; the backwards movement of JFK's head after impact; the incomplete, secretive and shoddy autopsy; the numerous unnatural deaths of those connected in some way to this case; Oswald's mysterious background; Oswald's inferior shooting ability, as reflected in his Marine Corps record; the shoddy and defective nature of the alleged murder weapon; the fact that no one has ever, even under favorable circumstances and with expert shooting skills Oswald never possessed, duplicated his alleged feat; the suspicious dereliction of duty on the part of every Secret Service agent in JFK's detail during the shooting; the suspicious dereliction of duty on the part of every Dallas police officer during the unnecessary transfer of Oswald and many, many more.

Now, we see less attention paid to these red flags of conspiracy, and the inference is that many of these "theories" have been laid to rest. We don't hear any more about the Umbrella Man, for instance. At one time, the strange, unidentified man pumping an open umbrella in the air on a sunny day was fascinating to people. After Steven Witt testified before the HSCA that he'd been the Umbrella Man, despite a totally unbelievable story, most researchers seemingly accepted it. The Umbrella Man is now pretty much forgotten, and the Gary Macks of the world will simply nod their heads when you mention the subject and indicate Witt "was" the man in question. The strange deaths of witnesses is another area that has been discarded into the dustbin of history by most critics. While I think that some of the deaths were not related to the JFK assassination, there were far too many unnatural deaths of those who were associated in some manner to the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963 for it to be entirely coincidental. As I am fond of asking those who claim that these deaths were not related to the case; how many people do you know who have died an unnatural death? How many have died in car crashes? Suicides? Murders? Falls out of windows? Accidental gun shots in police stations? I think the answer is obvious, and the same for most everyone; few if any. While the neo-cons wil poo-poo the notion that there was any significance behind these deaths, consider what they did to Jim Garrison's fledgling investigation. I think it's interesting to note that Josiah Thompson recently referred to Richard Randolph Carr's "unfortunate self-destruction." I might ask Josiah what he meant by that? Carr was a strong witness who stuck to his story, even though he was told by authorities to keep quiet and was the victim of a couple of attempts upon his life. The fact that he didn't become a mysterious death doesn't detract from the fact that someone was threatening him and trying to silence him. I don't know whether Josiah fits into the "neo-con" category, but declaring someone like Carr to have "self destructed" sounds like something out of the neo-con playbook.

Some CTers now seem to think that Oswald killed Tippit. This is unfathomable to me, but it has become a real "neo-con" position in my estimation. Most of us used to believe that since it was highly unlikely that Oswald could even have arrived at the scene of the Tippit murder in time to commit it, then he couldn't have done it. This doesn't even factor in the conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony. Even one of my favorite researchers-Vince Palamara-who has done such a great job of documenting the duplicity of the Secret Service, has written that believes Oswald shot Tippit. Vince didn't go into any details, but it's just incomprehensible to me that a top-flight, clear headed researcher like Vince could accept such an integral part of the official fairy tale.

Another neo-con view is that there was a coverup, but it was all with good intentions. They invariably refer to this as a benign coverup. There is a real reluctance among neo-cons to pointing out the specific culpability of J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Emory Roberts, William Greer, Arlen Specter, etc. Instead we are invariably directed towards mostly dead anti-Castro elements, with the notion that there was nothing more powerful, except perhaps some equally dead mobsters, behind them. We need to refocus on the absurdity of the official "investigation," as the original critics did. Real people, with identifiable names, failed to follow up legitimate leads and did the covering up. They ought to be identified over and over, so that posterity knows who was responsible for this now probably unsolvable mystery.

I know I've strayed far from the subject of Charles's imminent departure from this forum. Charles, stay and fight with us. The neo-con forces can only win if we let them. They can't debate us, because the evidence is on our side. You know that better than just about any of us. We've already lost too many good people here- we need your voice of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, you have written so much here--I am just going to take out a bit of it

I think it's interesting to note that Josiah Thompson recently referred to Richard Randolph Carr's "unfortunate self-destruction." I might ask Josiah what he meant by that? Carr was a strong witness who stuck to his story, even though he was told by authorities to keep quiet and was the victim of a couple of attempts upon his life. The fact that he didn't become a mysterious death doesn't detract from the fact that someone was threatening him and trying to silence him. I don't know whether Josiah fits into the "neo-con" category, but declaring someone like Carr to have "self destructed" sounds like something out of the neo-con playbook.

You have commented that you might ask Josiah about Carr--hear, hear. Don't you think it would be an excellent idea if you did, and find out what he meant before questioning where he fits in to the JFK spectra of beliefs? It's certainly not fair to him to pre label him, and you deny yourself the knowledge of the reason why.

This is exactly the problem--we take what one says, dissect it, and pass it off to a friend with a "maybe" attached--"maybe" he isn't what I thought --"maybe" he is a double nought spy or something. You have the capability to ask him. Why is he a part of this list with you still in the dark about how he feels?? He's posting here daily.

Alot of ideas are expressed in your posts. Why not discuss them???

Start some threads, and if the subject has already been discussed, resurrect them from the archives. We need these ideas, we need your input. That's how you keep it current--that's how you educate.

What we don't need are the ad homs. Saying someone is this or that is not winning a debate--c'mon!!! Too much of that lately. All it does is create bitterness.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathy,

You're right, as usual. I shouldn't have insinuated something about Josiah that I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, it is a shame you are deciding to stop contributing here. There is no reason for you to do this- not only do we value your thoughts, you are giving others the satisfaction of thinking they chased you away. You won the debates with them, because you had reason on your side, but if you aren't around, during the next debate there will be a real void on our side.

I have come to the conclusion that the research community is being slowly taken over by a new kind of "neo-con." While the neo-conservatives in the Republican Party (and some Democrats) all but run our foreign policy now, neo-conspiracists are increasingly becoming the majority voice in our little JFK assassination research world. By neo-conspiracists, I mean those who spend far more time atacking "lunatic fringe" CTers than the official version of events. Gary Mack would be a perfect example of this new "neo-con."

When I first started studying this case back in the early 1970s, critics were insinuating the involvement of the CIA, big oil, the mob, LBJ and powerful forces in the Pentagon, but they focused their attention on the obvious indicators of conspiracy. These would include: the single-bullet theory; the backwards movement of JFK's head after impact; the incomplete, secretive and shoddy autopsy; the numerous unnatural deaths of those connected in some way to this case; Oswald's mysterious background; Oswald's inferior shooting ability, as reflected in his Marine Corps record; the shoddy and defective nature of the alleged murder weapon; the fact that no one has ever, even under favorable circumstances and with expert shooting skills Oswald never possessed, duplicated his alleged feat; the suspicious dereliction of duty on the part of every Secret Service agent in JFK's detail during the shooting; the suspicious dereliction of duty on the part of every Dallas police officer during the unnecessary transfer of Oswald and many, many more.

Now, we see less attention paid to these red flags of conspiracy, and the inference is that many of these "theories" have been laid to rest. We don't hear any more about the Umbrella Man, for instance. At one time, the strange, unidentified man pumping an open umbrella in the air on a sunny day was fascinating to people. After Steven Witt testified before the HSCA that he'd been the Umbrella Man, despite a totally unbelievable story, most researchers seemingly accepted it. The Umbrella Man is now pretty much forgotten, and the Gary Macks of the world will simply nod their heads when you mention the subject and indicate Witt "was" the man in question. The strange deaths of witnesses is another area that has been discarded into the dustbin of history by most critics. While I think that some of the deaths were not related to the JFK assassination, there were far too many unnatural deaths of those who were associated in some manner to the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963 for it to be entirely coincidental. As I am fond of asking those who claim that these deaths were not related to the case; how many people do you know who have died an unnatural death? How many have died in car crashes? Suicides? Murders? Falls out of windows? Accidental gun shots in police stations? I think the answer is obvious, and the same for most everyone; few if any. While the neo-cons wil poo-poo the notion that there was any significance behind these deaths, consider what they did to Jim Garrison's fledgling investigation. I think it's interesting to note that Josiah Thompson recently referred to Richard Randolph Carr's "unfortunate self-destruction." I might ask Josiah what he meant by that? Carr was a strong witness who stuck to his story, even though he was told by authorities to keep quiet and was the victim of a couple of attempts upon his life. The fact that he didn't become a mysterious death doesn't detract from the fact that someone was threatening him and trying to silence him. I don't know whether Josiah fits into the "neo-con" category, but declaring someone like Carr to have "self destructed" sounds like something out of the neo-con playbook.

Some CTers now seem to think that Oswald killed Tippit. This is unfathomable to me, but it has become a real "neo-con" position in my estimation. Most of us used to believe that since it was highly unlikely that Oswald could even have arrived at the scene of the Tippit murder in time to commit it, then he couldn't have done it. This doesn't even factor in the conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony. Even one of my favorite researchers-Vince Palamara-who has done such a great job of documenting the duplicity of the Secret Service, has written that believes Oswald shot Tippit. Vince didn't go into any details, but it's just incomprehensible to me that a top-flight, clear headed researcher like Vince could accept such an integral part of the official fairy tale.

Another neo-con view is that there was a coverup, but it was all with good intentions. They invariably refer to this as a benign coverup. There is a real reluctance among neo-cons to pointing out the specific culpability of J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Emory Roberts, William Greer, Arlen Specter, etc. Instead we are invariably directed towards mostly dead anti-Castro elements, with the notion that there was nothing more powerful, except perhaps some equally dead mobsters, behind them. We need to refocus on the absurdity of the official "investigation," as the original critics did. Real people, with identifiable names, failed to follow up legitimate leads and did the covering up. They ought to be identified over and over, so that posterity knows who was responsible for this now probably unsolvable mystery.

I know I've strayed far from the subject of Charles's imminent departure from this forum. Charles, stay and fight with us. The neo-con forces can only win if we let them. They can't debate us, because the evidence is on our side. You know that better than just about any of us. We've already lost too many good people here- we need your voice of reason.

Right on target, Don!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, you have written so much here--I am just going to take out a bit of it
I think it's interesting to note that Josiah Thompson recently referred to Richard Randolph Carr's "unfortunate self-destruction." I might ask Josiah what he meant by that? Carr was a strong witness who stuck to his story, even though he was told by authorities to keep quiet and was the victim of a couple of attempts upon his life. The fact that he didn't become a mysterious death doesn't detract from the fact that someone was threatening him and trying to silence him. I don't know whether Josiah fits into the "neo-con" category, but declaring someone like Carr to have "self destructed" sounds like something out of the neo-con playbook.

You have commented that you might ask Josiah about Carr--hear, hear. Don't you think it would be an excellent idea if you did, and find out what he meant before questioning where he fits in to the JFK spectra of beliefs? It's certainly not fair to him to pre label him, and you deny yourself the knowledge of the reason why.

This is exactly the problem--we take what one says, dissect it, and pass it off to a friend with a "maybe" attached--"maybe" he isn't what I thought --"maybe" he is a double nought spy or something. You have the capability to ask him. Why is he a part of this list with you still in the dark about how he feels?? He's posting here daily.

Alot of ideas are expressed in your posts. Why not discuss them???

Start some threads, and if the subject has already been discussed, resurrect them from the archives. We need these ideas, we need your input. That's how you keep it current--that's how you educate.

What we don't need are the ad homs. Saying someone is this or that is not winning a debate--c'mon!!! Too much of that lately. All it does is create bitterness.

Kathy

GOOD GRIEF...how can you take Don's thoughtful posting and characterize it as AN AD HOMINEN ATTACK! ????

This is incredible. No wonder Charles is fed up.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...