Will Barack Obama be Assassinated?

[Evan Burton]

No Myra - I do NOT agree with your assessment. Both of you deserved your heads-up (warning). If you care to disregard it, then you may do so - it will not affect any Moderator actions if you do cross the line.

[Myra Bronstein]

No Myra - I do NOT agree with your assessment. Both of you deserved your heads-up (warning). If you care to disregard it, then you may do so - it will not affect any Moderator actions if you do cross the line.

Well guess what Evan, another moderator clearly disagrees with you.

And they told me that Daniel's post was "over the top" in a private PM just prior to removing it from this thread.

Sorry if that gives you a hitch in your giddyup. I know how much you like to swagger around playing deputy dog on the forum--the very personification of Barney Fife.

[Mark Stapleton]

Thanks very much Mike.

I think the fact that Daniel's post was removed by a moderator confirms that it was over the top.

I appreciate your support.

Dammit, I missed all the fun.

On whether Barack will be assassinated, I agree with an earlier opinion from Scott---almost zero chance, at least before his inauguration. It would just be too much, especially with the 40th anniversary remembrance of MLK just gone and RFK soon to come.

He's playing a smart game, our bold Barack, causing as little offence as humanly possible before he becomes #44. Very impressive.

What happens in the months after his inauguration will be fascinating. I hope he develops a rational and independent approach to the job--like JFK.

In fact, he will effectively become #36, imo. LBJ thru GWB were merely corrupt servants of wealthy interests, not real Presidents, although Jimmy Carter tried to do the right thing, imo. Barack will be a breath of fresh air on foreign policy and will be the first Prez in quite a while to show an understanding of foreign culture. I hope he can transform America from global renegade to responsible global citizen.

He'll be risking his life.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Len Colby]

No Mike and Myra are clearly wrong. Nothing about Daniel’s post was the least bit anti-Semitic au contraire he was pointing out the irony that content that would seem more in place on anti-Semite sites could be found on a site run by a Jew or at least someone with a Jewish name. If a white, Asian, Latno etc person pointed out that borderline anti-black content could be found on a site run by an African-American would it make sense to say it was a racist attack? Leading truther Christopher Bollyn made it clear on an interview with David Duke that he thinks interracial relationships are the result of a Jewish plot to confuse people about their identities, if I pointed out that he’s now teamed up with a white guy married to a black woman does that mean I’m attacking interracial couples?

Poppycock!

Usual Colby nonsensical argument accompanied by irrelevant analogies.

Although a moderator saw fit to make Daniel’s post invisible he (or she) didn’t remove it from Peter’s reply which is now post # 24 on this thread. Perhaps Hogan or Myra can point out what part of it was 'anti—Semitic'. As I indicated in my previous post he was pointing out correctly that material that one would more likely expect to find on anti-Semitic sites is on a site run by someone with a Jewish name. See the relevant portion below:

But then I have to consider that "Myra" has her own website, one in which she seems to give credence to conspiracy theories in which Jacob Schiff and the Rothschilds are involved at an early historical juncture in The Grand Conspiracy. Nothing new about that sort of thing, of course; you can get it from any number of "sources" in these venues, so influenced as they are by Far Right political propaganda. But still, it's a little too hard for this "self-righteous act" to believe that someone who believes in and promotes such ideas would be named "Myra Bronstein" -- a more Jewish-sounding name you could not find...... (But then it wouldn't exactly be sheer genius for certain groups to try to promote antisemitic conspiracy ideas by enlisting the support of -- or having someone assume the online persona of -- a Jewish person.)

What Daniel failed to point out is that much (most) of her entries about the Rothschild’s, Schiff’s and Oppenhiemer’s are poorly sourced and based on leaps of logic that could clear the Chicago Sears Tower “in a single bound”.

While his post may have been an over the top over reaction to a relatively mild provocation, to claim that it was anti-Semitic is an absurdity that brings authors like Kafka, Orwell and Lewis Carroll to mind. It’s also hard to feel much sympathy for the ‘victim’ who has a history on this and other forums of baiting and aggravating others (a run-in with John Simkin comes to mind) as exemplified by her insults directed against Evan.

Myra and Hogan smeared Daniel with an unfounded charge.

[Michael Hogan]

Myra and Hogan smeared Daniel with an unfounded charge.

Pretty strong word. Using the same criteria, Colby has smeared countless members of this Forum on a continual, ongoing basis.

Readers of this thread know exactly what was said and by whom. All of Colby's ridiculous arguments can't change that. It's typical of his limited mindset.

[Evan Burton]

No Myra - I do NOT agree with your assessment. Both of you deserved your heads-up (warning). If you care to disregard it, then you may do so - it will not affect any Moderator actions if you do cross the line.

Well guess what Evan, another moderator clearly disagrees with you.

And they told me that Daniel's post was "over the top" in a private PM just prior to removing it from this thread.

Sorry if that gives you a hitch in your giddyup. I know how much you like to swagger around playing deputy dog on the forum--the very personification of Barney Fife.

You don't seem to understand Myra. I don't agree with your assessment. The fact that another Moderator has set the post to invisible does not mean that the remarks I made to both you and Daniel were not correct. The comments stand. I guess you'll just have to deal with it in your own way.

[Len Colby]

Myra and Hogan smeared Daniel with an unfounded charge.

Pretty strong word. Using the same criteria, Colby has smeared countless members of this Forum on a continual, ongoing basis.

So, then I imagine Hogan can cite “countless” examples of where I have accused “members of this Forum” of being anti-Semitic or racist etc without offering any evidence.

Readers of this thread know exactly what was said and by whom. All of Colby's ridiculous arguments can't change that. It's typical of his limited mindset.

I totally agree with Hogan’s 1st sentence. I’m content to let unbiased readers of this thread draw their own conclusions about who is making “ridiculous arguments” and suffers from a “limited mindset”.

Lets examine “exactly what was said and by whom”

1) Daniel made I admit an ‘over the top’ reply to jab at him made by Myra. In it he noted that material could found on her site more typical found on anti-Semitic ones. He expressed surprise/disbelief that this content would be found on a site run by someone with a Jewish name. The relevant portion of his post can be read in post # 35. I edited my reply it can be read in full in post # 35 as well

2) Myra accuse HIM of making “an all out anti-semitic” attack against her

3) Hogan said she was right

4) I said they were wrong because there was nothing anti-Semitic about Daniel’s post.

5) Thus far Myra and Hogan have failed to explain what was anti-Semitic about his post

EXCUSE ME EVAN?

"Daniel's" post number #24 was an all out anti-semitic rant with me as the target, so far over the line that I've been astounded neither moderators nor other forum members objected in the slightest, yet you accuse me of making personal attacks in response, and merely ask "Daniel" not to question motives?!

Myra is clearly right.

No Mike and Myra are clearly wrong. Nothing about Daniel’s post was the least bit anti-Semitic...

I imagine that true to form rather than deal with the facts Myra and Hogan will merely continue to insult Daniel, Evan and me.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Len Colby

[Dawn Meredith]

Thanks very much Mike.

I think the fact that Daniel's post was removed by a moderator confirms that it was over the top.

I appreciate your support.

Dammit, I missed all the fun.

On whether Barack will be assassinated, I agree with an earlier opinion from Scott---almost zero chance, at least before his inauguration. It would just be too much, especially with the 40th anniversary remembrance of MLK just gone and RFK soon to come.

He's playing a smart game, our bold Barack, causing as little offence as humanly possible before he becomes #44. Very impressive.

What happens in the months after his inauguration will be fascinating. I hope he develops a rational and independent approach to the job--like JFK.

In fact, he will effectively become #36, imo. LBJ thru GWB were merely corrupt servants of wealthy interests, not real Presidents, although Jimmy Carter tried to do the right thing, imo. Barack will be a breath of fresh air on foreign policy and will be the first Prez in quite a while to show an understanding of foreign culture. I hope he can transform America from global renegade to responsible global citizen.

He'll be risking his life.

I totally agree with this assessment Mark.

Sad to see the usual name calling bs in the rest of this thread.

I concur with Mike and Myra. (Not that it matters).

Dawn

[Michael Hogan]

So, then I imagine Hogan can cite “countless” examples of where I have accused “members of this Forum” of being anti-Semitic or racist etc without offering any evidence.

That's not what I said.

Readers of this thread know exactly what was said and by whom. All of Colby's ridiculous arguments can't change that. It's typical of his limited mindset.

I totally agree with Hogan’s 1st sentence. I’m content to let unbiased readers of this thread draw their own conclusions about who is making “ridiculous arguments” and suffers from a “limited mindset”.

Lets examine “exactly what was said and by whom.....”

Colby then proceeds to give his incomplete, inexact and Colbyized version of what was said. Apparently he's not too content after all, unless he means he's content to say one thing and do another.

I imagine that true to form rather than deal with the facts Myra and Hogan will merely continue to insult Daniel, Evan and me.

Anytime someone on this Forum shows Colby to be wrong he considers it an insult. I can't help that.

[Len Colby]

So, then I imagine Hogan can cite “countless” examples of where I have accused “members of this Forum” of being anti-Semitic or racist etc without offering any evidence.

That's not what I said.

It's what you seemed to insinuate, explain your chagre that I have smeared members of this forum on "countless" occasions

Readers of this thread know exactly what was said and by whom. All of Colby's ridiculous arguments can't change that. It's typical of his limited mindset.

I totally agree with Hogan’s 1st sentence. I’m content to let unbiased readers of this thread draw their own conclusions about who is making “ridiculous arguments” and suffers from a “limited mindset”.

Lets examine “exactly what was said and by whom.....”

Colby then proceeds to give his incomplete, inexact and Colbyized version of what was said. Apparently he's not too content after all, unless he means he's content to say one thing and do another.

Myra main complaint about Daniel's post was that it was "anti-Semitic" Hogan agreed with her. That was the only part of her post I disputed. Hogan is dancing around the central questions

Was Daniel's post anti-Semitic?

If he thinks so, why?

If not why did he say she ws right?

I imagine that true to form rather than deal with the facts Myra and Hogan will merely continue to insult Daniel, Evan and me.

Anytime someone on this Forum shows Colby to be wrong he considers it an insult. I can't help that.

Do you consider the following 'constructive criticism'? The 1st time I initiated an exchange with you, which was on this thred I simply said you were "wrong"

"Usual Colby nonsensical argument accompanied by irrelevant analogies."

"All of Colby's ridiculous arguments can't change that. It's typical of his limited mindset."

[Len Colby]

In another thread Michael Hogan wrote

Recently Len Colby has indicated more than once that he believed I was lying,

And other members of the forum have indicated the same about me, and other members have said the same about other members. It seems the rule as interpreted by the mods is that the use of the word xxxx and variants (lying, lie, lied) are forbidden but saying you don’t think another member was being truthful using other words is allowed. I didn’t believe you were being truthful.

accused me of smearing another member,

Since you smeared him I don’t know what yoour beef is.

This how I reached my conclusion, if I made any errors of fact or logic point them out.

• Myra said that Daniel’s post “was an all out anti-semitic rant”
  
• It clearly wasn’t anti-Semitic
  
• Thus Myra smeared Daniel
  
• You endorsed her comments you said “Myra is clearly right.”
  
• Thus you smeared him as well
  

taken a statement I made to David Guyatt about the Commission's treatment of Atta and blown it all out of proportion by saying things about me that aren't true

What prey tell have I said about you that wasn’t true?

Funny you made a big deal about me supposedly misquoting you, then when I proved you wrong you said I’ve “blown it all out of proportion” meanwhile you continue to make a big deal about various supposed slights I’ve made against you

and taken a quote I posted from John Lennon and done the same thing.

Ditto above. I’m glad that you seem to be acknowledging that you quoted Lennon out of context i.e. ‘I was wrong but “Len Colby has… blown it all out of proportion”’

[Michael Hogan]

Ditto above. I’m glad that you seem to be acknowledging that you quoted Lennon out of context i.e. ‘I was wrong but “Len Colby has… blown it all out of proportion”’

Again the Colbyized version, i.e. "you seem to be saying, you seem to be insinuating, you seem to be acknowledging...." What I actually acknowledged amounted to this:

Colby misspoke again and he has blown it all out of proportion trying vainly to prove something he can't.

Funny you made a big deal about me supposedly misquoting you, then when I proved you wrong you said I’ve “blown it all out of proportion” meanwhile you continue to make a big deal about various supposed slights I’ve made against you

Just for the record, it's you that made a big deal out of it considering how many times you've brought it up with little or no response from me. One of these days I'll go back and fetch all the times you've repeated variations of "Hogan claims I misquoted him" on unrelated threads. Each time you do, you fail to provide a citation.

In another thread Michael Hogan wrote

Recently Len Colby has indicated more than once that he believed I was lying,

And other members of the forum have indicated the same about me, and other members have said the same about other members. It seems the rule as interpreted by the mods is that the use of the word xxxx and variants (lying, lie, lied) are forbidden but saying you don’t think another member was being truthful using other words is allowed. I didn’t believe you were being truthful.

Who said anything about it being against the rules? Who said anything about other members? Or moderators? As usual, you want to ignore or shift the point.

Your favourite defense for many of the distasteful things you do is simply claim others have done it too.

Since you smeared him I don’t know what yoour (sic) beef is.

This how I reached my conclusion, if I made any errors of fact or logic point them out.

• Myra said that Daniel’s post “was an all out anti-semitic rant”
  
• It clearly wasn’t anti-Semitic
  
• Thus Myra smeared Daniel
  
• You endorsed her comments you said “Myra is clearly right.”
  
• Thus you smeared him as well
  

Again the Colbyized version of fact and logic. Shortened, condensed and misleading. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=142535

taken a statement I made to David Guyatt about the Commission's treatment of Atta and blown it all out of proportion by saying things about me that aren't true

What prey tell have I said about you that wasn’t true?

I've already explained how you blew it out of proportion. Go back and read my posts again. That should clarify the rest for you.

And while you're at it: http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrayT.../bnpnc/post.htm

____________________________________________

I know it's unlikely any member has made it this far, or cares in the least about the sparring I've done with Len Colby. Obviously, it's a personal thing between the two of us. I'm growing bored of his lightweight approach and limited mindset. I'm growing weary of correcting his claims, too often made without quoting me. But more importantly, my exchanges with Colby are not in the spirit of John's vision when he started this Forum. In the future I'm going to make an effort to refrain from engaging in so many of these endless backs & forth with Len Colby. I'm going to begin responding to him with John Simkin's statement and let Colby spin it any way he wants.

I am also sorry that members of the forum stop posting because of the presence of people like Len Colby and Tim Gratz. However, I will not ban them

from this forum because I will not resort to the methods of right and left-wing dictatorships.

[Jack White]

Opinions...

1. Obama's running mate, if nominated, will be an "establishment successor" in the mold of LBJ.

2. At his first sign of "independence", ala JfK, Obama will be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

3. Blacks nationwide will riot, loot, burn cities.

4. Martial law will be declared; elections/laws suspended.

5. Obama successor will become dictator, controlled by establishment.

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Opinions...

Obama successor will become dictator, controlled by establishment.

Jack

And verily I say that ye shall know these things are happening when the sky starts falling.

[Jack White]

Opinions...

Obama successor will become dictator, controlled by establishment.

Jack

And verily I say that ye shall know these things are happening when the sky starts falling.

But Obama will not be elected. He and <expletive deleted>Clinton will split the opposition vote. McCain by a landslide.

The fix is in. Four more years of mismanagement. But at least McCain is not moronic.

Jack

By Mod: Removed offensive word, replaced it with Clinton.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Evan Burton