Why are certain people here threatened by DPF?

[Dawn Meredith]

After agreeing to debate Charles Drago on the thread announcing Deep Politics Forum ( in the Watergate section),

Andy Walker then closes the thread. Andy is someone who has said many times that he has no interest in matters of conspiracy, yet the second anyone from DPF posts here he is quick to respond.

This forum used to be a place where one could debate. But then so many anti -conspiracy voices crept in

it began to resemble a McAdams web page.

I wonder who made these editorial decisons, and I wonder why Andy is so quick to silence

view different from his own.

Dawn

[Evan Burton]

He has done nothing of the sort.

Charles was allowed to advertise his forum, and did so.

Charles challenged Andy to a debate, and Andy agreed - to a debate on Charles forum.

It is NOT a matter of "...risking exposure..", IMO. I believe that as soon as Andy shows up Charles in a debate here, Charles will claim it was because of an unfair advantage, interference from mods, whatever.

I believe Andy wants to disarm Charles of that weapon by debating on the DPF, where Charles cannot claim interference. Is Charles too scared to debate Andy on Charles own forum?

[Dawn Meredith]

He has done nothing of the sort.

Charles was allowed to advertise his forum, and did so.

Charles challenged Andy to a debate, and Andy agreed - to a debate on Charles forum.

It is NOT a matter of "...risking exposure..", IMO. I believe that as soon as Andy shows up Charles in a debate here, Charles will claim it was because of an unfair advantage, interference from mods, whatever.

I believe Andy wants to disarm Charles of that weapon by debating on the DPF, where Charles cannot claim interference. Is Charles too scared to debate Andy on Charles own forum?

CD is not fearful of debating anyone, anywhere. So if Andy's not afraid of debating CD why did he close the thread?

Why the bait and switch? I have never seen CD claiming unfair advantage in a fair debate.

Saying it must be at DPF is simply a diversion.

(edited for typo)

Edited February 28, 2009 by Dawn Meredith

[Evan Burton]

Then Charles will be only too happy to accept Andy's offer to debate at the DPF then, right? That will keep it all above board.

Let's see what Charles does.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Evan Burton
Editing in red

[William Kelly]

Then Charles will be only to accept Andy's offer to debate at the DPF then, right? That will keep it all above board.

Let's see what Charles does.

Yea, yea, I've been hankering for a fight for a long time, a real debate, not one of those bullcrap ones, and get down to the nitty gritty, especially on any area of the JFK assassination, but nobody wants to debate about anything.

You won't even be able to come up with a debatable topic let alone educate anybody about anything.

BK

[Charles Drago]

Then Charles will be only too happy to accept Andy's offer to debate at the DPF then, right? That will keep it all above board.

Let's see what Charles does.

Charles will ask Evan if he truly believes that Charles will respond to schoolyard taunts.

Charles will challenge Evan to use his moderator privileges to review long-sequestered Walker-Drago confrontations, discover who ran from the encounter by closing threads after being humiliated, and honestly report same on Walker's forum.

Charles will ask Evan to explain how it is to Charles' advantage to debate Walker on the website Walker controls.

Charles will leave Evan and Walker and "Colby" to continue their circle ... dance while Charles takes a hot bath and then returns to the land of the living.

Charles will shake his head and wonder, Where do we find such men?

[Charles Drago]

He has done nothing of the sort.

Charles was allowed to advertise his forum, and did so.

Charles challenged Andy to a debate, and Andy agreed - to a debate on Charles forum.

It is NOT a matter of "...risking exposure..", IMO. I believe that as soon as Andy shows up Charles in a debate here, Charles will claim it was because of an unfair advantage, interference from mods, whatever.

I believe Andy wants to disarm Charles of that weapon by debating on the DPF, where Charles cannot claim interference. Is Charles too scared to debate Andy on Charles own forum?

Continuing this brand of logic:

A scientist taught a flea to obey spoken commands.

The scientist would say, "Fly, flea," and the flea would fly.

Then one day the scientist cut off the flea's wings.

"Fly, flea," said the scientist. But the flea did not fly.

Which prompted the following entry in the scientist's diary: "IMO, I believe that when one removes the wings from a flea, the flea becomes deaf."

The scientist, I believe, was a Professor Burton.

The flea was named Andy.

[Evan Burton]

As I predicted: Charles is too scared to debate Andy on Charles own home ground.

Cowardice, thy name is Drago.

[David G. Healy]

As I predicted: Charles is too scared to debate Andy on Charles own home ground.

Cowardice, thy name is Drago.

"as predicted", oh Evan Burton.... you're serious aren't you, LMFAO?

[Guest]

After agreeing to debate Charles Drago on the thread announcing Deep Politics Forum ( in the Watergate section),

Andy Walker then closes the thread. Andy is someone who has said many times that he has no interest in matters of conspiracy, yet the second anyone from DPF posts here he is quick to respond.

This forum used to be a place where one could debate. But then so many anti -conspiracy voices crept in

it began to resemble a McAdams web page.

I wonder who made these editorial decisons, and I wonder why Andy is so quick to silence

view different from his own.

Dawn

It is a place where you can debate and I would encourage you to start any time soon. You will find their are no restrictions on your free speech and that alternative views are keenly encouraged. This I would argue is a feature which makes us distinct from the "priesthood of all believers" you have joined at DPF. Maybe you are all drawn back here by the lack of disagreement over there, but whatever the reason is you are welcome as long as you are discussing something in a mature way rather than bickering and namecalling, or just trying to push your own forum.

I still harbour the wish that this forum's primary purpose should be education - this remains the essence of editorial policy. If anyone from DPF or anyone else would like to discuss an educational issue, whether it be research based, pedagogical or policy based I would be rather pleasantly surprised.

It is a waste of everyone's valuable time to trade insults with people you don't like. Charles has childishly challenged me to a 'debate' - he hasn't told me what about but I don't think 'topics' are really what this is about - rather it is all about his damaged little ego because I made fun of him in his thread. All rather pathetic really.

Hopefully he will get over this but if he doesn't I will happily indulge him but only if he agrees to clutter up hs own forum with the inevitable dertritous rather than this one.

[Jack White]

"dertritous"????

Did Andy mean detritus?

Is that educational?

Jack

[Guest]

"dertritous"????

Did Andy mean detritus?

Is that educational?

Jack

Thank you Jack. I hope you will be offering this spell check service for all users.

[Mark Stapleton]

"priesthood of all believers" you have joined at DPF.

That's a lovely quote. But what about the nuns?

This dispute is good theatre, but a waste of time.

[Jack White]

DETRITUS is a geological term, meaning the loose rocks sloughed off of a mountain which pile up at the bottom of the slope.

The medical field found it a useful word for describing dead tissue which is sloughed off of a wound or specimen.

I have not seen it used in the field of education.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/detritus

we can see the definition of

any disintegrated material; debris

Accumulated material; debris: "Poems, engravings, press releases—he eagerly scrutinizes the detritus of fame" (Carlin Romano).

2. Hence: Any fragments separated from the body to which they belonged; any product of disintegration.

The mass of detritus of which modern languages are composed. --Farrar.

noun

1. the remains of something that has been destroyed or broken up [syn: debris]

Loose matter resulting from the wearing away or disintegration of a tissue or substance

: loose material resulting from disintegration (as of tissue)

I see nothing that says it MUST be geological or medical. Andy seemed to use the term correctly; there was just a spelling error. So what? Can anybody here claim they have never misspelled a word?