The Case of Len Colby

[Paul Rigby]

Rigby has openly shown his contempt for the military, and by such, has exhibited he is a contemptuous person, which is the EXACT definition.

I love the idea you are "the military." Pomposity and self-delusion on the very grandest scale. But also instructive of a profound cultural division. In the UK, a guy who goes around boasting about his military record is regarded as a bore and a pratt. Quite right, too.

Yet Rigby goes on to add parameters to the definition of ranker and remains unscathed? What is wrong with this picture?

Nothing: You just blew that eagerly sought Mods post. Which wasn't a million miles away from my intention.

Paul

[Mike Williams]

Rigby has openly shown his contempt for the military, and by such, has exhibited he is a contemptuous person, which is the EXACT definition.

I love the idea you are "the military." Pomposity and self-delusion on the very grandest scale. But also instructive of a profound cultural division. In the UK, a guy who goes around boasting about his military record is regarded as a bore and a pratt. Quite right, too.

Yet Rigby goes on to add parameters to the definition of ranker and remains unscathed? What is wrong with this picture?

Nothing: You just blew that eagerly sought Mods post. Which wasn't a million miles away from my intention.

Paul

Paul,

I see you affluence for attaching words and meaning is as elusive as your perceptions of evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. No wonder you struggle so.

I have never boasted about anything, as much as you would try and attach that to me. Your reference to an enlisted man as well as your fumbling to attach meaning to that, shows your contempt of the military Paulie. I had to add nothing nor take anything away for that to be clear.

I hardly think if your intention was to grab your fanny with both hands that you would find success. Even if your change purse were to burst into flames.

For the record please post a brag that I have made would you? Just once I would love to see you live up to your ridiculous claims. Or is this a case of your alligator mouth writing a check your tweety bird butt cant cash?

I would love to see you come to Lancer with some of your unsupported half baked claims. Here they ride, there you would be feasting on crow.

As for the word I used for you. I only refrain from using it again because Evan ask me nicely not to. But it was accurate, used properly and with a resourced definition. I added nothing to it nor took anything away. Since I used a legitimate word, in proper text, which was not and is not profanity, why would this ruin a chance at being a Mod if in fact I did pursue that position?

Clutching at straws is so unbecoming for you Paul. I myself feel your embarrassment.

Mike

Edited August 18, 2008 by Mike Williams

[David G. Healy]

Rigby has openly shown his contempt for the military, and by such, has exhibited he is a contemptuous person, which is the EXACT definition.

I love the idea you are "the military." Pomposity and self-delusion on the very grandest scale. But also instructive of a profound cultural division. In the UK, a guy who goes around boasting about his military record is regarded as a bore and a pratt. Quite right, too.

Yet Rigby goes on to add parameters to the definition of ranker and remains unscathed? What is wrong with this picture?

Nothing: You just blew that eagerly sought Mods post. Which wasn't a million miles away from my intention.

Paul

Paul,

I see you affluence for attaching words and meaning is as elusive as your perceptions of evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. No wonder you struggle so.

I have never boasted about anything, as much as you would try and attach that to me. Your reference to an enlisted man as well as your fumbling to attach meaning to that, shows your contempt of the military Paulie. I had to add nothing nor take anything away for that to be clear.

I hardly think if your intention was to grab your fanny with both hands that you would find success. Even if your change purse were to burst into flames.

For the record please post a brag that I have made would you? Just once I would love to see you live up to your ridiculous claims. Or is this a case of your alligator mouth writing a check your tweety bird butt cant cash?

I would love to see you come to Lancer with some of your unsupported half baked claims. Here they ride, there you would be feasting on crow.

As for the word I used for you. I only refrain from using it again because Evan ask me nicely not to. But it was accurate, used properly and with a resourced definition. I added nothing to it nor took anything away. Since I used a legitimate word, in proper text, which was not and is not profanity, why would this ruin a chance at being a Mod if in fact I did pursue that position?

Clutching at straws is so unbecoming for you Paul. I myself feel your embarrassment.

Mike

come to Lancer? LMAO! Now there is a third rate challenge....I doubt you'd find many gifted researchers there (other than for a visit). From my experience a liberal sprinkling of writer-researchers and a ton of Miller wannabe's.... aren't postings there down 40%?... So why there, of ALL places? We know, your flanks are exposed here, huh?

So Sgt. Mikey, if this challenge came from Gary Mack, now THAT would be an entire different story. As it is, I doubt you'd find anyone crossing the street to debate a newbie such as your-self. Kinda like asking Mark Lane to debate Vinnie Bugliosi on the merits of the WCR -- man old Vin would need to consult those Reclaiming History ghost writers (that don't exist) in order to find out who Patrolman Tippit was....Not many calls for Bill Miller referrals when it comes to debate, but hang around though, 'bout another 5 or 6 years and you'll be seasoned....

Paul, if this guy stays under Tom Purvis's wing for a year, he'll be ready for A ball, not the bigs, nor triple AAA just single A (minor league baseball for our cousins)

Edited August 18, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Greg Parker]

I hardly think if your intention was to grab your fanny with both hands that you would find success. Even if your change purse were to burst into flames.

I think most non-Americans know what part of the anatomy is being referenced here.

But I'm appalled that the Australian mod has not stood up and covered his own (US usage) fanny by protecting the eyes of all his fellow country-folk from this disgraceful (Oz usage) swear word which seeks to demean the female anatomy by equating it with (rhymes with) rankers and ricks of the lowest order.

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

Thus far I have refrained from comment, but I do have something to say.

Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?

As I recall it, John Simkin requires real names and real photos for a reason.

You might want to check out threads on these forums regarding wikipedia and anonymity for good examples of why.

And doesn't Lancer - where you seem to have some sort of ... rank(?) insist on posters using their own (real) name?

Just for the record - I think Colby is indeed a real person. That doesn't necessarily mean he is the only person posting under his name. I have no knowledge of it one way or the other.

[Mike Williams]

come to Lancer? LMAO! Now there is a third rate challenge....I doubt you'd find many gifted researchers there (other than for a visit). From my experience a liberal sprinkling of writer-researchers and a ton of Miller wannabe's.... aren't postings there down 40%?... So why there, of ALL places? We know, your flanks are exposed here, huh?

David,

I doubt you would find any that dont know the name of the President. Something you repeatedly struggle with. RIGHT?

Healey just to bring you up to speed its John FITZGERALD not Frances, as you so repeatedly called him. The researchers at Lancer are quite good, they even know WHO we are discussing.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...arch+this+group

What a laughing stock.

I love the way the news groups guys just completely discount you, as well they should.

So Sgt. Mikey, if this challenge came from Gary Mack, now THAT would be an entire different story. As it is, I doubt you'd find anyone crossing the street to debate a newbie such as your-self. Kinda like asking Mark Lane to debate Vinnie Bugliosi on the merits of the WCR -- man old Vin would need to consult those Reclaiming History ghost writers (that don't exist) in order to find out who Patrolman Tippit was....Not many calls for Bill Miller referrals when it comes to debate, but hang around though, 'bout another 5 or 6 years and you'll be seasoned....

Gee Dave Ive been at this less than a year and seem to have no trouble at all debating you. When we can actually get you to talk about the case at all. So why not offer something? Come on....you can do it, I know you can. In 5 or 6 years....You can probably.....get the .....PRESIDENTS NAME RIGHT. Nice job there superstar.

Your single claim to fame is your Microsoft paint illustrations in TGZFH. If I were associated with such crap I would hide my head in shame. Hell even Fetzer will only claim to be an editor of that trash! Amazing that you wave it as a proud banner. Obviously not cognizant enough to know when you are being laughed at.

Paul, if this guy stays under Tom Purvis's wing for a year, he'll be ready for A ball, not the bigs, nor triple AAA just single A (minor league baseball for our cousins)

This is the best part. And so fitting. You and Rigby. That is so comical its almost sad. Ray Charles coming to the aid of Helen Keller.

Does the fun ever end?

[Mike Williams]

I hardly think if your intention was to grab your fanny with both hands that you would find success. Even if your change purse were to burst into flames.

I think most non-Americans know what part of the anatomy is being referenced here.

But I'm appalled that the Australian mod has not stood up and covered his own (US usage) fanny by protecting the eyes of all his fellow country-folk from this disgraceful (Oz usage) swear word which seeks to demean the female anatomy by equating it with (rhymes with) rankers and ricks of the lowest order.

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

Thus far I have refrained from comment, but I do have something to say.

Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?

As I recall it, John Simkin requires real names and real photos for a reason.

You might want to check out threads on these forums regarding wikipedia and anonymity for good examples of why.

And doesn't Lancer - where you seem to have some sort of ... rank(?) insist on posters using their own (real) name?

Just for the record - I think Colby is indeed a real person. That doesn't necessarily mean he is the only person posting under his name. I have no knowledge of it one way or the other.

Greg,

I would agree I believe Colby is a real person. I would also agree with John that the concept is good, having a photo and name to attach humanity. It obviously does not work, but the concept is good.

As for the lingo.....thank god none have mentioned English Cigarettes......until now!

Best to ya Greg,

Mike

[Robert Howard]

I hardly think if your intention was to grab your fanny with both hands that you would find success. Even if your change purse were to burst into flames.

I think most non-Americans know what part of the anatomy is being referenced here.

But I'm appalled that the Australian mod has not stood up and covered his own (US usage) fanny by protecting the eyes of all his fellow country-folk from this disgraceful (Oz usage) swear word which seeks to demean the female anatomy by equating it with (rhymes with) rankers and ricks of the lowest order.

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

Thus far I have refrained from comment, but I do have something to say.

Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?

As I recall it, John Simkin requires real names and real photos for a reason.

You might want to check out threads on these forums regarding wikipedia and anonymity for good examples of why.

And doesn't Lancer - where you seem to have some sort of ... rank(?) insist on posters using their own (real) name?

Just for the record - I think Colby is indeed a real person. That doesn't necessarily mean he is the only person posting under his name. I have no knowledge of it one way or the other.

Greg,

I would agree I believe Colby is a real person. I would also agree with John that the concept is good, having a photo and name to attach humanity. It obviously does not work, but the concept is good.

As for the lingo.....thank god none have mentioned English Cigarettes......until now!

Best to ya Greg,

Mike

I have always agreed with the premise that unquestioning loyalty to the conclusions of the Warren Report, is a very good yardstick for being suspicious of those individuals. In the ever present internicene warfare here on the Forum between Mr. Colby and those who are convinced, that he is a agent-provocateur, I certainly understand the frustration of doing the point-counterpoint, over facts when it seems like it is not sincere. While the premise, that once the debate is concluded and the dust settles, what emerges is the truth, is arguably a noble enterprise, in theory, there is also the counter-view [of which I "have noticed"] that oftimes in reality, it rears its demonic little head as only a device used to bog down threads into a debating contest where the scene gets pretty dicey........

I agree that the current system is not only imperfect, but in effect, creates a dynamic, where one finds his or herself arguing ad infinitum, issues which have been going on for quite some time, lol.

Regarding the name issue, not having a crystal ball, when I joined the Forum some two or three years ago, I never thought about my last name having any significance. Since then, I wonder how many people think I am.......related to the quite large list of JFK associated individuals with the last name Howard......

Let's see there is......

Tom Howard, Ruby's attorney at one time......"That's all I wanted to see."

John Lawrence Howard, Jr., a real big fish, in my book

Pat & Mike Howard of the Secret Service

William Howard, who got Ruby out of that disastrous venture in Oklahoma oil well's

Lisa Howard, journalist whose death was deemed suspicious......

Well, you get the idea.......

So, in a perverse sort of way, I almost sympathize with Len Colby.....until I remember that there are legalities, [see Philip Agee, Valerie Plame] that place Len in the unique situation that, "if he were, a employee of a certain entity, and it was subsequently made public by someone, that someone would, in the immortal words of Desi Arnaz, Jr........"have a lot of splainin to do, if not looking at an actual jail sentence......"

Plus, it can provide, the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame.

I'd say that's not so bad.

[Len Colby]

I have always agreed with the premise that unquestioning loyalty to the conclusions of the Warren Report, is a very good yardstick for being suspicious of those individuals.

In case you missed it I don’t defend “the conclusions of the Warren Report”. I never have on this forum or anywhere else, that’s because I don’t think they are correct as I’ve said on several occasions. I don’t think LHO could have fired all the shots with the MC in the requisite time. As to who did it I have my suspicions but this is speculation because I haven’t researched the question enough. Before I knew who either man was I basically reached Tink’s conclusion that (approximate quote) ‘speculating about such matters will drive you crazier than (a well known JFK researcher)”. I omitted the researcher’s name because he is a member of the forum. The only position I take here is that the Z-film was not faked. I have argued elsewhere that I think the supposed discrepancy in the Klein’s part # is inconclusive as is the “smoke on the knoll”.

In the ever present internicene warfare here on the Forum between Mr. Colby and those who are convinced, that he is a agent-provocateur, I certainly understand the frustration of doing the point-counterpoint, over facts when it seems like it is not sincere.

I disagree I think they sincerely believe that.

While the premise, that once the debate is concluded and the dust settles, what emerges is the truth, is arguably a noble enterprise, in theory, there is also the counter-view [of which I "have noticed"] that oftimes in reality, it rears its demonic little head as only a device used to bog down threads into a debating contest where the scene gets pretty dicey........

The problem with such a theory is that it is my detractors who inevitably instigate such exchanges, your post above being a case in point. If you meant rather the debates that ensue my challenging people’s theories as John said if they are valid they should "withstand questioning by others". The problem some members whose theories don’t withstand scrutiny prefer to attack the messenger.

I agree that the current system is not only imperfect, but in effect, creates a dynamic, where one finds his or herself arguing ad infinitum, issues which have been going on for quite some time, lol.

I only remember us engaging each other on a single thread, the one where you proposed that the crash of a U-2 returning from Cuba on November 21 ’63 was covered up and somehow related to the assassination. I presented evidence which to put it diplomatically, cast your theory into serious doubt, are you still bearing a grudge?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8899

Regarding the name issue,

The “name issue” is a stupid one; on many if not most forums most people use screen names. You think if I was a CIA agent trying to cover my identity I would call myself LenBrazil on one site and Len Colby (from Brazil) on another? Wouldn’t that be incredibly obvious? Especially since I drew attention to a forum where I use that screen name.

So, in a perverse sort of way, I almost sympathize with Len Colby.....until I remember that there are legalities, [see Philip Agee, Valerie Plame] that place Len in the unique situation that, "if he were, a employee of a certain entity, and it was subsequently made public by someone, that someone would, in the immortal words of Desi Arnaz, Jr........"have a lot of splainin to do, if not looking at an actual jail sentence......"

Plus, it can provide, the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame.

I'd say that's not so bad.

The above is so muddled I’m not really sure what you are trying to say. You seem to be insinuating I’m a CIA agent but that I’m using (or not using) my real name because otherwise I might be libel for jail time.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Len Colby

[David G. Healy]

I have always agreed with the premise that unquestioning loyalty to the conclusions of the Warren Report, is a very good yardstick for being suspicious of those individuals.

[...]

The only position I take here is that the Z-film was not faked.

[...]

The very reason you first appeared here.

[Len Colby]

I have always agreed with the premise that unquestioning loyalty to the conclusions of the Warren Report, is a very good yardstick for being suspicious of those individuals.

[...]

The only position I take here is that the Z-film was not faked.

[...]

The very reason you first appeared here.

Par for the course you’ve got your facts wrong. As can easily be verified by looking at my posting history I first came here to debate your buddy Fetzer over his baseless Wellstone theories. Was is this the 3rdor4th time you've made the same error and I've corrected you. Funny Jack claimed I came here to debunk Apollo.Does it boost your egos to think I came here to debunk your pet theories?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Par for the course you’ve got your facts wrong. As can easily be verified by looking at my posting history I first came here to debate your buddy Fetzer over his baseless Wellstone theories.

Ah yes Len, I remember it well. Never did get round to buying the book.