A list of the major players on the Forum

[Jack White]

Players would not be players if they were not enabled by Forum members who are willing to spend endless

hours engaging them in mostly pointless arguments and debates that lead nowhere.

I try to ignore them when possible. But a few, like Logan, make what may seem to the unwary to be strong

arguments. This is dangerous to the search for truth, and I reply only that their claims do not stand unchallenged.

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

Players would not be players if they were not enabled by Forum members who are willing to spend endless

hours engaging them in mostly pointless arguments and debates that lead nowhere.

I try to ignore them when possible. But a few, like Logan, make what may seem to the unwary to be strong

arguments. This is dangerous to the search for truth, and I reply only that their claims do not stand unchallenged.

Jack

By definition, the unwary are easily fooled, not alert, gullible. It doesn't seem that productive to spend much time

trying to convince that type of person of anything. Presuming you do convince them of something, what has really

been accomplished?

Whatever the truth is, it has a negligible effect on unwary people. And vice versa.

[Len Colby]

Players would not be players if they were not enabled by Forum members who are willing to spend endless

hours engaging them in mostly pointless arguments and debates that lead nowhere.

I agree responding to personal attacks and harping petty grammar errors from the likes of Lemkin,White and you is largely a waste of time. But it is like trying to drive by an accident and not look, it's hard to resist.

This thread once again makes it clear that Jack's complaints that he is the VICTIM of personal attacks is complete BS, it is reminiscent of Germany's claim it was attacked by Poland in 1939. Jack and Lemkin continuously resort to personal attacks because the truth is rarely is on their side and this is the only way they can respond to refutations of their claims.

[Len Colby]

Folks,

What in the world is going on here? Now we are creating threads calling out people because they happen to disagree with us? As far as character of all parties mentioned, as well as those who mentioned, I do not believe that there are any major players here.

But for every opinion there is another..

I read this post the other day that John B. had made on the PC forum with respect to what he felt was the purpose of certain posting, and the aftermath he expected from it. It was certainly a controversial post.

Because this thread has come up, I am passing the link to the post along to you folks to show you that things can be seen in two ways.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=181182 (mid paragraph two on, and the post following it)

I only offer it to show that someone's sincerity in action may be seen by others as operative.

Kathy

Kathy...you misunderstand. All I have done is post a listing of the forum's MAJOR PLAYERS.

As far as I know it is not against any forum rules to designate anyone a MAJOR PLAYER.

Any inference you draw from this list is ALL IN YOUR MIND. This is like a playbill at a theater

which identifies the ACTORS. This list does not discriminate. Anyone can be named to the

list by simply becoming a MAJOR PLAYER.

Newcomers here need a program to help them quickly identify the leading actors.

Jack

Matthew 7:16

Jack what do think being completely insincere does for your credibility. If you are going instigate personal attacks,which of course is against the rules, at least be "man" enough to acknowledge it.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Folks,

What in the world is going on here? Now we are creating threads calling out people because they happen to disagree with us? As far as character of all parties mentioned, as well as those who mentioned, I do not believe that there are any major players here.

But for every opinion there is another....

Kathy

Kathy...you misunderstand. All I have done is post a listing of the forum's MAJOR PLAYERS.

As far as I know it is not against any forum rules to designate anyone a MAJOR PLAYER.

Any inference you draw from this list is ALL IN YOUR MIND. This is like a playbill at a theater

which identifies the ACTORS. This list does not discriminate. Anyone can be named to the

list by simply becoming a MAJOR PLAYER.

Newcomers here need a program to help them quickly identify the leading actors.

Jack

Matthew 7:16

Jack what do think being completely insincere does for your credibility. If you are going instigate personal attacks,which of course is against the rules, at least be "man" enough to acknowledge it.

I agree, Len. I have been watching this farce with mostly amusement. Jack's hit list ploy peppered with his wide-eyed innocence to Kathy, his comment to someone that everyone is entitled to their own opinions on the case, people who just don't get his intent and purpose so they name people Jack likes who he should include as "major players" ... contrasted with the Bible verse he keeps citing and Jack finally telling someone it's a matter of following the theology is one of the most blatant disingenuous displays .... not to mention a complete distraction from actual discussions on the evidence ... I have seen. When he commented that he tries to ignore such people too but when one comes along who the "wary" might pay attention to because they make strong arguments ... could it be any more obvious! Nearly fell off my chair with that one.

Jack's Bible verse he keeps posting is Matthew 7:16. Here's 7:15-20, just for context:

Matthew 7:15-20 ESV / 2 helpful votes

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ...

Actual discussion and arguments against all Jack's "finds" and "proofs" have gotten to be more than he can handle, apparently. So he resorts to this ... and at least accomplishes a distraction from the actual discussion threads. But, as you note, Len, at what cost? Way to use God, Jack! Anyone who dares to actually have and voice an opinion of their own on the evidence, and it is different than Jack's or several others here, must be an LN, a disinfo agent ... a provocateur.

My take on disinfo agents, if I were one who was prone to that sort of thinking, and I am not, is that regardless of whether or not someone is on some payroll or just trying to make all CTs look bad, whatever ... is that what I have to deal with are their words, the arguments they put out on the issues and evidence. I say "Hooray!" ... no need for distracting attack baloney, it doesn't matter to me who or what they are ... make them meet me on the evidence!

And when it comes to any actual disinfo agents, closet LNs, provocateurs ... the least likely suspect is the most likely candidate, imo. Either that or they are totally incompetent at their disinfo job and I want a tax refund.<g> Look to the ones always pointing fingers at others, imo.

This would be hilarious if it were not so transparent and pathetic.

There are some important and interesting discussions taking place in real threads. Maybe we can all get back to them.

And, Jack, this one is for you: Jude 1:2 ESV

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Jack White]

Folks,

What in the world is going on here? Now we are creating threads calling out people because they happen to disagree with us? As far as character of all parties mentioned, as well as those who mentioned, I do not believe that there are any major players here.

But for every opinion there is another....

Kathy

Kathy...you misunderstand. All I have done is post a listing of the forum's MAJOR PLAYERS.

As far as I know it is not against any forum rules to designate anyone a MAJOR PLAYER.

Any inference you draw from this list is ALL IN YOUR MIND. This is like a playbill at a theater

which identifies the ACTORS. This list does not discriminate. Anyone can be named to the

list by simply becoming a MAJOR PLAYER.

Newcomers here need a program to help them quickly identify the leading actors.

Jack

Matthew 7:16

Jack what do think being completely insincere does for your credibility. If you are going instigate personal attacks,which of course is against the rules, at least be "man" enough to acknowledge it.

I agree, Len. I have been watching this farce with mostly amusement. Jack's hit list ploy peppered with his wide-eyed innocence to Kathy, his comment to someone that everyone is entitled to their own opinions on the case, people who just don't get his intent and purpose so they name people Jack likes who he should include as "major players" ... contrasted with the Bible verse he keeps citing and Jack finally telling someone it's a matter of following the theology is one of the most blatant disingenuous displays .... not to mention a complete distraction from actual discussions on the evidence ... I have seen. When he commented that he tries to ignore such people too but when one comes along who the "wary" might pay attention to because they make strong arguments ... could it be any more obvious! Nearly fell off my chair with that one.

Jack's Bible verse he keeps posting is Matthew 7:16. Here's 7:15-20, just for context:

Matthew 7:15-20 ESV / 2 helpful votes

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ...

Actual discussion and arguments against all Jack's "finds" and "proofs" have gotten to be more than he can handle, apparently. So he resorts to this ... and at least accomplishes a distraction from the actual discussion threads. But, as you note, Len, at what cost? Way to use God, Jack! Anyone who dares to actually have and voice an opinion of their own on the evidence, and it is different than Jack's or several others here, must be an LN, a disinfo agent ... a provocateur.

My take on disinfo agents, if I were one who was prone to that sort of thinking, and I am not, is that regardless of whether or not someone is on some payroll or just trying to make all CTs look bad, whatever ... is that what I have to deal with are their words, the arguments they put out on the issues and evidence. I say "Hooray!" ... no need for distracting attack baloney, it doesn't matter to me who or what they are ... make them meet me on the evidence!

And when it comes to any actual disinfo agents, closet LNs, provocateurs ... the least likely suspect is the most likely candidate, imo. Either that or they are totally incompetent at their disinfo job and I want a tax refund.<g> Look to the ones always pointing fingers at others, imo.

This would be hilarious if it were not so transparent and pathetic.

There are some important and interesting discussions taking place in real threads. Maybe we can all get back to them.

And, Jack, this one is for you: Jude 1:2 ESV

Bests,

Barb :-)

EXCELLENT!

I was afraid that the hypocrites would not bother to look it up...

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ...

Great theology. Great description of the Posnerite philosophy many here display.

As for Jude 1:2...that is a good one too. Did you learn that in Sunday School? I recommend it too.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jack White

[Guest John Gillespie]

"I see no system that deserves trust and NO one in power or authority who should be believed. If the People lead, the government will follow - not the other way around. NO positive change EVER came from the top down; only from the bottom up. Read the quotes in my signature below. How true they all are! We'll make NO progress in human society - nothing of real meaning - until we free ourselves continuously of the tentacles of power from the few who wish to control and fool us - for their profit and power - for our enslavement and sheephood. They want us to be serfs. Stand-up! Better to die standing on your feet and knowing the truth, than to live on your knees believing your master's lies! Want to be a mental slave to the Oligarchy - listen to what Evan has to say. Want to be a free person - then think for yourself. The Back Yard Photo issue is settled. They are fakes - faked by those who framed Oswald to eliminate JFK who was becoming to much pro-Peace and anti-War to take over covertly the USA [it is still under their control - even worse than in 1963] and slowly the whole world. Pure evil and pure lies. For Empire, riches for the few, control of information over the many and turning them into serfs. Neo-Mideavalism I call it. "

_______________________________________

Peter,

It is more than just nice or comfortable or affirming to read those words. They represent my credo succinctly. The Left/Right paradigm constantly paraded about and thrust at us is perhaps the most dangerous of the tactics and represents their goal of obfuscation, misdirection and control. WE are in charge and we all have access to a document that says so. I fully appreciate the comments.

Regards,

JG

[Walt Rollins]

I don't ever want to be a major player, but I always wanted to be a buff. "I wonder what it takes to be a buff?"

George Costanza: The Boyfriend

Jerry has it right.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcaq4ElAJrE

Edited February 4, 2010 by Walt Rollins

[Mark Knight]

Like Walt, I don't ever want to be on the "major player" list...or even listed as a "playa," in the vernacular of the youngsters.

But I was born into the generation whose credo was--and is--"Question authority." I question the WC, I question Gary Mack, and when they present themselves as authorities, I question both Fetzer and White. If their theses stand up to questioning, more power to them. If they instead wilt or bristle at the mere idea of being questioned, then perhaps their theories and "truths" aren't as powerful as they claim; they become little more than Emerald City wizards, citing the "I am the great and powerful OZ!" mantra and hiding behind the curtain.

Truth should be able to stand on its own legs, even in the face of honest questions.

I'm not dismissing Dr. Fetzer or Jack White, because I think they have both done well at getting people to focus upon the JFK assassnation, a heinous crime that should never be forgotten. I think they have made many great contributions to the study of the case. BUt for them to stand on the "I am the great and powerful OZ!" mantra, rather than helping further the understanding of those of us who are still trying to learn, it simply isn't bearing fruit--to refer to Jack's Biblical reference. For them to figuratively stand upon the mountain, they become exactly what they detest about folks like Gary Mack.

I've got a fair JFK library at my home...for a guy on a tight budget. I try to do my homework. I read Epstein and Bishop and Manchester years ago, and have added Epstein and Bishop to my library. I have MIDP, I have Crenshaw, I have High Treason and Mortal Error; and I have a hardback copy of the WC summary that I found at Goodwill for $1. For Christmas,my wife got me a copy of the 2006 edition of Larry Hancock's book. I've bought old LIFE magazines off eBay, from 1963, 1964, and the 1966 A Matter of Reasonable Doubt issue. And I'm trying to justify spending the bucks to get the full WC 26 volumes on disc [gotta keep the wife happy with what I spend, as most married folks understand]. I'm still trying to educate myself. So I don't want to be a major player, I just want to learn the truth.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Mark Knight

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Like Walt, I don't ever want to be on the "major player" list...or even listed as a "playa," in the vernacular of the youngsters.

But I was born into the generation whose credo was--and is--"Question authority." I question the WC, I question Gary Mack, and when they present themselves as authorities, I question both Fetzer and White. If their theses stand up to questioning, more power to them. If they instead wilt or bristle at the mere idea of being questioned, then perhaps their theories and "truths" aren't as powerful as they claim; they become little more than Emerald City wizards, citing the "I am the great and powerful OZ!" mantra and hiding behind the curtain.

Truth should be able to stand on its own legs, even in the face of honest questions.

I'm not dismissing Dr. Fetzer or Jack White, because I think they have both done well at getting people to focus upon the JFK assassnation, a heinous crime that should never be forgotten. I think they have made many great contributions to the study of the case. BUt for them to stand on the "I am the great and powerful OZ!" mantra, rather than helping further the understanding of those of us who are still trying to learn, it simply isn't bearing fruit--to refer to Jack's Biblical reference. For them to figuratively stand upon the mountain, they become exactly what they detest about folks like Gary Mack.

I've got a fair JFK library at my home...for a guy on a tight budget. I try to do my homework. I read Epstein and Bishop and Manchester years ago, and have added Epstein and Bishop to my library. I have MIDP, I have Crenshaw, I have High Treason and Mortal Error; and I have a hardback copy of the WC summary that I found at Goodwill for $1. For Christmas,my wife got me a copy of the 2006 edition of Larry Hancock's book. I've bought old LIFE magazines off eBay, from 1963, 1964, and the 1966 A Matter of Reasonable Doubt issue. And I'm trying to justify spending the bucks to get the full WC 26 volumes on disc [gotta keep the wife happy with what I spend, as most married folks understand]. I'm still trying to educate myself. So I don't want to be a major player, I just want to learn the truth.

Well said, Mark ... and honest.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm trying to justify spending the bucks to get the full WC 26 volumes on disc.

hey Mark I have the 26 volumes on disc, but I seldom use them anymore. It is much easier to use the Maryferrell set online. Of course Maryferrell.org also has the HSCA 12 volumes, and a multitude of other documents besides.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Archive

They are also available in the History Matters archive, also maintained by Rex Bradford, and at the AARC.

In addition there is this excellent site [i believe it was created by Mr. Russ Holmes] that allows you find a witness really quickly, or to check an exhibit

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/index.htm

If you download GOOGLE TOOLBAR, you can use the SEARCH SITE feature to search these sites, and I would say the online sites are basically easier to use than the disc.

Edited February 5, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I'm trying to justify spending the bucks to get the full WC 26 volumes on disc.

hey Mark I have the 26 volumes on disc, but I seldom use them anymore. It is much easier to use the Maryferrell set online. Of course Maryferrell.org also has the HSCA 12 volumes, and a multitude of other documents besides.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Archive

They are also available in the History Matters archive, also maintained by Rex Bradford, and at the AARC.

In addition there is this excellent site [i believe it was created by Mr. Russ Holmes] that allows you find a witness really quickly, or to check an exhibit

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/index.htm

If you download GOOGLE TOOLBAR, you can use the SEARCH SITE feature to search these sites, and I would say the online sites are basically easier to use than the disc.

Hi J.Ray,

The witness page site was put together by Mike Russ who used to post on the mod group. What great contribution - use it all the time. And, as you note, having the 26 volumes, the complete HSCA volumes, etc online is fantastic too ... I got the WC volumes on CD when it came out and never use it anymore ... so much easier online, though newer versions on CD/DVD may not be as clunky as that original one (which seemed like heaven at the time!).

Bests,

Barb :-)