Phil Spector on John Lennon assassination

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

-----------------------

Why does it seem very passive to you?

Are you suggesting that the abandoned merry go round is politics?

To me it is the music industry, and glamour mechanisms that are called the news. Both of our interpretations are equally subjective. No proof of anything here.

[Len Colby]

Len you string together a few isolated quotes and act like you have proven something.

In reality Lennon was not a very public figure btw. 75-80. A son was born in 1975. He went to the inaugural Ball of Jimmy Carter in 1977. You might remember that Jimmy Carter still had some progressive strands in the first two years of his administration, before they were killed by Tip O'Neil and the Democratic Congressional Committe leaders, who voted with republicans to kill almost all of Carters proposed reforms.

On the eve of the inauguration, the Carter family attended a Kennedy Center concert where

Shirley MacLaine, Leonard Bernstein, James Dickey, John Wayne, Aretha Franklin and John Lennon contributed to the festivities

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/politics/ina...ion/history.pdf

In 1977...Aretha Franklin, Charlie Daniels and The Marshall Tucker Band played for Jimmy Carter's presidential inauguration.

http://www.mtv.ca/news/article.jhtml?id=6430

So I guess that makes Shirley MacLaine, The Marshall Tucker Band and John Wayne leftist in your book too, funny no one bumped them off

The main point is the the Reagan Administration of 1981 was a sudden and hard right turn, in terms of public perception. Sure the last two years of Carter were more conservative. but 1980 81 was a sea-change. To act like John lennon with a history of activism and a history of documented Goverment worry about that activism, would have behaved like some some hazed over 70s SuperGroup-- well THAT is what is in need of much more proof.

During the 1980s nobody was allowed on TV who gave a principled opposition to Reagans lies. Much the same way as today.

Lennon was instant prime-time with a long history of political activism, that had been interupted for five years with the birth of his son in 1975. If you are trying to turn him into Billy Joel YOU are the one in need of much more evidence.

If your portrayal of Lennon as someone “with a long history of political activism” that only ended in 1975 when he retired from music to raise his kid was accurate you’d have a point but since it isn’t you don’t. The first sign that Lennon was political (that I could find) was his honeymoon “bed-in” with Yoko which started March 25, 1969, the last (that I could find) was a pair of late November 1972 shows for a very uncontroversial cause, a school for retarded children, where he played some of his controversial songs. So Lennon who lived to be 40 was only politically active for a little over 3 ½ years, it had been over for a little over 8 years when he was shot. His most active radical period was even shorter lasting basically from his arrival in New York in September 1971 when he hung around with the likes of Jerry Rubin – till he announced in May 1972 he WOULDN’T show up at the Republican Convention, i.e. about 8 months. Even during this period the time and money he dedicated to the cause was limited to what he could have contributed.

He remained musically active November 72 - October 75 and did a couple songs with Ringo in 1976 but remained mum politically. He returned to music in late 1980 and the only comments he made related to politics were to the effect he no longer felt “guilt about money” etc, the quotes from the interview weren’t taken out of context they indicated a disinterest in politics. He had express a similar disinterest in the song Revolution (1968) which was manly against violent ‘revolution’ but was rejection of leftist political activism in general, prior to 1968 I don’t know of any political commentary in his books, lyrics, interviews etc, he was apolitical most of his life. 1972 – 80 he could have helped effect the outcomes of 3 presidential and 2 midterm elections but chose not to.

So I have a challenge for you:

1. Come up with evidence he or even Yoko remained interest in politics after May 1972, especially towards 1980.

2. Come up with evidence he was political before the March 1969 ‘Bed-In’

3. Explain why if he was such a dedicated revolutionary he didn't go to the convention or on the tour in 1972

4. Explain why if he was such a dedicated revolutionary he didn’t dedicate more of his time or enormous wealth and prestige to the cause either 69 – 72 or 72 – 80 when he spent millions on luxury estates, cattle and his art collection

5. Explain why he was silent politically despite being musically active 1972 – 75

6. Explain why being a ‘house husband’ 1975 – 80 prevented him from being politically (and musically) active especially after the USG dropped their effort to deport him in 1975 and he won his “green card” in 1976 (before the election).

7. Explain why if he would have been so against the Reagan, whose beliefs were well known, he did nothing to influence the 1980 election even though he came out of retirement several months before and no longer faced deportation.

8. Give us your interpretation of the excerpts I posted from his September Playboy interview(s)

No, I wouldn’t compare him to Billy Joel, that would be unfair, but after “Some Time in New York City” recorded late 1971 – early 1972 he stopped pushing boundaries musically or lyrically. 1972 – 80. I’d put him in same the league as artists like Van Morrison and Tom Petty, putting out well crafted Rock that did nothing to advance the genre.

Though Double Fantasy sold well it hardly had the mass appeal of the Beatles or even his more popular solo work. Even after the boost from his murder it was well down on the list of the most popular albums of 1980 - it’s unlikely many people under 30 bought it. I doubt that in 1980 after the emergence of Punk, New Wave, Heavy Metal, Disco, Rap and Reggae etc many young people found him or his adult oriented pop very relevant. The flop of ‘Some Time in NYC’ showed that even at the height of his popularity his fans might ignore him when he got too political.

Your belief that he posed any threat to the Reagan clique, let alone enough of one to kill him is sorely lacking any supporting evidence. According to Weiner the main reasons Nixon wanted to get rid of Lennon was because he saw him as a threat to his reelection, but he was killed weeks after a presidential election he made no effort to influence. Unless you address all or most of the 8 points I raise above our discussion can only go in circles and I won’t continue it.

[Michael Hogan]

"I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick (Nixon) went that it's all changed.

If it's changed, prove it, show me the change." (John Lennon to Pete Hamill, June 5 1975 issue of Rolling Stone)

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

"I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick (Nixon) went that it's all changed.

If it's changed, prove it, show me the change." (John Lennon to Pete Hamill, June 5 1975 issue of Rolling Stone)

-----------------

Jumpy huh? And is this a sign of political apathy, r something quite different, that may be situational, subject to change should the context suddelny veer?

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Myra, I am aware of Kissingers CIA ties during the 1950s and maybe later.

But I think much of that crew may have been worried about Special K centralizing too much power in the White House. In addition to worrying about missile detante and Ping Pong Dipolomacy. It was not too long afterwards that Team B was created by George Bush with the exlpoicit purpose of countering these Kissinger led initiatives.

Was Al Haig in charge there? Then? One word of caution: reading of Secret Agenda should not be mixed with reading the much less solid book Ultimate Sacrifice. This is like alcohol and barbituates: both mixtures could well lead to excesive specution on the career of Al Haig! I have had to take precautionary measures on certain occasions.

As far as the FBI it is worth noting that Hoover as in J. Edgar did voice qualms about violating civil liberties. According to Peter Dale Scott in the Road to 9/11 J. Edgar chose his civil liberties day as one day in 1970 when he refussed to cooperate with the Huston plan, on the STATED GROUNDS that its proposal of secret recordings would be a threat to privacy and civil liberties!

Before we rush to recommend that the ACLU create a J. Edgar Hoover award, we should realize that J. Edgars reasoning was less than idealisitc. He was worried that the Huston Plan would infringe on FBI turf. When Hoover died, many within the FBI were wondering if there might be renewed attempts to bring parts of FBI turf inside the White House.

Thanks Nathaniel.

BTW I already made the mistake of reading Ultimate Sacrifice.

Your warning came too late.

[Myra Bronstein]

"John Lennon's youngest son yesterday blamed the fatal shooting of his father almost 20 years ago on a conspiracy backed by the United States government.

Sean Lennon, who made his debut as a solo artist last month, told New Yorker magazine that the ex-Beatle was a "counter-cultural revolutionary" who the American government could not ignore. He said: "He was dangerous to the government. If he had said, 'Bomb the White House tomorrow', there would have been 10,000 people who would have done it. These pacifist revolutionaries are historically killed by the government.

"Anybody who thinks that Mark Chapman [who shot Lennon outside his New York apartment in 1980] was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his personal interests, is insane. Or very naive. Or hasn't thought about it clearly. It was in the best interests of the United States to have my dad killed. Definitely. And, you know, that worked against them because, once he died, his powers grew . . . They didn't get what they wanted."

http://www.john-lennon.com/washingtonkilledlennon.htm

“Well I suppose they tried to kill John, but they couldn’t because his message is still alive.”

--Yoko Ono at the conclusion of the film "The US vs John Lennon"

[William Kelly]

"John Lennon's youngest son yesterday blamed the fatal shooting of his father almost 20 years ago on a conspiracy backed by the United States government.

Sean Lennon, who made his debut as a solo artist last month, told New Yorker magazine that the ex-Beatle was a "counter-cultural revolutionary" who the American government could not ignore. He said: "He was dangerous to the government. If he had said, 'Bomb the White House tomorrow', there would have been 10,000 people who would have done it. These pacifist revolutionaries are historically killed by the government.

"Anybody who thinks that Mark Chapman [who shot Lennon outside his New York apartment in 1980] was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his personal interests, is insane. Or very naive. Or hasn't thought about it clearly. It was in the best interests of the United States to have my dad killed. Definitely. And, you know, that worked against them because, once he died, his powers grew . . . They didn't get what they wanted."

http://www.john-lennon.com/washingtonkilledlennon.htm

"Well I suppose they tried to kill John, but they couldn't because his message is still alive."

--Yoko Ono at the conclusion of the film "The US vs John Lennon"

Thank you for that one Myra,

BK

[Len Colby]

"I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick (Nixon) went that it's all changed.

If it's changed, prove it, show me the change." (John Lennon to Pete Hamill, June 5 1975 issue of Rolling Stone)

-----------------

Jumpy huh? And is this a sign of political apathy, r something quite different, that may be situational, subject to change should the context suddelny veer?

Except that what he was “Jumpy” about was getting his residency in the U.S. Let’s look at the quote in context:

Hamill: Is there anything left to say about the immigration case?

Lennon: I don't know what to say anymore. It stands no different from the time Rolling Stone did it last. It's going from court to court and I'm getting no relief, as the legal term puts it. They're still playing that attitude that, you know, we're treating you like this because of the law. Sure, the law exists. And so do all the Nazis here and the drug dealers that are not American born and all the killers that are allowed in here. They're still pretending that they're doing it on the strict letter of the law.

[…]

It's bloody ridiculous. It's just . . . beyond belief.

Hamill: So nothing has changed with the departure of Nixon.

Lennon: I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick went that it's all changed. If it's changed, prove it, show me the change. In all honesty, it's a political decision. No matter how many letters the immigration people write to newspapers saying it isn't, it's a political decision….

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/johnle...ourney_into_day

But he gained his residency not too long after the interview was published in June 1975. From the chronology at the end of Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files by Jon Wiener

October 7,1975 U.S. court of appeals overturns INS deportation order

October 9,1975 Sean Ono Lennon born.

[...]

July 27,1976 INS grants Lennon permanent residency

Yet in 1972 he didn’t let the visa battle make him totally give up his activism. The last political act listed in the chronology was an anti-war protest he and Yoko participated in on May 13, the day after one deportation hearing and 4 days before another, the next month “Sometime in New York City” was released (since it was put out by Apple I imagine he could have blocked its release.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0520222466...=0&go=Go%21

In any case if he would let decreasing his chances of getting a visa shut him up he obviously wasn’t that dedicated to begin with, he’d only been in the country about a year, it’s not like he had set up roots. His relatively small donations of time and money indicate the same.

In a previous post I described by political period as a phase (akin to his flirtation with Indian religion). I also said that his radicalism began with his arrival in NY. He made similar comments earlier in the 1975 interview:

H: You went through a period of really heavy involvement in radical causes. Lately you seem to have gone back to your art in a more direct way. What happened?

L: I'll tell you what happened literally. I got off the boat, only it was an airplane, and landed in New York, and the first people who got in touch with me was Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. It's as simple as that. It's those two famous guys from America who's callin': "Hey, yeah, what's happenin', what's goin' on?" And the next thing you know, I'm doin' John Sinclair benefits and one thing and another. I'm pretty movable, as an artist, you know. They almost greeted me off the plane and the next minute I'm involved, you know.

H: How did all of this affect your work?

L: It almost ruined it, in a way. It became journalism and not poetry. And I basically feel that I'm a poet.… But the unfortunate thing is that most people find the straw hat and hang on to it, like your best friend that got the job at the bank when he was fifteen and looked twenty-eight before he was twenty. … Whether it's a religious hat or a political hat or a no-political hat: whatever hat it was, always looking for these straw hats. I think I found out it's a waste of time. There is no hat to wear. Just keep moving around and changing clothes is the best. That's all that goes on: change.

To make a long story short he moved on from politics because he got bored with it by the end of 1972 he was ready for “change” a new “straw hat”. By 1980 he was saying his political phase was due feeling “guilty about money”

[Len Colby]

On another thread Hogan denied that he quoted Lennonout of context:

My quote of Lennon was his complete, specific answer to one specific question from the interviewer.

It was not "his complete, specific answer" he omitted the underlined portion. But even that wasn't his "his complete... answer" as I indicated with ellipsis. The part he omitted indicated the context of his answer, he was talking about his visa situation. He also omitted the context as set by the previous question. See above for more

Lennon: I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick went that it's all changed. If it's changed, prove it, show me the change.

In all honesty, it's a political decision. No matter how many letters the immigration people write to newspapers saying it isn't, it's a political decision….

Colby, himself more than willing to quote Lennon out of context, wrote this:

Did you bother to look at the excerpts I posted from his (Lennon's) September 1980 interview for Playboy?

Perhaps Hogan would be willing to show how I quoted "Lennon out of context"

[Dawn Meredith]

...Watergate was a trap set to catch Nixon, ...

I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on why the CIA (presumably it was the CIA) set the trap for Nixon Stephen.

Either in this thread or another.

--------

Myra, I would strongly strongly strongly recomend the book Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan. I first heard of it on this forum and it sprained my hyperbole, for which I had always been proud. Ill just say its a really really really interesting book to read.

Hope I can chime in on your question:

1) Detente-- ironically something that may have done in his debating partner of 1960

2) Centralizing "too much" power within the Whitehouse in the opinion of the CIA and Joint Chiefs-- again similar things were said about JFK and McNamara

3) Rumors that spread in the permanent buraucracy during secret backchannel negotiations-- another possible similarity.

4) wage and price controlls-- anathama to rightist economics

5) PERCEIVED continuation of Keynsian social spending.

6) differences over Vietnam poilicy

7) Kissinger, Henry. Catcher, batting 7th.

8) The War of the FBI succession. I heard that phrase used somewhere. What I think it means is that some saw Nixon as impinging on FBI turf in a similar

way as he was impinging of CIA turf. Here the death of Hoover was significant.

Thanks for the book recommendation Nathaniel; I'll look for it.

Not sure I understand some of the items on your list.

For example #7. Are you saying the CIA wanted to get rid of Kissinger?

And, can you elaborate on #8. Are you saying Hoover was one of the conspirators against Nixon or a victim like Nixon?

Another book rec. on point here is "Who Killed John Lennon?" by Fenton Bresler. But Lennie is not interested in learning the truth. Nate jolly good job here, but of course you know it's wasted on him. Thanks also Peter for the Mae Brussel reminds.

She was one amazing woman. John Judge told me 10 years ago in Dallas about the cancer/ CIA house and fire. I asked him what got her wacked, what was she working on? "Satanisn in the military" was his reply. (This has also also been a huge interest of mine as it- Satanism- is hand and hand with other black ops. I have been thinking a lot recently about all the serial killers we have had, and the advent of MKULTRA. When I heard James E. Ray's brother talk on coastto coast about Jame's being messed with in the military, it got me thinking about this again. (This coincided with Manson stories, new bodies) and being reminded of the brainwashed Manson girls. The killers. ) So I googled Manson and MKULTRA. INteresting and lots of hits. Of course John Lennon was murdered by a conspiracy. It took me a long time to face that, (though I thought it possible from the start ). And I read the entire Playboy interview, before falling asleep, Dec. 8th, 1980, only to get the call: "He's dead." I was inconsolable. So all Len's strawman arguments are just that. But on this long Friday I appreciate all the great responses from the other posters, who post to the peron who least wants what Lennon asked for: "some truth", (and peace, and love).

John Simkin called people who put these connections together and see the truth "critical thinkers". Craig and Len are here to hijack every thread, no matter how much evidence is presented to these types you will be met with refusal to see. Gratz did it endlessly with his Castro did it foolishness.

Dawn

[Michael Hogan]

On another thread Hogan denied that he quoted Lennonout of context:

My quote of Lennon was his complete, specific answer to one specific question from the interviewer.

It was not "his complete, specific answer" he omitted the underlined portion. But even that wasn't his "his complete... answer" as I indicated with ellipsis. The part he omitted indicated the context of his answer, he was talking about his visa situation. He also omitted the context as set by the previous question. See above for more

Lennon: I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick went that it's all changed. If it's changed, prove it, show me the change.

In all honesty, it's a political decision. No matter how many letters the immigration people write to newspapers saying it isn't, it's a political decision….

Colby, himself more than willing to quote Lennon out of context, wrote this:

Did you bother to look at the excerpts I posted from his (Lennon's) September 1980 interview for Playboy?

Perhaps Hogan would be willing to show how I quoted "Lennon out of context"

In reference to the above, I posted a quote on this thread from a 1975 Rolling Stone interview with John Lennon. I made no comments whatsoever.

Trying his utmost to prove me wrong, Colby accused me of taking Lennon's quote out of context, as if that would somehow reflect upon my credibility.

My reply and his response are above. This was the source I used: http://beatlesnumber9.com/lennonstone1975.html

Here is the pertinent part of the interview:

Q: "So nothing has changed with the departure of Nixon."

JOHN:

"I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick went that it's all changed. If it's changed, prove it, show me the change."

(Bold added)

Q: "Does the case get in the way of your work?"

JOHN: "It did. It did. There's no denying it. In '72, it was really gettin' to me. Not only was I physically having to appear in court cases, it just seemed like a toothache that wouldn't go away. Now I just accept it. I just have a permanent toothache. But there was a period where I just couldn't function, you know? I was so paranoid from them tappin' the phone and followin' me. How could I prove that they were tappin' me phone? There was a period when I was hangin' out with a group called Elephant's Memory. And I was ready to go on the road for pure fun. I didn't want to go on the road for money. That was the time when I was standing up in the Apollo with a guitar at the Attica relatives' benefit or ending up on the stage at the John Sinclair rally. I felt like going on the road and playing music. And whatever excuse - charity or whatever - would have done me. But they kept pullin' me back into court! I had the group hangin' 'round, but I finally had to say, 'Hey, you better get on with your lives.' Now, the last thing on earth I want to do is perform. That's a direct result of the immigration thing. In '71, '72, I wanted to go out and rock my balls off onstage and I just stopped."

So according to the above source, Colby is wrong. The point is who the hell would care if my Lennon quote was in context or not, then proceed to bring it up on an entirely different thread as an attack on my credibility? Only Len Colby.

The only reason he did so was to deflect criticism on another topic that he could not adequately answer.

[Len Colby]

On another thread Hogan denied that he quoted Lennonout of context:

My quote of Lennon was his complete, specific answer to one specific question from the interviewer.

It was not "his complete, specific answer" he omitted the underlined portion. But even that wasn't his "his complete... answer" as I indicated with ellipsis. The part he omitted indicated the context of his answer, he was talking about his visa situation. He also omitted the context as set by the previous question. See above for more

Lennon: I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick went that it's all changed. If it's changed, prove it, show me the change.

In all honesty, it's a political decision. No matter how many letters the immigration people write to newspapers saying it isn't, it's a political decision….

Colby, himself more than willing to quote Lennon out of context, wrote this:

Did you bother to look at the excerpts I posted from his (Lennon's) September 1980 interview for Playboy?

Perhaps Hogan would be willing to show how I quoted "Lennon out of context"

In reference to the above, I posted a quote on this thread from a 1975 Rolling Stone interview with John Lennon. I made no comments whatsoever.

Trying his utmost to prove me wrong, Colby accused me of taking Lennon's quote out of context, as if that would somehow reflect upon my credibility.

My reply and his response are above. This was the source I used: http://beatlesnumber9.com/lennonstone1975.html

Here is the pertinent part of the interview:

Q: "So nothing has changed with the departure of Nixon."

JOHN:

"I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick went that it's all changed. If it's changed, prove it, show me the change."

(Bold added)

Q: "Does the case get in the way of your work?"

JOHN: "It did. It did. There's no denying it. In '72, it was really gettin' to me. Not only was I physically having to appear in court cases, it just seemed like a toothache that wouldn't go away. Now I just accept it. I just have a permanent toothache. But there was a period where I just couldn't function, you know? I was so paranoid from them tappin' the phone and followin' me. How could I prove that they were tappin' me phone? There was a period when I was hangin' out with a group called Elephant's Memory. And I was ready to go on the road for pure fun. I didn't want to go on the road for money. That was the time when I was standing up in the Apollo with a guitar at the Attica relatives' benefit or ending up on the stage at the John Sinclair rally. I felt like going on the road and playing music. And whatever excuse - charity or whatever - would have done me. But they kept pullin' me back into court! I had the group hangin' 'round, but I finally had to say, 'Hey, you better get on with your lives.' Now, the last thing on earth I want to do is perform. That's a direct result of the immigration thing. In '71, '72, I wanted to go out and rock my balls off onstage and I just stopped."

So according to the above source, Colby is wrong.

Since my source is the Rolling Stone site the most logical assumption is that the site you quoted for whatever reason edited the interview. You still quoted him out of context because the previous question (even on your site) was "Q: "Is there anything left to say about the immigration case?"" and the following one was Q: "Does the case get in the way of your work?"

The point is who the hell would care if my Lennon quote was in context or not, then proceed to bring it up on an entirely different thread as an attack on my credibility? Only Len Colby.

A rather odd position for you to take since in the past you've accused me of taking quotes out of context "as an attack on my credibility". Note that I first brought it up here. His comment in context took on a different meaning than when quoted in isolation especially when he's said earlier in the same interview that his radicalism was a "straw hat" he'd moved on from.

The only reason he did so was to deflect criticism on another topic that he could not adequately answer.

LOL, oh yeah criticism you'd made without citing any evidence, that was a real challenge!

Weren't you anxious to reply to my charge that you'd falsely accused me of misquoting you? I bumped the threads for you but you've yet to respond

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Only in the world of Len does not wanting to be met at an airport by a nascent-yuppie-prig Jerry Rubin constitute "evidence".

Of anything. He compensates for his edifice of quicksand by the soaring confidence and finality of his assertions. He'd be great on the Sunday talk shows. All they ever do is agree with the government positions between commercials for General Electric and Boeing.

Evidence? Who needs it when your swimming in conventional wisdom-- and look how fast thats taken us places!

[Michael Hogan]

Since my source is the Rolling Stone site the most logical assumption is that the site you quoted for whatever reason edited the interview. You still quoted him out of context because the previous question (even on your site) was....

The problem is you always want to use your words to characterize what the other person said in order to alter the meaning. Until you show more integrity in your responses, I'm not going to respond to any of your challenges until I feel like it.

I never said I didn't quote him out of context.

The point is who the hell would care if my Lennon quote was in context or not, then proceed to bring it up on an entirely different thread as an attack on my credibility? Only Len Colby.

A rather odd position for you to take since in the past you've accused me of taking quotes out of context "as an attack on my credibility". Note that I first brought it up here. His comment in context took on a different meaning than when quoted in isolation especially when he's said earlier in the same interview that his radicalism was a "straw hat" he'd moved on from.

You want to offer any citations for what I said? We can see if the two situations are similar or just another one of your faulty analogies.

How does something I allegedly said in the past have anything to do with what you did?

So what if you "first brought it up here?" Does that gives you province to bring it up on an unrelated thread, all the while accusing others of attempting to disrail threads?

I've even seen you post the applicable Forum rule for others.

Weren't you anxious to reply to my charge that you'd falsely accused me of misquoting you? (Bold added) I bumped the threads for you but you've yet to respond.

Believe me, I've had a response readied for a long time now. Meanwhile, I'm content to watch you put your foot in your mouth over and over as evidenced here.

I'll post it when I want to, not when you want me to. Until you show a propensity to reproduce accurately what I say in these threads, I'll be in no particular hurry.

You didn't bump the threads for me. You can bump them for yourself until you're blue in the face.

[Len Colby]

I never said I didn't quote him out of context.

Just for clarification, are you admitting that you quoted him out of context?

Believe me, I've had a response readied for a long time now.

Oh, yeah Mike I believe you.